Dont be ridiculous. A truce in the Irish War of Independence was called in July 1921, the Irish Free State Constitution Act became law in December 1922. And that was in far more difficult circumstances.
Yebbut, Northern Ireland took until 1998 to sort out (Good Friday Agreement).
The idea that a reasonable and seamless separation between rUK, really England, and Scotland in 18 months is lunacy.
I think you have to distinguish between declaring independence and completely separating the countries.
Independence can be declared on 24th March 2015 (yes, less than a year from now), but obviously almost everything would still be shared at that point (the currency, the HMRC, the DVLA, etc., etc.)
Most of these assets could then get divided over the next decade, but some shared structures might never get separated -- for instance, the two countries might decide to share the phone code +44 forever instead of finding a new code for Scotland (such as +424).
If you think that everything has to be completely separated before Scotland can declare independence, you would be looking at spending about a decade negotiating, which wouldn't be in anybody's interest.
Dont be ridiculous. A truce in the Irish War of Independence was called in July 1921, the Irish Free State Constitution Act became law in December 1922. And that was in far more difficult circumstances.
Yebbut, Northern Ireland took until 1998 to sort out (Good Friday Agreement).
I realize that you have to go through the charade of a yes victory to generate copy, but we all know it's not going to happen. It will be no by around 60/40, the kool aide drinkers won't agree, but everyone else does.
Dont be ridiculous. A truce in the Irish War of Independence was called in July 1921, the Irish Free State Constitution Act became law in December 1922. And that was in far more difficult circumstances.
Yebbut, Northern Ireland took until 1998 to sort out (Good Friday Agreement).
Northern Ireland was not created by the Treaty.
But it was created by the Home Rule Act, 1920 (as was "Southern Ireland", which became the Free State).
The idea that a reasonable and seamless separation between rUK, really England, and Scotland in 18 months is lunacy.
The idea that all that has to be done and dusted in order for independence to be formally signed off is the lunacy.
So some rUK tax is collected and processed in Scotland and some Scottish tax is collected and processed in rUK. Rather than untangling all those specifics before independence is achieved there only needs to be an agreement on how to proceed (keep existing arrangements where sensible, an orderly transition to new arrangements where not).
Scottish independence does not have to wait for all rUK employers to deal with the Shipley accounts office of HMRC rather than the Cumbernauld one.
This is true. But the reverse is also true, no? If the Spanish are slow-walking Scottish EU membership it might be worth putting off formal independence until everything's sorted but Scotland effectively taking over the day-to-day government of Scotland.
The process to negotiate separation won't be agreed by March 2016 never mind the negotiations being concluded. Six years would be a sensible timeframe with independence and GE coinciding in 2020 and a currency union for the first four years of independence...
Interesting thought , would also allow more time to sort the Trident issue and makes sensible timescale to sort out what needs split and what makes sense to keep unified going forward.
Mr. G. such a time scale makes more sense than 2016. As we have discussed before, its not the politics its the practicalities of separation that is the tricky bit. Where is that data, what format is it in, how do we get it to where it needs to be for the new world and in what format. Just setting up a Scottish DVLA would take years and costs tens of millions.
As I keep saying it could be done quick and dirty but I don't think Scotland would be happy with the result.
Why would setting up a Scottish DVLA delay independence? Just come to an agreement that the software/systems will be shared, or under X payment structure.
The existing organisation then maintains the data, whilst the Scottish one is set up. Indeed Scotland may continue to outsource some services.
The decision just needs to be made, then there may be a number of different tracks down which services are slowly peeled away after independence.
E.g.
Faslane - 3 years. Currency - 2 years. DVLA - 1 year.
That is what would have to happen if there was to be an early independence date. Think about what that would actually mean for the idea of independence, though. Furthermore think what it would cost the Scottish treasury - it would be raped. It would be a bigger bonanza for every computer company on the planet than even the year 2K fiasco.
In the meantime Scotland would be terribly independent, wouldn't they? No tax/benefit system, run by rUK, no DVLA/motor insurance market, run by rUK, corporate governance, run by rUK and so on and so forth. All charging fees for their services.
The process of becoming independent could bankrupt the new nation state.
Dont be ridiculous. A truce in the Irish War of Independence was called in July 1921, the Irish Free State Constitution Act became law in December 1922. And that was in far more difficult circumstances.
Yebbut, Northern Ireland took until 1998 to sort out (Good Friday Agreement).
Northern Ireland was not created by the Treaty.
But it was created by the Home Rule Act, 1920 (as was "Southern Ireland", which became the Free State).
Anything's possible. But the idea that independence has to wait until someone in Swansea burns some data onto a cd and posts it to Edinburgh is fanciful in my eyes.
The process to negotiate separation won't be agreed by March 2016 never mind the negotiations being concluded. Six years would be a sensible timeframe with independence and GE coinciding in 2020 and a currency union for the first four years of independence...
Interesting thought , would also allow more time to sort the Trident issue and makes sensible timescale to sort out what needs split and what makes sense to keep unified going forward.
Mr. G. such a time scale makes more sense than 2016. As we have discussed before, its not the politics its the practicalities of separation that is the tricky bit. Where is that data, what format is it in, how do we get it to where it needs to be for the new world and in what format. Just setting up a Scottish DVLA would take years and costs tens of millions.
As I keep saying it could be done quick and dirty but I don't think Scotland would be happy with the result.
Hurst, I agree and some parts will be better to be kept as is and just share the costs out. If it happens it will be best for everyone to sort it out amicably to suit both parties. All the poisoned rhetoric will disappear.
The idea that a reasonable and seamless separation between rUK, really England, and Scotland in 18 months is lunacy.
The idea that all that has to be done and dusted in order for independence to be formally signed off is the lunacy.
So some rUK tax is collected and processed in Scotland and some Scottish tax is collected and processed in rUK. Rather than untangling all those specifics before independence is achieved there only needs to be an agreement on how to proceed (keep existing arrangements where sensible, an orderly transition to new arrangements where not).
Scottish independence does not have to wait for all rUK employers to deal with the Shipley accounts office of HMRC rather than the Cumbernauld one.
Be some nice IT opportunities for sure longer term.
In the meantime Scotland would be terribly independent, wouldn't they? No tax/benefit system, run by rUK, no DVLA/motor insurance market, run by rUK, corporate governance, run by rUK and so on and so forth. All charging fees for their services.
You seem to be under the impression that rUK runs everything that Scotland depends on and doesnt depend in any way on facilities that exist in Scotland. I think that might be a flawed understanding.
The idea that a reasonable and seamless separation between rUK, really England, and Scotland in 18 months is lunacy.
Rather than untangling all those specifics before independence is achieved there only needs to be an agreement on how to proceed.
So agreeing how the specifics will be untangled at some point in the future with attendant legal documents to apportion risk will be a quick job? Good luck with that one - agreeing who will pay the legal costs will take eighteen months.
Anyone in their late 30s early 40s remember a mad/zany German scientist on a BBC2 show from the early 80s??
John Curtice lookalike!!
Prof Heinz Wolff?
He was great. Actually I think I should say he is great because I don't recall any reports that he has yet joined the choir invisible. A terrific chap who has done much to publicise science and to recruit young people into it. Why he was never given a peerage is beyond me.
As if you couldn't guess, he was one of my childhood heroes. 'The Great Egg Race' was simply brilliant.
Dont be ridiculous. A truce in the Irish War of Independence was called in July 1921, the Irish Free State Constitution Act became law in December 1922. And that was in far more difficult circumstances.
Yebbut, Northern Ireland took until 1998 to sort out (Good Friday Agreement).
Northern Ireland was not created by the Treaty.
But it was created by the Home Rule Act, 1920 (as was "Southern Ireland", which became the Free State).
That was my point.
So basically Ireland, officially, took 78 years to sort out,
The idea that a reasonable and seamless separation between rUK, really England, and Scotland in 18 months is lunacy.
