One year to go: Can Scotland really declare gov IT independence? In one year’s time, the people of Scotland will vote on whether to leave the United Kingdom. They will vote yes or no for numerous reasons … and the viability of Scotland’s government IT is not likely to be one of the most prominent. But the problems a newly-independent Scotland would have extracting its state-sector tech from …
And where will all the new data centres to put all these new IT systems (and of course govt. IT projects never fail to deliver) be?
My understanding is that there simply isn't much decent and secure private data centre space in Scotland currently. Govt. would no doubt prefer it's own data centres but then you are talking massive expense and lead times in building let alone the problem of having sufficient infrastructure and power available.
No doubt rUK will be quite happy to continue to host all the data for a while, but perhaps at £10 per record per month. Nice money spinner maybe.
There's always the cloud I suppose. :-)
And to my mind if 40% of central government employed staff are working on rUK stuff then they either have to be offered relocation to rUK or made redundant. Scotland's proportion of government employees whether central or local government is already far too high.
Bye bye Centre1.
You are forgetting the likelihood that our puritanical overloards would be quite interested in spying on our activities. Look at how they enacted pr0n+ laws that tried, and in cases, succeeded in going beyond the stupid UK-wide changes that made drawing a dick on Bart Simpson a potential jail-and-sex-register crime.
Yep, the Scots live in total harmony with the world and each other, especially the ones in Glasgow that wear those striking green and white hooped tops and their dark blue friends, those guys can’t get enough of each other, and with their little cousin only a short ferry trip over the Irish sea I don’t see why Scotland will have to worry about terrorism or sectarian violence ever again.
1. - It's "Carlisle".
2. - If independence happens, the SNP will rather quickly lose the ability to be a dominant (if not single) issue party. Left-wing nationalists aren't the only type so realistically, you're probably looking at some sort of break-up in the medium term. (Especially as the pro-independence Labour/Tory supporters revert back to type once independence is "safe".) "Socialist" is a pretty lazy designation for the SNP in any case.
If you actually bothered to investigate the SNP manifesto, reductions in Corporation Tax are one of the major components to attract business to Scotland. So far from Newcastle and Carslile(sic) being open for business it'll be Hawick and Dumfries.
Unless of course like so many in the UK you're utterly disgusted by the recent scandal of major corporations who head quarter in tax friendly states to reduce their liabilities...
"....reductions in Corporation Tax are one of the major components to attract business to Scotland....." Apart from the massive difference between "in the manifesto" and "in practice", you failed to see that Scotland will be on its knees crawling to get into Europe - as a seperate state it will need to be in Brussels' good books to stay in or have to re-apply. That means the Scots will have to roll over and implement every little crazy tax scheme and every other economic disaster/policy the EU comes up with, including the Euro and the new tax on trading. Businesses that can will be heading south of the border in droves. The good news is that being another one of Brussels' PIIGs / Germany's bitches is that you will get EU some funding, which might replace a fraction of what the Scots will lose from the UK, but you'll have zero capability to dictate terms in the EU because you'll be just another PIIG. Enjoy!
And what a fine piece of "nuanced" commentary from the AC at 12:28
"That mong Salmond doesn't have the first idea about running a country, he'd probably wet himself if independence was granted."
Just a thought but any chance of the DWP studying how their Scottish centres do this amazing feat?
Upvoted for pointing out the employment opportunities for the rUK in letting Scotland go. Of course, the jobs only went up north in the first place as a political sop, and I'm sure the Whitehall Civil Service will love to have more rUK staff in their fiefdoms. Maybe this time round Clegg and co will insist giving the jobs to the South West where their voter base is. If Labour ever manage to get themselves electable again they'll want to send the jobs to Wales, probably.
It's only the referendum that will be held next year. In the event of a Yes vote, the negotiations on how Scotland will implement its withdrawal from the UK will begin, and its likely, according to the pro-independence groups, that the first priority will be discussions on a constitution. What is unlikely is that rUK will claim the ball is theirs and immediately stop Scottish access to current UK systems, so there will be time for an orderly transition.
Regarding replicating GCHQ, I spoke to my MSP about this, mainly concerned about the excesses we now know the unmanaged GCHQ indulges in, and his response was that we would need such functions in keeping with Scotland's requirements,. with the implication that Scotland was not that interested in starting wars around the world and may not need the same levels of paranoia. Interesting that this article somehow accepts a "need" for GCHQ to act in the way we now know it does and assumes this is for teh best...
