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 …
"So you're OK with the next generation British Nuclear Deterrent sitting a whole lot closer to your front door then?"
Hell yes I would be, a sub based nuclear deterrent is the best solution at present.
Seriously though, devolution has been a mess, not just scotland but Wales & NI, how can making each nation slightly more/less independent than the other be sensible? surely ALL the members of the UK should have been given the same local powers (i.e. NI/Scotland/England/Wales be equal in that respect)? their own local assembly/parliament/ room where their ministers talk crap and decide on local issues
then a central parliament where the same group discuss and plan the country wide policies? anything that has clear divides based on member state should be a local issue... With the simple exceptions of Health, Education, Defence and Tax
Those 4 should always be a national policy, and simply put the policy should be Free Education, Free Healthcare, Defence is important but must be balanced with threats, and Taxes should be as low as possible while paying for the country and avoiding national debt.
If it means getting away from morons like you then I'm all for independence. Learn some facts before spouting tripe.
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, who indoctrinate that characteristic into their children is enough.
We pay more per head into the uk than you do.
Counting the tax paid by non-Scottish companies is a fools game, after independence those companies will still be paying their taxes to the treasury of the countries they're based in.
and if they don't have provisional contracts in place, they'll just have to cough up what the vendors ask, and whatever licencing fee Westminster will charge the vendors but that is "small beer" compared to all the other systems that will need to be developed..
GCHQ will be one thing they'll not have to worry about... after freeing the Lockably bomber, there's not much change of them "sharing" US intelligence.
The biggest change though is likely to be the end of {RBS, BOS, Clydesdale} issued Scottish Sterling notes before they're forced (by Spain) to join the Euro when joining the EU...
Most people in Scotland probably favour remaining the EU, but not at any price. Any signs of Spain getting uppity in that area would probably lead to opinions changing quite quickly.
One can even imagine it being the perfect excuse for investigating alternative options (e.g. in EEA, but not EU, or any of the various other possible permutations of international organisation). This is especially true if Scotland votes for independence from the UK, followed by England/Wales and their (hopefully large) share of NI voting to leave the EU.
If Scotland chooses to leave the UK, it will be a decision for all the EU members whether they chose to let Scotland in on a fast-path (the treaties do not make provision), and Spain has already said it will object (mainly because of Catalonia, but also for economic reasons).. IF Scotland applied, it would have to take the Euro (thanks to the Treaty Mr Thatcher sent Linda Chalker to sign).
I'll take a bet from anyone who thinks the EU countries will allow Scotland to join the EEA (they have a choice), just because they don't want the euro... and outside the EEA the UK would be obliged to implement border controls.
"remaining the EU, but not at any price"... I think you'll find the price is really rather high.
The UK has already part opted-out of Schengen, it's already got border controls.
Spain isn't in a position to bully people, at the moment it's only following orders from Brussels, so if Spain starts stamping its feet and making life difficult for Scotland or the rest of the UK, it's because someone in Brussels is pulling the strings.
@Dan55 "The UK has already part opted-out of Schengen, it's already got border controls."
I think the comment meant Scotland would need to implement Border controls with England. Schengen agreement is mandatory for any new state joinging the EU, so again, would Scotland need to secure the border with England, or is that one practicality too far.
spain can implement it between themselves and a neighbour - admittedly not a very big neighbour and not a very long border.
still the views at a as-yet-theoretical manned crossing in the Borders are probably nicer than sweltering in a Mediterranean sandpit waiting to enter or leave the Rock.
Sorry, did I say Spain.. I meant Italy (with Lombardi), or was that France/Spain with the Basque country, or was it Belgium with Wallonia/Flanders or Germany with Norderstedt.
Try getting out of Kaliningrad without a visa! it's not about Schengen, its about illegal immigrants getting into Europe.
Poor wee Alex Salmon.. worst time in 300 years to go for independance
may get much easier, when Britain decides to leave EU.Then Scotland could apply to become Very West Germany, for instance, join Schengen, Tax intra-day trading, and generally behave like responsible Europeans.
This could easily come about before Scotland even have a timetable for their referendum.
"If Scotland chooses to leave the UK, it will be a decision for all the EU members whether they chose to let Scotland in on a fast-path (the treaties do not make provision), "
Good point. The whole EU system is not designed for countries breaking up and bits doing a 3 pt turn out of the EU (or back in).
"and Spain has already said it will object (mainly because of Catalonia, but also for economic reasons).."
I'd heard this. The Spanish are not messing about either. There is also the ongoing issue of the Basque country. You can bet a few Spanish diplomats will be having words with their English counterparts to ensure the "right outcome" on this and express their displeasure if it does not happen.