I think you have to distinguish between declaring independence and completely separating the countries.
Independence can be declared on 24th March 2015 (yes, less than a year from now), but obviously almost everything would still be shared at that point (the currency, the HMRC, the DVLA, etc., etc.)
Most of these assets could then get divided over the next decade, but some shared structures might never get separated -- for instance, the two countries might decide to share the phone code +44 forever instead of finding a new code for Scotland (such as +424).
If you think that everything has to be completely separated before Scotland can declare independence, you would be looking at spending about a decade negotiating, which wouldn't be in anybody's interest.
Actually independence could be granted a lot sooner than that and nothing needs to be shared. Depends on who wants to play hardball and when.
However, this is just A level bollocks because it would seem that Scottish independence is as far away than it it has ever been.
The process to negotiate separation won't be agreed by March 2016 never mind the negotiations being concluded. Six years would be a sensible timeframe with independence and GE coinciding in 2020 and a currency union for the first four years of independence...
Interesting thought , would also allow more time to sort the Trident issue and makes sensible timescale to sort out what needs split and what makes sense to keep unified going forward.
Mr. G. such a time scale makes more sense than 2016. As we have discussed before, its not the politics its the practicalities of separation that is the tricky bit. Where is that data, what format is it in, how do we get it to where it needs to be for the new world and in what format. Just setting up a Scottish DVLA would take years and costs tens of millions.
As I keep saying it could be done quick and dirty but I don't think Scotland would be happy with the result.
Why would setting up a Scottish DVLA delay independence? Just come to an agreement that the software/systems will be shared, or under X payment structure.
The existing organisation then maintains the data, whilst the Scottish one is set up. Indeed Scotland may continue to outsource some services.
The decision just needs to be made, then there may be a number of different tracks down which services are slowly peeled away after independence.
E.g.
Faslane - 3 years. Currency - 2 years. DVLA - 1 year.
That is what would have to happen if there was to be an early independence date. Think about what that would actually mean for the idea of independence, though. Furthermore think what it would cost the Scottish treasury - it would be raped. It would be a bigger bonanza for every computer company on the planet than even the year 2K fiasco.
In the meantime Scotland would be terribly independent, wouldn't they? No tax/benefit system, run by rUK, no DVLA/motor insurance market, run by rUK, corporate governance, run by rUK and so on and so forth. All charging fees for their services.
The process of becoming independent could bankrupt the new nation state.
Hurst we pay for it all just now and many of the systems are actually in Scotland. It would make little to no difference.
The process to negotiate separation won't be agreed by March 2016 never mind the negotiations being concluded. Six years would be a sensible timeframe with independence and GE coinciding in 2020 and a currency union for the first four years of independence...
Interesting thought , would also allow more time to sort the Trident issue and makes sensible timescale to sort out what needs split and what makes sense to keep unified going forward.
Mr. G. such a time scale makes more sense than 2016. As we have discussed before, its not the politics its the practicalities of separation that is the tricky bit. Where is that data, what format is it in, how do we get it to where it needs to be for the new world and in what format. Just setting up a Scottish DVLA would take years and costs tens of millions.
As I keep saying it could be done quick and dirty but I don't think Scotland would be happy with the result.
Why would setting up a Scottish DVLA delay independence? Just come to an agreement that the software/systems will be shared, or under X payment structure.
The existing organisation then maintains the data, whilst the Scottish one is set up. Indeed Scotland may continue to outsource some services.
The decision just needs to be made, then there may be a number of different tracks down which services are slowly peeled away after independence.
E.g.
Faslane - 3 years. Currency - 2 years. DVLA - 1 year.
That is what would have to happen if there was to be an early independence date. Think about what that would actually mean for the idea of independence, though. Furthermore think what it would cost the Scottish treasury - it would be raped. It would be a bigger bonanza for every computer company on the planet than even the year 2K fiasco.
In the meantime Scotland would be terribly independent, wouldn't they? No tax/benefit system, run by rUK, no DVLA/motor insurance market, run by rUK, corporate governance, run by rUK and so on and so forth. All charging fees for their services.
The process of becoming independent could bankrupt the new nation state.
The price could be agreed at (say) 8% of costs for X years.
Dont be ridiculous. A truce in the Irish War of Independence was called in July 1921, the Irish Free State Constitution Act became law in December 1922. And that was in far more difficult circumstances.
Yebbut, Northern Ireland took until 1998 to sort out (Good Friday Agreement).
Northern Ireland was not created by the Treaty.
But it was created by the Home Rule Act, 1920 (as was "Southern Ireland", which became the Free State).
That was my point.
So basically Ireland, officially, took 78 years to sort out,
I doubt any constitutional settlement can ever be considered permanent, Sunil. In that sense neither Ireland nor Britain is currently "sorted out".
I see the SNP has accepted another £1 million from well known equal rights enthusiast Brian Souter. Lovely man.
Much nicer than the unionists oil man and a few other partners they have, ie the ones that like to parade.
Brian Souter V JK Rowling
Face it - you've got the backing of the dark side on this one, malcolmg!
Personally I do not rate Rowling whatsoever , she is a Labour lickspittle and I will still raise you your oil man who is not a nice person but great buddy of the Tories and of course pays little or no tax as well as funding nasty people. Rowling is a dupe.
However if NO wins decisively, the Scots will very quickly remind DC, EDM and NC of the promises they made pre the Indy Ref to devolve more powers after 2015GE including some tax raising powers.
That will lead to English votes for English polices (esp, Education, Health and Energy as well as Economy). At 2010GE there were 533 seats in England of which the Cons won 298, LAB, 191, LDs 43 and Green 1. So 267 required for a majority. Would Labour gain 76 English seats in 2015?
The idea that a reasonable and seamless separation between rUK, really England, and Scotland in 18 months is lunacy.
I think you have to distinguish between declaring independence and completely separating the countries.
Independence can be declared on 24th March 2015 (yes, less than a year from now), but obviously almost everything would still be shared at that point (the currency, the HMRC, the DVLA, etc., etc.)
Most of these assets could then get divided over the next decade, but some shared structures might never get separated -- for instance, the two countries might decide to share the phone code +44 forever instead of finding a new code for Scotland (such as +424).
If you think that everything has to be completely separated before Scotland can declare independence, you would be looking at spending about a decade negotiating, which wouldn't be in anybody's interest.
Actually independence could be granted a lot sooner than that and nothing needs to be shared. Depends on who wants to play hardball and when.
However, this is just A level bollocks because it would seem that Scottish independence is as far away than it it has ever been.
But March 2016 looks a dreadfully tight deadline to have all the is dotted and ts crossed given the colossal nature of the modern state.
You won't have all the i's dotted and t's crossed by the date of independence. I expect that discussions over legacy issues would rumble on for decades.
The point is that once the decision has been made it will be in the interests of both sides to settle the essential questions, decide the principles to govern the rest and get it over with, leaving most of the details to be filled in later.
Always good to see someone get proper care. What is interesting is that a hospital in the heart of tourist London is dis-organised enough that it is unable to even charge patients with insurance.
True, and it would be a good thing if the NHS did reclaim the costs from foreign insurers. They may do but I doubt it at leats not in any systematic way.
I have to say though the system in the states isn't always that much better. A friend of mine on a holiday in Texas was struck down with appalling stomach pain and was whipped into a local A&E. Diagnosed as gall stones it meant a stay in hospital plus an operation to remove them. She had nothing but praise for the treatment and the conditions in the hospital but, though she handed over her insurance details, never heard a thing from the insurance company or the hospital.
Some American doctors don't like to charge Britons -- sort of a quid pro quo for the NHS. As for the NHS charging foreign insurance companies, will they do it often enough to justify the bureaucracy of a "foreign insurance company charging unit" in each hospital or trust? I've no idea whether there is a steady stream of medical tourists demanding cancer treatment or just the odd sprained ankle from genuine visitors.