Re the anonymous comment above about data centre space, in my experience (a few years out of date) I do not believe any shortage to be true; in fact, just a little while ago, there was quite a severe excess in capacity and it was a buyers' market, but in the context of government spending that's unlikely to be an issue.
The article raises an interesting aspect of the independence debate, but the political and social landscape in Scotland is increasingly differentiated in comparison with the rest of the UK, and it is inevitable that many things would be managed differently in the aftermath of a yes vote.
"....Regarding replicating GCHQ...." Don't be silly, you will have to sign some form of defence co-operation treaty with the UK as part of the seccession agreement, even if you leave NATO. That means you will be shafted with some lovely little clause where we can carry on monitoring you from Cheltenham. Even if you manage to dodge the treaty clause, your telecoms all go via the UK so we can monitor you until you manage to build your own network and run your own international cables or satellite links. At whcih point MI6 will probably bug all your new systems and cables anyway. It's a bit like when your kids grow up and want a bit of privacy as teenagers, so you put a lock on their door but make sure you keep a spare key.
"....about data centre space...." There should be plenty of data center space in Aberdeen now that the oil is running out and the oil companies will be leaving. All Salmond has to do is keep quibbling for a decade or so and he can have lots of vacant data centers to play with.
Oil companies are all leaving?
You realise that the industry body Oil & Gas UK project 13.5 billion in North Sea oil investment in 2013, an all-time record?
They also predict oil extraction to continue until at least 2050.
Doesn't sound like folk are bringing down the shutters quite yet.
It's important to realise that GCHQ didn't create itself. There's a genuine political and economic story behind how it came to be and how it grew so powerful, and Scottish interests are a large part of that story. Remember, it wasn't until Scotland was tied to England that the Empire got underway, and the whole show was largely driven by Scottish business ambitions.
So to imagine that an independent Scotland would have no, or even reduced, need to interest itself in the affairs of other countries, including the secret intelligence thereof - is just fantasy.
As an IT Consultant in Edinburgh, Scottish Independence is my Pension Plan.
Retire by 55.
Move somewhere sunny.
I'm not actually in favour of it, but got to look for the positive side. (and most of the people I speak to are against Independence)
Coat icon - mines the one with the Government backed funding.
"independence should mean total independence"
Absolutely 100% correct. While they still rely on us for stuff like the Civil Service and the Bank of England, it's not independence at all, just sporran waving. And, Alex will always have someone to blame for the cock up they'll make of it. If they decide they want out, fine by me, but it should be a complete and utter separation. Rebuild the wall.
The Barnwtt formula only goes to money spent, not calculated on tax raised.
at present Scotland gets £1200 more per head than UK average.
It pays into the Exchequer £1700 per head.
And that is by Treasury fiddled figures where money spent on , eg, the Crossrail Project includes mobey spent on behalf of Scotland
Some clarification:
"Total public spending per head in Scotland last year was £10,212, compared to £8,588 in England"
That's £1624 (18.9%) more per head.
"Although poorer than Scotland, Wales received £9,829 per person."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8730055/Government-spending-gap-between-England-and-Scotland-widens.html
Nice for the Scots with their free prescriptions, etc, but why should the rest of of the UK subsidise them without a say in the referendum?
Gawd. The "rest of the UK should get a vote" argument. Nope. So wrong it's a wrong place on the wrong side of wrongsville.
I'm Scottish by birth, but I love the country so much I live in England. The only people who should have a say in what happens in Scotland are the people who live there. White, black, brown, yellow, green, blue or fucking purple, it's those who live there who should determine their own fate. So I don't get a vote in the Scottish Referendum, and that's quite right.
What do you know about Scotland barring haggis, tartan, whisky and oil? Thought so. Fuck all, really.
@ WeeGordy
"Gawd. The "rest of the UK should get a vote" argument. Nope. So wrong it's a wrong place on the wrong side of wrongsville."
Not really. The scots may want rid of the UK but the UK may want rid of the scots. I dont think scotland should try to break away because I believe we work well together. But if the scots get to choose if they want to be part of the UK then surely the UK has the right to decide if they want to tolerate the scots who seem to be having a bitch and a moan.
I hope their is very little support for independence in scotland. But if the vote was close then I think the UK should get to chooseif we are willing to put up with them.