Actually the Spanish have said no such thing. Their position is that there is no comparison between the UK & Spain. Spain is held to be indivisible, whereas the UK was formed by treaties by nation states.
So the Spanish position is that there is no problem, because the two situations are not the same
Why is Spain held to be indivisible? Just because two nobs merged their family 'firms' centuries ago. doesn't mean the descendants of the subjects of the king and queen of Castile and Aragon must be held by that.
and as for Border stuff, just don't bother, let people come and go as they like the way they do now.
> Why is Spain held to be indivisible?
Section 2 of the 1978 Spanish Constitution:
The Constitution is based on the indissoluble unity of the Spanish Nation, the common and indivisible homeland of all Spaniards; it recognizes and guarantees the right to self-government of the nationalities and regions of which it is composed and the solidarity among them all.
That's the same constitution that brings you article 15 (banning torture vs. bullfighting), article 33 (right to private property and inheritance yet land-grab laws and huge inheritance taxes), article 35 (the right to work in a nation with 27% unemployment), article 39 (family protection yet working hours are probably amongst the longest in Europe) and article 47 (the right to a "decent dwelling" during the housing bubble where prices were sky high and build quality was/is terrible). So let's not read too much into that.
The Kingdom of Scotland merged with the Kingdom of England to form the Kingdom of Great Britain.
A bit later, the Kingdom of Great Britain merged with the Kingdom of Ireland to form the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
The "U" refers to the union between the Kingdom of Great Britain and what is left of the Kingdom of Ireland - Northern Ireland. If Scotland were to leave the Union, which it won't, then we would have the United Kingdom of England and Northern Ireland. Probably they would add Wales to the name to keep them happy. Great Britain would go, but the United Kingdom would not.
> Great Britain would go ...
I see what you're getting at, but Great Britain is a geographical entity, rather than a political one. Great Britain is just the largest of the British Isles. Ireland (island of) is the second largest, and then there's a great many more: Wight, Man, Anglesey, Skye etc. You get the picture. So Great Britain will be around for geological ages.
Which makes me think, what about Rockall, then? It's been declared UK territory, but is it Scottish, or not?
According to Treasury figures, Scotland has 8.9% of the UK population, and gets 9.3% of spending. so more per head tha anyone else (after London and NI)
but those figures also say Scotland contributes 9.9% of tax income.
This means Scotland subsidises the rest of you, and has for years. England, London in particular, is the subsidy junkie
The Scottish Government has a fixed income and no borrowing powers.
The National Debt is being run higher by Westminster. The point is an Independant Scotland would be in a better position.
back in the 70s McCrone's report Scotland, if Independant, would be embarrassed by how much money it had,a situation Norway is in. Instead it was pissed away by Westminster
According to the figures on the Scottish government's own shit website (when it works), Scottish contributions to the UK's tax take was 8.1%, not 9.9%.
That means the rest of the UK subsidise you I think.
And have a look at public spending as a share of GDP:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2008/06/map_of_the_week_public_spendin.html
50.3% for Scotland vs. 37% for London as an example.
I think you must have looked in the wrong place
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2013/03/1859
he aim of GERS is to enhance public understanding of fiscal issues in Scotland. It estimates the contribution of revenue raised in Scotland towards the goods and services provided for the benefit of Scotland. The estimates in this publication are consistent with the UK Public Sector Finance Statistics for January 2013, published in February 2013.
The key results for 2011-12 are as follows:
In 2011-12, total Scottish non-North Sea public sector revenue was estimated at £46.3 billion, (8.2% of total UK non-North Sea revenue). Including a per capita share of North Sea revenue, total Scottish public sector revenue was estimated at £47.2 billion (8.2% of UK total public sector revenue). When an illustrative geographical share of North Sea revenue is included, total Scottish public sector revenue was estimated at £56.9 billion (9.9% of UK total public sector revenue).
In 2011-12, total public sector expenditure for the benefit of Scotland by the UK Government, Scottish Government and all other parts of the public sector, plus a per capita share of UK debt interest payments, was £64.5 billion. This is equivalent to 9.3% of total UK public sector expenditure.
In 2011-12, the estimated current budget balance for the public sector in Scotland was a deficit of £14.0 billion (11.2% of GDP) excluding North Sea revenue, a deficit of £13.0 billion (10.2% of GDP) including a per capita share of North Sea revenue or a deficit of £3.4 billion (2.3% of GDP) including an illustrative geographical share of North Sea revenue.
In 2011-12, the UK as a whole ran a current budget deficit, including 100 per cent of North Sea revenue, of £92.3 billion (6.0% of GDP).
In 2011-12, Scotland’s estimated net fiscal balance was a deficit of £18.2 billion (14.6% of GDP) when excluding North Sea revenue, a deficit of £17.2 billion (13.5% of GDP) when including a per capita share of North Sea revenue or a deficit of £7.6 billion (5.0% of GDP) when a geographical share of North Sea revenue is included.