Anyone in their late 30s early 40s remember a mad/zany German scientist on a BBC2 show from the early 80s??
John Curtice lookalike!!
Prof Heinz Wolff?
He was great. Actually I think I should say he is great because I don't recall any reports that he has yet joined the choir invisible. A terrific chap who has done much to publicise science and to recruit young people into it. Why he was never given a peerage is beyond me.
As if you couldn't guess, he was one of my childhood heroes. 'The Great Egg Race' was simply brilliant.
2016 should remain as the target date in the event of a Yes.
I would anticipate that a negotiating team will be set up by UK Parliament, and that this would be done with some cross party agreement and would remain the same team after the 2015 election.
The worst possible thing is to have it drag on for years and years, an easy way to generate grievance, bad feeling and anger.
In the meantime Scotland would be terribly independent, wouldn't they? No tax/benefit system, run by rUK, no DVLA/motor insurance market, run by rUK, corporate governance, run by rUK and so on and so forth. All charging fees for their services.
You seem to be under the impression that rUK runs everything that Scotland depends on and doesnt depend in any way on facilities that exist in Scotland. I think that might be a flawed understanding.
No, Mr. Neil, I have been asking for months where the data is? That is the key point who has what data and what system? Who owns those systems and where the copyright lies for the software is just another chunk of complication.
Which brings me back to why I got involved in this discussion this afternoon - your assertion that the Free State could achieve independence in 18 months so why couldn't Scotland. Well, for a start the Free State didn't have to worry about who owned the copyright to the software that ran their benefits system on computers located in England or their driver and vehicle licensing system located in Wales.
Anyone in their late 30s early 40s remember a mad/zany German scientist on a BBC2 show from the early 80s??
John Curtice lookalike!!
Prof Heinz Wolff?
He was great. Actually I think I should say he is great because I don't recall any reports that he has yet joined the choir invisible. A terrific chap who has done much to publicise science and to recruit young people into it. Why he was never given a peerage is beyond me.
As if you couldn't guess, he was one of my childhood heroes. 'The Great Egg Race' was simply brilliant.
Theme tune to the Great Egg Race: www.youtube.com/watch?v=odWUVG2S9Fs
* LIKE *
I don't actually remember the programme itself, but remember the tune on the BBC theme tune album "Hong Kong Beat" by Richard Denton and Martin Cook, which I listened to as a kid. I do remember their theme to Tomorrow's World, and can just remember Diamonds in the Sky, which was shown when I was only 4 or 5 years old.
She seems very intelligent to me. And genuine and caring to go with it.
Souter strikes me as a bit of a **** though.
We know that women are heavily against No. I'd imagine LGBTI communities in Scotland will vote likewise after Souter's fresh investment. Perhaps Survation can supply a poll.
She seems very intelligent to me. And genuine and caring to go with it.
Souter strikes me as a bit of a **** though.
We know that women are heavily against No. I'd imagine LGBTI communities in Scotland will vote likewise after Souter's fresh investment. Perhaps Survation can supply a poll.
Women are , of course, heavily, for No rather than against.
The price could be agreed at (say) 8% of costs for X years.
No need to bankrupt anyone.
Really? Well, lets just say you are in charge of a major computer company and some fellow fronts up and says I need a system that will do the same job as the DVLA does, but I need it up and running with all data transferred by X date. Now tell me, what will be going through your mind?
No need for a new systems just charge the Scots to use ours. What happens if they want some changes for their people. Could be just a change of logo on the driving licence, could be something more significant like a different rate of income tax. "Changes to existing software running on legacy systems?", you can hear the chap sucking his teeth already.
And rUk taxpayer is going to pick up the bill? Really?
In the 18th century one of the Rothschilds famously said, "Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws" the modern version might be "Give me control of a nation's data and I care not who has control of its money and even less who makes its laws"
If Scotland does vote yes, where will we get our Prime Ministers from?
Brown was Scottish, and Blair was Scots-born and educated, for all that he sounded English. Cameron's family also hails from north of the border.
We've had a Prime Minister from Australia before. Natalie Bennett, leader of the Green Party, would be only too happy to oblige.
She's only the leader of the Green party in England and Wales. If we were to look in this direction I'd take the leader of the party in Northern Ireland.
The price could be agreed at (say) 8% of costs for X years.
No need to bankrupt anyone.
Really? Well, lets just say you are in charge of a major computer company and some fellow fronts up and says I need a system that will do the same job as the DVLA does, but I need it up and running with all data transferred by X date. Now tell me, what will be going through your mind?
No need for a new systems just charge the Scots to use ours. What happens if they want some changes for their people. Could be just a change of logo on the driving licence, could be something more significant like a different rate of income tax. "Changes to existing software running on legacy systems?", you can hear the chap sucking his teeth already.
And rUk taxpayer is going to pick up the bill? Really?
In the 18th century one of the Rothschilds famously said, "Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws" the modern version might be "Give me control of a nation's data and I care not who has control of its money and even less who makes its laws"
NO will win, so this is all theoretical.
Getting best value for public money is an ongoing task for England as well as the new Scotland.
Your examples affect any contracts, yet people are able to successfully negotiate and manage problems all the time. Why should Scotland be any different?
The conjecture about the post-referendum process is interesting and no doubt extreme points are made to enliven the debate. For Yes to win, the campaign had to overcome resistance to change by making a convincing case on three fronts: a vision for being independent, dissatisfaction with the status quo and how independence would practically happen without undue risk.
Weak on the first two, Better Together has targeted the third of these: the 'do ability' of independence and to label their approach as Project Fear is perfectly reasonable. The currency spoiler tactic was masterful but Salmond might just surprise everyone in the second debate and set out a clear, credible, practical road path to independence that turns the tide.
The price could be agreed at (say) 8% of costs for X years.
No need to bankrupt anyone.
Really? Well, lets just say you are in charge of a major computer company and some fellow fronts up and says I need a system that will do the same job as the DVLA does, but I need it up and running with all data transferred by X date. Now tell me, what will be going through your mind?
(snip)
In my (limited) direct experience of this (and then only at a very junior level), and from anecdata, the problem is not just the company profiteering. It is that the client has no idea what they really want. Worse is when people high-up in an organisation decide that they want to put their stamp on the project.
Hence a simple and reasonable "We want a system the same as the DVLA's, so we can (share/import/alter) data" will change once civil servants, management and politicians get their grubby little mitts on the requirements.
It becomes "We want a system like the DVLA's, but one that can register a little Scottish flag on all entries, show the occupancy of all car parking spaces in Lairg and display the basking location of Common Seals cross-referenced with the sale of Haggis in McTroy's shop in Leith. Oh, and whilst we are at it, can it keep track of the organisation's payroll, as the project we instituted eight years ago to replace the old Bull Mainframe payroll system has run into problems."
This is not an attempt to get at the Scottish; just a point that re-implementing original systems inevitably suffer from various problems, including requirements creep and not-invented-here syndrome. It requires exceptionally good management to get right.
The price could be agreed at (say) 8% of costs for X years.
No need to bankrupt anyone.
Really? Well, lets just say you are in charge of a major computer company and some fellow fronts up and says I need a system that will do the same job as the DVLA does, but I need it up and running with all data transferred by X date. Now tell me, what will be going through your mind?
No need for a new systems just charge the Scots to use ours. What happens if they want some changes for their people. Could be just a change of logo on the driving licence, could be something more significant like a different rate of income tax. "Changes to existing software running on legacy systems?", you can hear the chap sucking his teeth already.
And rUk taxpayer is going to pick up the bill? Really?
In the 18th century one of the Rothschilds famously said, "Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws" the modern version might be "Give me control of a nation's data and I care not who has control of its money and even less who makes its laws"
NO will win, so this is all theoretical.
Getting best value for public money is an ongoing task for England as well as the new Scotland.
Your examples affect any contracts, yet people are able to successfully negotiate and manage problems all the time. Why should Scotland be any different?