>That is close to the reasoning behind so many of us Englishmen being in favour of Scottish independence, only in our case it's about getting away from the nasty little Scottish racists. 300+ years of putting up with racism being directed at us, and out country, by Scottish adults,
You're absolutely right. Scotland's one of the few countries in the Western world where widespread racism and bigotry is generally accepted. I left when I was in my early 20s and have been in London for 15-odd years. I still have the accent and the only people who have ever batted an eyelid are Scots, mostly with friendly banter (where are you from ? etc.) My siblings are now both down here, and one of my friends, who's staying with me at the moment, is seriously considering it.
That said, most Scots, whether pro- or anti- independence aren't bad at all Yes, you might get the odd joke but that's just banter and there's nothing wrong with that. Most Scots are also fine with the UK and just have some bad memories of Thatcher et al but do realise that it wasn't just Scotland that was shafted in the 80s.
The SNP just want independence so they can force their views and prejudice down the throats of their countrymen, rather than have the Westminster classes force their views and prejudice down everyone's throats.
Basically what I'm saying is politicians are cunts.
The YES Campaign is cross party, SNP, Greens, SSP, there are even Labour & Lib Dem Indy organisations.
As to racism. The SNP has English members, MPs, Ministers, MSPs. it has Asian members, MSPs & Minsters, it evenhas a French MSP.
You want to see racism & intolerance in this campaign, look to the NO campaign. Look to any BTL comments when Scottish politics get UK coverage, this thread is mildcompared to the Mail, Telegraph or Guardian. Look to the NO campaign, who are on their side. BNP. Orange Order. Not organisations who are regarded as beacons of acceptance
The only thing that Scotland relies on the Bank of England for is coinage, since we don't have a mint anymore. Outside of that we print our own notes and the banks that do so are required to own (as customers) English currency in pounds sterling to use much like the old gold/silver standards. And as pointed out in the article, some parts of the civil service in England are actually dependent on Scotland.
And while the separation might take a few years to actually process, complete independence is what's being aimed for anyway. Not sure why you seem to be implying this isn't the case
I believe that the SNP current plan is for an independent scotland to keep sterling. This being the case, the Bank of England would act as 'lender of last resort'. The BoE would set interest rates and stuff. I've certainly not heard anyone suggest that the BoE be replaced by the BoGB, thus sharing the load. If this were the case that would effectively mean that sterling was a foreign currency for the rUK, and the bond markets and others would crap themselves. Not gonna happen. So, either independent scotland stick with the bank of england and UKP and blame it for all their problems, or they have proper independence, a separate currency, and behave like a real sovereign nation. Which I thought was what the SNP wanted for all these years. Innit?
"I don't really care whether Scotland gets independence or not. My concern is that if they go 'independent', independence should mean total independence - no money from England at all except for things we actually buy from them. No bailouts, no handouts, nothing."
A fine and noble sentiment.
So you're OK with the next generation British Nuclear Deterrent sitting a whole lot closer to your front door then?
Of course there may also be a few "Re-location expenses" involved as well. But what price good defense and a seat on the UN Security Council, eh?
Excellent
".....So you're OK with the next generation British Nuclear Deterrent sitting a whole lot closer to your front door then?...." Yes, it makes bugger all difference. If there is a period of tension when a nuke strike is likely the subs will be out at sea (probably hiding under the polar icecap). And if there is an accident then it's effects would still be felt in the rUK even if it happened in Scotland. By the way, how many accidents have there been and how many fatalities in RN nuke subs compared to boring old UK power stations?
I'm sure the other ports in the rUK would welcome the added employment. HMNB Portsmouth has been assured continuity for the next forty years by being selected as the base for the two new carriers, I expect Clegg and the Lib Dems would love to deliver some job security to HMNB Devonport, which is the nuke refueling port, and would welcome the abandonment of the plan to move the Trafalgar class attack sub fleet to HMNB Clyde in Scotland. After all, if we're splitting you off completely, why would we keep any rUK forces north of the border? Which would leave the Scots with a large and expensive naval base at Faslane, plus many Army and RAF bases, with no income to run them. Maybe you could hire them out to the Yanks?
"So you're OK with the next generation British Nuclear Deterrent sitting a whole lot closer to your front door then?"
I dont see why this would be a problem? Is anyone really going to care that our nuclear subs park in england not scotland? I do assume that scotland would still hide behind the nukes if they were ever threatened though. As any sensible country does
Of course there may also be a few "Re-location expenses" involved as well. But what price good defense and a seat on the UN Security Council, eh?
Good point, we'll need to lead line the new wall in case Scotland ever gets nuked by a country/terror group who want to threaten us without attacking us, but who worry about invoking a retalitory attack from all NATO countries.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