In 2011-12, the equivalent UK position including 100 per cent of North Sea revenue, referred to in the UK Public Sector Accounts as ‘net borrowing’, was a deficit of £121.0 billion (or 7.9% of GDP).
This post has been deleted by its author
The point about the remnants of Empire is an interesting one, and depends rather on whether Scottish independence is achieved through a secession or a repeal of the Acts of Union (1707 I think).
If the former, the question doesn't arise, Scotland becomes a new country with only a tenuous connection with the pre-1707 Kingdom of Scotland, with none of the shared assets, liabilities, or international memberships.
If it's the latter, you essentially revert to two countries called England (which had already had Wales for ages) and Scotland; everything, every liability, every asset that has been added since Union is up for grabs (e.g. "OK, if you take Northern Ireland, we'll let you keep Faslane until you get Spadeadam back up to scratch..."
I've no idea if Montserrat, Ascension, Bermuda, Pitcairn, etc. had English or British flags planted, before or after 1707, but it's easy to imagine the sovereignty of the sunnier British islands being up for negotiation as well.
(Having said that, it's probably more sensible for them all to vote who they're going with, NI included.)
The point about the remnants of Empire is an interesting one, and depends rather on whether Scottish independence is achieved through a secession or a repeal of the Acts of Union (1707 I think).
If the former, the question doesn't arise, Scotland becomes a new country with only a tenuous connection with the pre-1707 Kingdom of Scotland, with none of the shared assets, liabilities, or international memberships.
If it's the latter, you essentially revert to two countries called England (which had already had Wales for ages) and Scotland; everything, every liability, every asset that has been added since Union is up for grabs (e.g. "OK, if you take Northern Ireland, we'll let you keep Faslane until you get Spadeadam back up to scratch..."
Repealing the Acts of Union is largely irrelevent, meaning your latter possibility is not going to happen. The international norm and the international precedent is that the part of a country wishing to remove itself form the whole is NOT the successor state. East Timor, all of the Soviet Union being prime examples. The rump UK could lose its security council seat (though through what mechanism I don't know), and a few other seats, but will almost certainly be considered the successor state.
Obviously there will be negotiations to divide up the debt. Scotland probably will take about 8~9% of it. North Sea oil and gas will be divided and Scotland will probably get about 90% or thereabouts. Although Salmond's oil fund idea will have to pass a gauntlet of oil companies, who won't want to invest heavily unless they get similar terms they get now.
Scotland will face a big problem choosing the currency. They will almost certainly NOT get any seat on the BoE MPC or any such thing. Or if they did the BoE and rUK treasury will stitch it up to be a largely nominal seat. Scotland would be better off going with its own money in my opinion.
I doubt very much that Scotland will be given automatic access as a member of the EU.
I've no idea if Montserrat, Ascension, Bermuda, Pitcairn, etc. had English or British flags planted, before or after 1707, but it's easy to imagine the sovereignty of the sunnier British islands being up for negotiation as well.
Most of these places would find life as independent nations tricky at best. I'm not sure what benefit they would get form switching from one nominal "mother country" to another. And I doubt a new Scotland would want to manage the foreign and defence affairs of, oh lets say the Falklands.
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, would not be changing its name, and NO we'll not all be getting new UK passports to keep wee Alex happy.
They'll be no repeal of the act of Union, or spending the next 50 years amending all the legislation to keep wee Alex happy.. and not a chance in hell wee Alex will skip on a debt share of Royal Bank of Scotland or Bank of Scotland.
The flag won't change either (St Patrick's Cross is still in there), funny thing: the union jack blue is Royal Blue (from the Navy), not the blue in the Scottish flag.. but we could use a different white if it helps
They have an excellent opportunity to do it well and efficiently however so in the longer term it *could* end up good. They have to do it on a smaller scale which might mean they can actually manage to do it properly and cost effectively. We shall see. If of course it happens (and I really couldn't give a wotsit either way).
is that independence would mean complete severance, which would not be the case. There would still be shared service agreements, as used in N Ireland:
"Northern Ireland’s Social Security Agency uses several DWP contracts and systems including its Central Payment System"
The article acknowledges that sharing services such as the DWP would be essential for a time, and then could be phased out. But if both parties benefit from the shared services, why would they?
To be honest though, looking at how well Scotland runs government IT, healthcare and education (and other common sense bye laws such as vehicle clamping and gazumping), if they did gain the independence many Scots want, I'd be tempted to pack up and move there (to Edinburgh, of course. Not Glasgow).