You are right it is all theoretical, though don't you let Mr. G. hear you say that. The problem comes, and this is the only reason I got involved in the discussion this afternoon, when data and systems have to be divided and to a deadline. The complexities, and so costs, of the process of separation are going to be enormous. To say nothing of the time that will be needed. Yet a modern state cannot function without that data and systems that can process it.
So, the fact that the Irish separation could happen in 18 months or so really has no bearing on a possible separation of Scotland from rUK. The complications and the costs of the later just don't seem to have been thought about.
The price could be agreed at (say) 8% of costs for X years.
No need to bankrupt anyone.
Really? Well, lets just say you are in charge of a major computer company and some fellow fronts up and says I need a system that will do the same job as the DVLA does, but I need it up and running with all data transferred by X date. Now tell me, what will be going through your mind?
(snip)
In my (limited) direct experience of this (and then only at a very junior level), and from anecdata, the problem is not just the company profiteering. It is that the client has no idea what they really want. Worse is when people high-up in an organisation decide that they want to put their stamp on the project.
Hence a simple and reasonable "We want a system the same as the DVLA's, so we can (share/import/alter) data" will change once civil servants, management and politicians get their grubby little mitts on the requirements.
It becomes "We want a system like the DVLA's, but one that can register a little Scottish flag on all entries, show the occupancy of all car parking spaces in Lairg and display the basking location of Common Seals cross-referenced with the sale of Haggis in McTroy's shop in Leith. Oh, and whilst we are at it, can it keep track of the organisation's payroll, as the project we instituted eight years ago to replace the old Bull Mainframe payroll system has run into problems."
This is not an attempt to get at the Scottish; just a point that re-implementing original systems inevitably suffer from various problems, including requirements creep and not-invented-here syndrome. It requires exceptionally good management to get right.
If anyone else has any knowledge of the Citizens Advice computer system they’ll know exactly what Mr J means.
It becomes "We want a system like the DVLA's, but one that can register a little Scottish flag on all entries, show the occupancy of all car parking spaces in Lairg and display the basking location of Common Seals cross-referenced with the sale of Haggis in McTroy's shop in Leith. Oh, and whilst we are at it, can it keep track of the organisation's payroll, as the project we instituted eight years ago to replace the old Bull Mainframe payroll system has run into problems."
This is not an attempt to get at the Scottish; just a point that re-implementing original systems inevitably suffer from various problems, including requirements creep and not-invented-here syndrome. It requires exceptionally good management to get right.
I'm convinced that the only way to solve this is to teach programming to the users of the system, and then have them code the thing on an open-source modular basis in Python or similar.
Then if someone wants to add the functionality to cross-reference with seal populations they can take a copy of the trunk and write the code themselves, without getting in the way of the people more concerned with making the system do what it needs to.
Shocking breaking news - Police searching Cliff's house say they have found unreleased tracks..
Apparently as the BBC understands it, it all relates to something which is alleged to have happened at a 1985 event where US preacher Billy Graham appeared at Bramall Lane, Sheffield.
She seems very intelligent to me. And genuine and caring to go with it.
Souter strikes me as a bit of a **** though.
Neil, is religious and had his thing on homosexuality but apart from that him and his sister do lots for charities, employs lots of people , etc so don't think he is all bad. I have not seen anything great re Rowling, so could not comment on whether good or bad, but seems just another establishment type.
Not surprised about the Cliff investigation with all the rumours on the internet, but I do hope he's innocent as my poor Mother will be very upset if he isn't.
She's always loved Cliff, LOL especially his early R&R stuff with The Shadows.
I doubt software ownership will hold anything up. Licences can easily be negotiated. The hold-ups will be over things such as big ticket defence contracts, the currency, maritime borders and the like.
Take the currency. Scotland says we want a currency union, the rUK says no, Scotland says, aw go on, we'll agree to whatever terms you set, rUK sets its terms, Scotland says no, rUK says lump it, Scotland says OK we won't pay our share of the national debt, the rUK says, OK then, we will not agree to your independence, and then we have a stand off. The Scots will appeal to the international community, the international community - which hates change - will say it i a matter for the negotiating parties, and the clock keeps on ticking - day after day, week after week, month after month. And then there may well need to be referenda in the rUK, as well as parliamentary approval. They won't even get round to software until 2020 or so.
UDI would a disastrous move for Scotland. Not least because 70% of the country's exports go to the rUK and many of the rest have to pass through rUK territory by land or sea. That's before you factor in how the banks will respond and the impossibility of gaining membership of any international body.
Shocking breaking news - Police searching Cliff's house say they have found unreleased tracks..
Apparently as the BBC understands it, it all relates to something which is alleged to have happened at a 1985 event where US preacher Billy Graham appeared at Bramall Lane, Sheffield.
South Yorkshire Police would have made sure nothing untoward happened.
She seems very intelligent to me. And genuine and caring to go with it.
Souter strikes me as a bit of a **** though.
We know that women are heavily against No. I'd imagine LGBTI communities in Scotland will vote likewise after Souter's fresh investment. Perhaps Survation can supply a poll.
Women are , of course, heavily, for No rather than against.
"Hence a simple and reasonable "We want a system the same as the DVLA's, so we can (share/import/alter) data" will change once civil servants, management and politicians get their grubby little mitts on the requirements. "
She seems very intelligent to me. And genuine and caring to go with it.
Souter strikes me as a bit of a **** though.
We know that women are heavily against No. I'd imagine LGBTI communities in Scotland will vote likewise after Souter's fresh investment. Perhaps Survation can supply a poll.
Women are , of course, heavily, for No rather than against.
Only the dumb ones
That's not how you win over swing voters, malcomg!
On Topic: I think a YES vote by Scotland would see England (and possibly Wales) moving strongly towards the Tories.
Whilst it's true that the referendum isn't an overly big deal "down south" at the moment, I think it would rapidly become THE defining moment of the day if Scotland did vote to leave.
In the circumstances of a divorce between the two nations both sides will become polarized I think. I would expect the 2015 election to be dominated by this. England would want to vote for a government that has the strongest mandate to be as tough as possible with Scotland when it comes to dividing up the asset's.
In that scenario, who would trust Ed Milliband and his soon to be "ex-Scottish MP's to secure the best deal for the rest of the United Kingdom?
Doesn't look like I'm going to get to put my theory to the test though, after Salmonds made such a mess of the Independence campaign...
She seems very intelligent to me. And genuine and caring to go with it.
Souter strikes me as a bit of a **** though.
We know that women are heavily against No. I'd imagine LGBTI communities in Scotland will vote likewise after Souter's fresh investment. Perhaps Survation can supply a poll.
Women are , of course, heavily, for No rather than against.
Only the dumb ones
That's not how you win over swing voters, malcomg!
It becomes "We want a system like the DVLA's, but one that can register a little Scottish flag on all entries, show the occupancy of all car parking spaces in Lairg and display the basking location of Common Seals cross-referenced with the sale of Haggis in McTroy's shop in Leith. Oh, and whilst we are at it, can it keep track of the organisation's payroll, as the project we instituted eight years ago to replace the old Bull Mainframe payroll system has run into problems."
This is not an attempt to get at the Scottish; just a point that re-implementing original systems inevitably suffer from various problems, including requirements creep and not-invented-here syndrome. It requires exceptionally good management to get right.
I'm convinced that the only way to solve this is to teach programming to the users of the system, and then have them code the thing on an open-source modular basis in Python or similar.
Then if someone wants to add the functionality to cross-reference with seal populations they can take a copy of the trunk and write the code themselves, without getting in the way of the people more concerned with making the system do what it needs to.
There are various issues there: open source is not all it is cracked up to be in such cases (waits for howls of anguish), data security (both from hacking and corruption), the design of central database structures and user knowledge.
I'd prefer employing a company to define a modular structure, the central data structures and interfaces between modules, and then getting companies to bid for writing those modules. Any delays caused by ill-defined interfaces comes off the cost of the initial contract. Better, several companies can develop modules, allowing choice of solutions and competition.
It's the way the NHS IT project should have been done IMHO, and would have prevented the lunacy of giving the contracts to the IT giants.
She seems very intelligent to me. And genuine and caring to go with it.
Souter strikes me as a bit of a **** though.
Neil, is religious and had his thing on homosexuality but apart from that him and his sister do lots for charities, employs lots of people , etc so don't think he is all bad. I have not seen anything great re Rowling, so could not comment on whether good or bad, but seems just another establishment type.
Yes, he is religious and does his bit for charity (as does JK Rowling). However his extreme efforts to retain homophobic regulations in Scotland seem incompatible with an inclusive independent nation of the kind one would have thought the SNP wanted. Some of his company's business practices could possibly be described as sharp as well.
Currently the Euro health card is issued on the basis that the country of issue will pay the cost of treatment obtained in another country.
Most EU countries will already do that. Are you telling me that the NHS is not set up to get a refund on the treatment of EU citizen's which they provide?
If not that is incompetence and waste of UK resources. Although that does suit the ethos of the socialist infused institution.
Yes, he is religious and does his bit for charity (as does JK Rowling). However his extreme efforts to retain homophobic regulations in Scotland seem incompatible with an inclusive independent nation of the kind one would have thought the SNP wanted. Some of his company's business practices could possibly be described as sharp as well.
"an inclusive independent nation of the kind one would have thought the SNP wanted"
I think the SNP would model the country on North Korea if it thought it would win them independence. Kim Jong Alex.
"Name any 60s top 40 Hit by any of the following artists..."
The Animals The Kinks The Rolling Stones The Small Faces The Troggs The Who
A bloke in his 50s said "Im sorry I don't know any songs by any of them" and guessed "Destiny"
I cant believe anyone doesn't know one song by those bands, and more to the point, if you were that culturally unaware would you go on a general knowledge quiz show?
In the first round the Q was "Name the English version of these French metals" and he guessed "Iron" for "Titane"
To be fair, the discussion here on DVLA etc systems implies the same curious Civil Servant mindset in an independent Scotland as that which sometimes appears to apply “Down South”. I thought part at least of the push for independence was so that things could be done differently and more sensibly.
I’ve no dog in this particular fight, apart from the fact that I’ve several relatives who live in Scotland. Two or three are No, one I’m sure is Yes, and I’ve no idea about the others.
Incidentally, I wouldn’t have thought Rowling could be described as “establishment”.
She seems very intelligent to me. And genuine and caring to go with it.
Souter strikes me as a bit of a **** though.
Neil, is religious and had his thing on homosexuality but apart from that him and his sister do lots for charities, employs lots of people , etc so don't think he is all bad. I have not seen anything great re Rowling, so could not comment on whether good or bad, but seems just another establishment type.
Yes, he is religious and does his bit for charity (as does JK Rowling). However his extreme efforts to retain homophobic regulations in Scotland seem incompatible with an inclusive independent nation of the kind one would have thought the SNP wanted. Some of his company's business practices could possibly be described as sharp as well.
Has Pat Kane, ex pop star and now public intellectual resigned his position ?
" Kane joined the Yes Scotland advisory board in 2012, but on condition Yes took no money from SNP-supporting tycoon Brian Souter, who had previously bankrolled a referendum to stop a government policy on gay rights.
He says of Souter: "The guy is a pernicious influence in Scottish public life." "
Yes, he is religious and does his bit for charity (as does JK Rowling). However his extreme efforts to retain homophobic regulations in Scotland seem incompatible with an inclusive independent nation of the kind one would have thought the SNP wanted. Some of his company's business practices could possibly be described as sharp as well.
"an inclusive independent nation of the kind one would have thought the SNP wanted"
I think the SNP would model the country on North Korea if it thought it would win them independence. Kim Jong Alex.
That is just pathetic, only a cretin could utter such tripe.
"Name any 60s top 40 Hit by any of the following artists..."
The Animals The Kinks The Rolling Stones The Small Faces The Troggs The Who
A bloke in his 50s said "Im sorry I don't know any songs by any of them" and guessed "Destiny"
I cant believe anyone doesn't know one song by those bands, and more to the point, if you were that culturally unaware would you go on a general knowledge quiz show?
In the first round the Q was "Name the English version of these French metals" and he guessed "Iron" for "Titane"
Is your life so pointless that you were watching Pointless ?
Yes, he is religious and does his bit for charity (as does JK Rowling). However his extreme efforts to retain homophobic regulations in Scotland seem incompatible with an inclusive independent nation of the kind one would have thought the SNP wanted. Some of his company's business practices could possibly be described as sharp as well.
"an inclusive independent nation of the kind one would have thought the SNP wanted"
I think the SNP would model the country on North Korea if it thought it would win them independence. Kim Jong Alex.
Now i think of it the Russians taking Syria's stockpile of chemical weapons could be seen as removing a temptation.
Quite so. A temptation for the ravening hordes of sunni medievalists who until recently we've been more than happy to support (the 'nice ones') or ignore (the nasty ones). There is manifold evidence that such groups have used chemicals, and it made complete sense for them to do so, thinking as they did that such action would trigger military intervention on their side. To attempt to believe otherwise is an insult to common sense.
The complications and the costs of the later just don't seem to have been thought about.
Or they have thought about it and you just arent aware of their thinking?
Have you, for example, read what the Scottish Government's white paper says about the DVLA?
Yes I have. Wishful thinking, waffle and no mention of costs or the practicalities. In an nutshell it says rUk will let us carry on on using their system until such time as we produce our better, streamlined system. That is not even the basis for negotiation let alone settlement.
Currently the Euro health card is issued on the basis that the country of issue will pay the cost of treatment obtained in another country.
Most EU countries will already do that. Are you telling me that the NHS is not set up to get a refund on the treatment of EU citizen's which they provide?
If not that is incompetence and waste of UK resources. Although that does suit the ethos of the socialist infused institution.
My understanding is that emergency care is not reimbursed via EHIC, but planned care is.
My hospital certainly charges overseas visitors (at the same rate as NHS commissioning) but the compliance officer struggles to get people to cough up. Non emergency work is turned away.
I still think there is a slight tendency in England to underestimate the implications of Scottish independence. The results would not just be cataclysmic for Scotland.
How stable would rUK be with England even more dominant? It would be the end of one of the more successful countries over the last 300 years. Anyone who thinks it would be BAU is deceiving themselves.
Yes, he is religious and does his bit for charity (as does JK Rowling). However his extreme efforts to retain homophobic regulations in Scotland seem incompatible with an inclusive independent nation of the kind one would have thought the SNP wanted. Some of his company's business practices could possibly be described as sharp as well.
"an inclusive independent nation of the kind one would have thought the SNP wanted"
I think the SNP would model the country on North Korea if it thought it would win them independence. Kim Jong Alex.
That is just pathetic, only a cretin could utter such tripe.
Just so, everyone in Scotland knows it's Sal Mond Eck.
"Name any 60s top 40 Hit by any of the following artists..."
The Animals The Kinks The Rolling Stones The Small Faces The Troggs The Who
A bloke in his 50s said "Im sorry I don't know any songs by any of them" and guessed "Destiny"
I cant believe anyone doesn't know one song by those bands, and more to the point, if you were that culturally unaware would you go on a general knowledge quiz show?
In the first round the Q was "Name the English version of these French metals" and he guessed "Iron" for "Titane"
Is your life so pointless that you were watching Pointless ?
Currently the Euro health card is issued on the basis that the country of issue will pay the cost of treatment obtained in another country.
Most EU countries will already do that. Are you telling me that the NHS is not set up to get a refund on the treatment of EU citizen's which they provide?
If not that is incompetence and waste of UK resources. Although that does suit the ethos of the socialist infused institution.
I'm not telling you anything. I was asking whether the game is worth the bureaucratic candle.