There's an issue with data protection, as TFA alludes to. If an independent Scotland is outside both the EEA and the EU, then the Data Protection Act puts it, literally, beyond the pale for personal information belonging to rUK citizens [1], and such info currently held north of the border would have to be repatriated, pronto. If I was a Data Protection Compliance wonk, I'd think that it wasn't too soon to be making contingency plans. Saying "it'll never happen" won't be acceptable. Look at all the bloody effort we put into proving Y2K compliance.
[1] That's a simplification, but not wrong
It seems to me that a lot of the anti-scot commentards up there have missed the point that if Scots felt like valued and equal partners in the "United" Kingdom, then we wouldn't want independence. After all, it's a big step into the unknown, and only history will tell us whether it was off a cliff or into the promised land.
Oh and I agree with the guy up there that pointed out that power for our data centres will be the least of our worries. Scottish generating capacity will give us plenty electricity with lots left over for Hadrian's electrified fence...
"It seems to me that a lot of the anti-scot commentards up there have missed the point that if Scots felt like valued and equal partners in the "United" Kingdom, then we wouldn't want independence."
Such as voting in englands affairs yet independently voting for your own? As per this article, using our technical infrastructure to manage your country? Go on. Which bit?
Ever watched Scottish Questions in Westminster?
chokka with MPs for nonScots MPs
Westminster can vote on purely reserved Scottish matters against the wishes of the Scots right now
as to infrastructure. It's UK infrastructure meaning that it is infrastructure that Scots, Welsh and Irish have paid for too. Of course your attitude that it us England's alone is kind of shared by the Treasury, which funds projects that onlybbenefit London, declare they are UK prohects, and shaft the rest of the UK, not just the Scots
as to infrastructure. It's UK infrastructure meaning that it is infrastructure that Scots, Welsh and Irish have paid for too. Of course your attitude that it us England's alone is kind of shared by the Treasury, which funds projects that onlybbenefit London, declare they are UK prohects, and shaft the rest of the UK, not just the Scots
But according to the Scots the oil is Scotlands... how does that double standard work then?
There is a fuck of a difference between Westminster spending money on London transport infrastructure, claiming it as a UK asset, therefore with no Barnett consequential, and Scotland getting the revenue from the oil off its coast.
What the hell point did you think you were making?
They look the same to me.
London's transport infrastructure developed with UK money.
UK Oil exploration/exploitation developed with UK money.
Presumably to you the difference in the geographical location of the assets is the problem?
Lets see, do you have problems with vast sums of UK money being used to build your fellow countrymen their own parliament which serves the interests of no one other than Scotsmen? Or with the vast sums of UK money spent on building an equivilent for Welshmen? I'm guessing not... do feel free to correct me and prove your objections amount to more than simple racism against the English.
" ...only history will tell us whether it was off a cliff or into the promised land."
So instead of "Should Scotland be an independent country?" the question should be "Do you feel lucky?"
At the moment despite hours of debate and acres of text and advertising nobody really knows anything and, should there be a yes vote, probably won't until about 2020 at the earliest.
".....if Scots felt like valued and equal partners in the "United" Kingdom, then we wouldn't want independence....." It's more a case of the Scottish Nationalists wanting independence for independence's sake DESPITE having been treated as equal partners. After all, in amongst the millions of Scots that have taken up residence and employment in the rUK, we even let a few of your politicians have the PM job (Gordon Brown being the worst, closely followed by born-in-Scotland Tony Blair), so it's not like you can claim you are discriminated against. The majority of the "slights" the Nationalists whine on about happened centuries ago.
".....Oh and I agree with the guy up there that pointed out that power for our data centres will be the least of our worries...." Yeah, but all your (hydor-electric power) bases are belong to us, or at least not to you. Even Scottish Power (which is owned by Spanish utilities company Iberdrola) is regsitered on the UK Stock Exchange as a London-based company, so even after devolution, unless Salmond tries the silliness of nationalisation, electricity generation will not be under your control.
"... unless Salmond tries the silliness of nationalisation ..."
Weeelllllllll, there you have hit on one of the things that puts Scottish independence into the "quite a good idea" category. Some things *should* be out of the market, or at least out of the hands of unaccountable bodies in foreign countries. Power generation is one of them, and having a government that isn't bound by ideology or treaty not to nationalise, or which will "bring the power home" some other way is extremely attractive to me.
Out of interest, why are some people who are not in Scotland, and who, by their own argument, stand to be better off because of all the "leeching" done by the Scots, get so upset by this?
Nationalisation a good idea? I take it you missed how promising the peasants the life of Reilly funded by oil has been quite a hot topic with popularist politicians. In a decade you'll be blaming English saboteurs when your economy is crumbling and you keep getting power cuts.
"....get so upset...." Upset? LOL, once again you are failing to realise when you are being laughed at.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