. To attempt to believe otherwise is an insult to common sense.
Gosh, I can only hope noone out there attempts to believe this.
Here's Chuck Hagel on chemical weapons use in Syria:
““The chain of custody is not clear.” ... "We cannot confirm the origin of these weapons.” ... “but we do believe that any use of chemical weapons in Syria would very likely have originated with the Assad regime.”
Read that Telegraph piece someone posted earlier. Rumours. Conjecture. Nothing solid to make anything of.
It's the same story with Ukraine -immediate unsubstantiated accusations, furious denunciations, media baying for blood, then climb down later and admit there's no evidence when no-one cares any more, and the accusations have become 'fact'. Sorry if you struggle to see that. Thankfully more and more people are doing so.
I still think there is a slight tendency in England to underestimate the implications of Scottish independence. The results would not just be cataclysmic for Scotland.
How stable would rUK be with England even more dominant? It would be the end of one of the more successful countries over the last 300 years. Anyone who thinks it would be BAU is deceiving themselves.
We get it, David. Especially English Tories are super pro-Union (clue being in the name, etc) but sometimes we get so irritated by the antics of the Cybernats (and the real life ones also for that matter) that in our weak moments we think: ok then go on just f**k off.
What is also mildly galling is the disingenuousness of ASalmond et al. For god's sake just say: we haven't got a flying f**k about what's going to happen, currency, defence, budget, etc but WE WILL BE FREE. But instead he tries to bluff the way and diminishes himself and the cause in so doing.
(Apologies about the use of the word "f**k". Twice.)
I still think there is a slight tendency in England to underestimate the implications of Scottish independence. The results would not just be cataclysmic for Scotland.
How stable would rUK be with England even more dominant? It would be the end of one of the more successful countries over the last 300 years. Anyone who thinks it would be BAU is deceiving themselves.
We get it, David. Especially English Tories are super pro-Union (clue being in the name, etc) but sometimes we get so irritated by the antics of the Cybernats (and the real life ones also for that matter) that in our weak moments we think: ok then go on just f**k off.
What is also mildly galling is the disingenuousness of ASalmond et al. For god's sake just say: we haven't got a flying f**k about what's going to happen, currency, defence, budget, etc but WE WILL BE FREE. But instead he tries to bluff the way and diminishes himself and the cause in so doing.
(apologies about the use of "f**k")
Genuine or not, the strategy of the Yes campaign does seem to be attempting a mix of optimistic dreams of the future and gentle assurance that there would not, in fact, be any major changes that might be risky despite what those roguish unionists say, and that does seem to be a delicate and difficult strategy to attempt. I presume a simple 'who cares about any downsides, independence is worth the cost' argument was deemed not attractive enough beyond the core supporters, but the existing strategy is filled with so many 'but don't worry about x' moments to cater to the wavering and potential Yes vote. It might work, but it's a tough line to manage.
I still think there is a slight tendency in England to underestimate the implications of Scottish independence. The results would not just be cataclysmic for Scotland.
How stable would rUK be with England even more dominant? It would be the end of one of the more successful countries over the last 300 years. Anyone who thinks it would be BAU is deceiving themselves.
We get it, David. Especially English Tories are super pro-Union (clue being in the name, etc) but sometimes we get so irritated by the antics of the Cybernats (and the real life ones also for that matter) that in our weak moments we think: ok then go on just f**k off.
What is also mildly galling is the disingenuousness of ASalmond et al. For god's sake just say: we haven't got a flying f**k about what's going to happen, currency, defence, budget, etc but WE WILL BE FREE. But instead he tries to bluff the way and diminishes himself and the cause in so doing.
(apologies about the use of "f**k")
Genuine or not, the strategy of the Yes campaign does seem to be attempting a mix of optimistic dreams of the future and gentle assurance that there would not, in fact, be any major changes that might be risky despite what those roguish unionists say, and that does seem to be a delicate and difficult strategy to attempt. I presume a simple 'who cares about any downsides, independence is worth the cost' argument was deemed not attractive enough beyond the core supporters, but the existing strategy is filled with so many 'but don't worry about x' moments to cater to the wavering and potential Yes vote. It might work, but it's a tough line to manage.
Yep and they're super not managing it.
I try to assess the Yes strategy by asking myself the question: would this argument be out of place in a general election campaign? If the answer is no then they haven't got the balance right, IMO. As you say I'm sure they deemed the Braveheart approach too risky but there is precious little that distinguishes and promotes the uniqueness of independence.
"Name any 60s top 40 Hit by any of the following artists..."
The Animals The Kinks The Rolling Stones The Small Faces The Troggs The Who
A bloke in his 50s said "Im sorry I don't know any songs by any of them" and guessed "Destiny"
I cant believe anyone doesn't know one song by those bands, and more to the point, if you were that culturally unaware would you go on a general knowledge quiz show?
In the first round the Q was "Name the English version of these French metals" and he guessed "Iron" for "Titane"
You're right about it being daft to go on a general knowledge quiz if you don't have much general knowledge, but most of us underestimate how much we don't know about other areas of life. I don't know any footballers at all (zero!), and I've met people who don't know any politicians, even Cameron. When I used to have more time I tried crosswords in various papers and some were completely impenetrable to me because the setter assumed that the solvers would know Latin tags from school or other niche knowledge that suited that paper's readership.
The complications and the costs of the later just don't seem to have been thought about.
Or they have thought about it and you just arent aware of their thinking?
Have you, for example, read what the Scottish Government's white paper says about the DVLA?
Yes I have. Wishful thinking, waffle and no mention of costs or the practicalities. In an nutshell it says rUk will let us carry on on using their system until such time as we produce our better, streamlined system. That is not even the basis for negotiation let alone settlement.
The DVLA is funded by its fees isn't it? I don't see why it can't continue as it is.
"Name any 60s top 40 Hit by any of the following artists..."
The Animals The Kinks The Rolling Stones The Small Faces The Troggs The Who
A bloke in his 50s said "Im sorry I don't know any songs by any of them" and guessed "Destiny"
I cant believe anyone doesn't know one song by those bands, and more to the point, if you were that culturally unaware would you go on a general knowledge quiz show?
In the first round the Q was "Name the English version of these French metals" and he guessed "Iron" for "Titane"
You're right about it being daft to go on a general knowledge quiz if you don't have much general knowledge, but most of us underestimate how much we don't know about other areas of life. I don't know any footballers at all (zero!), and I've met people who don't know any politicians, even Cameron. When I used to have more time I tried crosswords in various papers and some were completely impenetrable to me because the setter assumed that the solvers would know Latin tags from school or other niche knowledge that suited that paper's readership.
As Chris Tarrant says: it's only easy if you know the answer.
How was China - did you take the train in the end?
The complications and the costs of the later just don't seem to have been thought about.
Or they have thought about it and you just arent aware of their thinking?
Have you, for example, read what the Scottish Government's white paper says about the DVLA?
Yes I have. Wishful thinking, waffle and no mention of costs or the practicalities. In an nutshell it says rUk will let us carry on on using their system until such time as we produce our better, streamlined system. That is not even the basis for negotiation let alone settlement.
It's not the rUK's system. It's a UK system. Paid for in part by Scottish users. It makes eminent sense for the system to continue as is for both parties. Why would the rUK want to see an 8% (or so) drop in income on independence? Wouldnt they want to manage the transition in Swansea as much as possible? In any case what gives the rUK exclusive rights to the systems there? Hasnt it been paid for by users on both sides of a future border?
The complications and the costs of the later just don't seem to have been thought about.
Or they have thought about it and you just arent aware of their thinking?
Have you, for example, read what the Scottish Government's white paper says about the DVLA?
Yes I have. Wishful thinking, waffle and no mention of costs or the practicalities. In an nutshell it says rUk will let us carry on on using their system until such time as we produce our better, streamlined system. That is not even the basis for negotiation let alone settlement.
The DVLA is funded by its fees isn't it? I don't see why it can't continue as it is.
The current Scottish Government eventually wants to see a single motoring agency in Scotland. Who knows who will be in power in 2016 though.
I still think there is a slight tendency in England to underestimate the implications of Scottish independence. The results would not just be cataclysmic for Scotland.
How stable would rUK be with England even more dominant? It would be the end of one of the more successful countries over the last 300 years. Anyone who thinks it would be BAU is deceiving themselves.
We get it, David. Especially English Tories are super pro-Union (clue being in the name, etc) but sometimes we get so irritated by the antics of the Cybernats (and the real life ones also for that matter) that in our weak moments we think: ok then go on just f**k off.
What is also mildly galling is the disingenuousness of ASalmond et al. For god's sake just say: we haven't got a flying f**k about what's going to happen, currency, defence, budget, etc but WE WILL BE FREE. But instead he tries to bluff the way and diminishes himself and the cause in so doing.
(Apologies about the use of the word "f**k". Twice.)
Topping , he has to be careful due to not wanting to upset all the fearties. It is certainly bizzare that it is not over 90% for YES and makes me wonder what these people voting NO are thinking. I understand the rich people like DavidL on here , who are doing exceedingly well and don't want the boat rocked, even Darling as he trousers £300k + a year but why any normal person is not 100% YES is fairly unbelievable. Rather let someone 500 miles away make all their decisions for them , utterly pathetic.
The complications and the costs of the later just don't seem to have been thought about.
Or they have thought about it and you just arent aware of their thinking?
Have you, for example, read what the Scottish Government's white paper says about the DVLA?
Yes I have. Wishful thinking, waffle and no mention of costs or the practicalities. In an nutshell it says rUk will let us carry on on using their system until such time as we produce our better, streamlined system. That is not even the basis for negotiation let alone settlement.
It's not the rUK's system. It's a UK system. Paid for in part by Scottish users. It makes eminent sense for the system to continue as is for both parties. Why would the rUK want to see an 8% (or so) drop in income on independence? Wouldnt they want to manage the transition in Swansea as much as possible? In any case what gives the rUK exclusive rights to the systems there? Hasnt it been paid for by users on both sides of a future border?
Neil, you should know by now that they think England pays for everything and we just sponge off them.
The complications and the costs of the later just don't seem to have been thought about.
Or they have thought about it and you just arent aware of their thinking?
Have you, for example, read what the Scottish Government's white paper says about the DVLA?
Yes I have. Wishful thinking, waffle and no mention of costs or the practicalities. In an nutshell it says rUk will let us carry on on using their system until such time as we produce our better, streamlined system. That is not even the basis for negotiation let alone settlement.
It's not the rUK's system. It's a UK system. Paid for in part by Scottish users. It makes eminent sense for the system to continue as is for both parties. Why would the rUK want to see an 8% (or so) drop in income on independence? Wouldnt they want to manage the transition in Swansea as much as possible? In any case what gives the rUK exclusive rights to the systems there? Hasnt it been paid for by users on both sides of a future border?
Why would we want to manage a foreign country's registration process ? Makes no sense at all. For a start off what happens when DVLA have to accept a foreign currency ?
The complications and the costs of the later just don't seem to have been thought about.
Or they have thought about it and you just arent aware of their thinking?
Have you, for example, read what the Scottish Government's white paper says about the DVLA?
Yes I have. Wishful thinking, waffle and no mention of costs or the practicalities. In an nutshell it says rUk will let us carry on on using their system until such time as we produce our better, streamlined system. That is not even the basis for negotiation let alone settlement.
It's not the rUK's system. It's a UK system. Paid for in part by Scottish users. It makes eminent sense for the system to continue as is for both parties. Why would the rUK want to see an 8% (or so) drop in income on independence? Wouldnt they want to manage the transition in Swansea as much as possible? In any case what gives the rUK exclusive rights to the systems there? Hasnt it been paid for by users on both sides of a future border?
This was explained quite well here a while back, I forget by whom. It doesn't necessarily belong to the rUK, but by the same token, neither does any UK asset based north of the border necessarily belong to Scotland. So Scotland could claim its 8% of Swansea, and rUK would claim it's 92% of Holyrood, and everything else.
The complications and the costs of the later just don't seem to have been thought about.
Or they have thought about it and you just arent aware of their thinking?
Have you, for example, read what the Scottish Government's white paper says about the DVLA?
Yes I have. Wishful thinking, waffle and no mention of costs or the practicalities. In an nutshell it says rUk will let us carry on on using their system until such time as we produce our better, streamlined system. That is not even the basis for negotiation let alone settlement.
It's not the rUK's system. It's a UK system. Paid for in part by Scottish users. It makes eminent sense for the system to continue as is for both parties. Why would the rUK want to see an 8% (or so) drop in income on independence? Wouldnt they want to manage the transition in Swansea as much as possible? In any case what gives the rUK exclusive rights to the systems there? Hasnt it been paid for by users on both sides of a future border?
Neil, you should know by now that they think England pays for everything and we just sponge off them.
Bollocks malc. It's more the case that if you want to go it alone quit hiding behind other people and have the balls to do it properly.
Comments
Independence can be declared on 24th March 2015 (yes, less than a year from now), but obviously almost everything would still be shared at that point (the currency, the HMRC, the DVLA, etc., etc.)
Most of these assets could then get divided over the next decade, but some shared structures might never get separated -- for instance, the two countries might decide to share the phone code +44 forever instead of finding a new code for Scotland (such as +424).
If you think that everything has to be completely separated before Scotland can declare independence, you would be looking at spending about a decade negotiating, which wouldn't be in anybody's interest.
In the meantime Scotland would be terribly independent, wouldn't they? No tax/benefit system, run by rUK, no DVLA/motor insurance market, run by rUK, corporate governance, run by rUK and so on and so forth. All charging fees for their services.
The process of becoming independent could bankrupt the new nation state.
The shifting dynamics of the energy market, often alluded to by Sean T and others, really do seem to be kicking in.
And this could I guess have some implications for 2015 here.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=odWUVG2S9Fs
Face it - you've got the backing of the dark side on this one, malcolmg!
However, this is just A level bollocks because it would seem that Scottish independence is as far away than it it has ever been.
No need to bankrupt anyone.
That will lead to English votes for English polices (esp, Education, Health and Energy as well as Economy). At 2010GE there were 533 seats in England of which the Cons won 298, LAB, 191, LDs 43 and Green 1. So 267 required for a majority. Would Labour gain 76 English seats in 2015?
The point is that once the decision has been made it will be in the interests of both sides to settle the essential questions, decide the principles to govern the rest and get it over with, leaving most of the details to be filled in later.
Souter strikes me as a bit of a **** though.
I would anticipate that a negotiating team will be set up by UK Parliament, and that this would be done with some cross party agreement and would remain the same team after the 2015 election.
The worst possible thing is to have it drag on for years and years, an easy way to generate grievance, bad feeling and anger.
Which brings me back to why I got involved in this discussion this afternoon - your assertion that the Free State could achieve independence in 18 months so why couldn't Scotland. Well, for a start the Free State didn't have to worry about who owned the copyright to the software that ran their benefits system on computers located in England or their driver and vehicle licensing system located in Wales.
Brown was Scottish, and Blair was Scots-born and educated, for all that he sounded English. Cameron's family also hails from north of the border.
Perhaps Survation can supply a poll.
No need for a new systems just charge the Scots to use ours. What happens if they want some changes for their people. Could be just a change of logo on the driving licence, could be something more significant like a different rate of income tax. "Changes to existing software running on legacy systems?", you can hear the chap sucking his teeth already.
And rUk taxpayer is going to pick up the bill? Really?
In the 18th century one of the Rothschilds famously said, "Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes it's laws" the modern version might be "Give me control of a nation's data and I care not who has control of its money and even less who makes its laws"
Getting best value for public money is an ongoing task for England as well as the new Scotland.
Your examples affect any contracts, yet people are able to successfully negotiate and manage problems all the time. Why should Scotland be any different?
Weak on the first two, Better Together has targeted the third of these: the 'do ability' of independence and to label their approach as Project Fear is perfectly reasonable. The currency spoiler tactic was masterful but Salmond might just surprise everyone in the second debate and set out a clear, credible, practical road path to independence that turns the tide.
Right now I think the election is unwinnable though.
Hence a simple and reasonable "We want a system the same as the DVLA's, so we can (share/import/alter) data" will change once civil servants, management and politicians get their grubby little mitts on the requirements.
It becomes "We want a system like the DVLA's, but one that can register a little Scottish flag on all entries, show the occupancy of all car parking spaces in Lairg and display the basking location of Common Seals cross-referenced with the sale of Haggis in McTroy's shop in Leith. Oh, and whilst we are at it, can it keep track of the organisation's payroll, as the project we instituted eight years ago to replace the old Bull Mainframe payroll system has run into problems."
This is not an attempt to get at the Scottish; just a point that re-implementing original systems inevitably suffer from various problems, including requirements creep and not-invented-here syndrome. It requires exceptionally good management to get right.
So, the fact that the Irish separation could happen in 18 months or so really has no bearing on a possible separation of Scotland from rUK. The complications and the costs of the later just don't seem to have been thought about.
Then if someone wants to add the functionality to cross-reference with seal populations they can take a copy of the trunk and write the code themselves, without getting in the way of the people more concerned with making the system do what it needs to.
I have not seen anything great re Rowling, so could not comment on whether good or bad, but seems just another establishment type.
She's always loved Cliff, LOL especially his early R&R stuff with The Shadows.
Take the currency. Scotland says we want a currency union, the rUK says no, Scotland says, aw go on, we'll agree to whatever terms you set, rUK sets its terms, Scotland says no, rUK says lump it, Scotland says OK we won't pay our share of the national debt, the rUK says, OK then, we will not agree to your independence, and then we have a stand off. The Scots will appeal to the international community, the international community - which hates change - will say it i a matter for the negotiating parties, and the clock keeps on ticking - day after day, week after week, month after month. And then there may well need to be referenda in the rUK, as well as parliamentary approval. They won't even get round to software until 2020 or so.
UDI would a disastrous move for Scotland. Not least because 70% of the country's exports go to the rUK and many of the rest have to pass through rUK territory by land or sea. That's before you factor in how the banks will respond and the impossibility of gaining membership of any international body.
Non story. ^_~
"Hence a simple and reasonable "We want a system the same as the DVLA's, so we can (share/import/alter) data" will change once civil servants, management and politicians get their grubby little mitts on the requirements. "
Oh, so true.
Have you, for example, read what the Scottish Government's white paper says about the DVLA?
Whilst it's true that the referendum isn't an overly big deal "down south" at the moment, I think it would rapidly become THE defining moment of the day if Scotland did vote to leave.
In the circumstances of a divorce between the two nations both sides will become polarized I think. I would expect the 2015 election to be dominated by this. England would want to vote for a government that has the strongest mandate to be as tough as possible with Scotland when it comes to dividing up the asset's.
In that scenario, who would trust Ed Milliband and his soon to be "ex-Scottish MP's to secure the best deal for the rest of the United Kingdom?
Doesn't look like I'm going to get to put my theory to the test though, after Salmonds made such a mess of the Independence campaign...
http://www.johnlamont.org/sites/johnlamont.buttermountain.com/files/styles/bm_large/public/john_lamont_eckford691.jpg?itok=s181g4dx
I'd prefer employing a company to define a modular structure, the central data structures and interfaces between modules, and then getting companies to bid for writing those modules. Any delays caused by ill-defined interfaces comes off the cost of the initial contract. Better, several companies can develop modules, allowing choice of solutions and competition.
It's the way the NHS IT project should have been done IMHO, and would have prevented the lunacy of giving the contracts to the IT giants.
But we're going way off-topic here.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-28778728
Currently the Euro health card is issued on the basis that the country of issue will pay the cost of treatment obtained in another country.
Most EU countries will already do that. Are you telling me that the NHS is not set up to get a refund on the treatment of EU citizen's which they provide?
If not that is incompetence and waste of UK resources. Although that does suit the ethos of the socialist infused institution.
I think the SNP would model the country on North Korea if it thought it would win them independence. Kim Jong Alex.
The question is
"Name any 60s top 40 Hit by any of the following artists..."
The Animals
The Kinks
The Rolling Stones
The Small Faces
The Troggs
The Who
A bloke in his 50s said "Im sorry I don't know any songs by any of them" and guessed "Destiny"
I cant believe anyone doesn't know one song by those bands, and more to the point, if you were that culturally unaware would you go on a general knowledge quiz show?
In the first round the Q was "Name the English version of these French metals" and he guessed "Iron" for "Titane"
I thought part at least of the push for independence was so that things could be done differently and more sensibly.
I’ve no dog in this particular fight, apart from the fact that I’ve several relatives who live in Scotland. Two or three are No, one I’m sure is Yes, and I’ve no idea about the others.
Incidentally, I wouldn’t have thought Rowling could be described as “establishment”.
" Kane joined the Yes Scotland advisory board in 2012, but on condition Yes took no money from SNP-supporting tycoon Brian Souter, who had previously bankrolled a referendum to stop a government policy on gay rights.
He says of Souter: "The guy is a pernicious influence in Scottish public life." "
http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/referendum-news/if-there-is-a-no-vote-scotland-will-be-a-depressed-place-for-quite-a-while-.24967605
http://www.ukip.org/bbc_panorama_programme_planning_new_establishment_attack_against_ukip
My hospital certainly charges overseas visitors (at the same rate as NHS commissioning) but the compliance officer struggles to get people to cough up. Non emergency work is turned away.
How stable would rUK be with England even more dominant? It would be the end of one of the more successful countries over the last 300 years. Anyone who thinks it would be BAU is deceiving themselves.
On the subject of payment
"NHS faces legal bill as dozens suffer problems after private eye operations"
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/aug/14/nhs-eye-operations-private-provider-musgrove
What a strange thing to say
““The chain of custody is not clear.” ... "We cannot confirm the origin of these weapons.” ... “but we do believe that any use of chemical weapons in Syria would very likely have originated with the Assad regime.”
What exactly is it that makes you so sure, when the Americans aren't even prepared to back their initial claims?
http://nsnbc.me/2013/04/28/chemical-weapons-charade-in-syria/
Read that Telegraph piece someone posted earlier. Rumours. Conjecture. Nothing solid to make anything of.
It's the same story with Ukraine -immediate unsubstantiated accusations, furious denunciations, media baying for blood, then climb down later and admit there's no evidence when no-one cares any more, and the accusations have become 'fact'. Sorry if you struggle to see that. Thankfully more and more people are doing so.
Could have saved it for the lead up to the GE at least
What is also mildly galling is the disingenuousness of ASalmond et al. For god's sake just say: we haven't got a flying f**k about what's going to happen, currency, defence, budget, etc but WE WILL BE FREE. But instead he tries to bluff the way and diminishes himself and the cause in so doing.
(Apologies about the use of the word "f**k". Twice.)
I try to assess the Yes strategy by asking myself the question: would this argument be out of place in a general election campaign? If the answer is no then they haven't got the balance right, IMO. As you say I'm sure they deemed the Braveheart approach too risky but there is precious little that distinguishes and promotes the uniqueness of independence.
I don't see why it can't continue as it is.
How was China - did you take the train in the end?
people voting NO are thinking. I understand the rich people like DavidL on here , who are doing exceedingly well and don't want the boat rocked, even Darling as he trousers £300k + a year but why any normal person is not 100% YES is fairly unbelievable. Rather let someone 500 miles away make all their decisions for them , utterly pathetic.
#scottishgirlymen