The other argument in favour of a defence capability also founded on this same paper: the link was obscure to me because this part relates to cyber attack and the poster saw this as all part of the same thing and so he or she seemed to be using this threat to justify a big armed force. But there was another plank. Based on this paper the poster took the view that Scotland if independent would not have the protection of GCHQ and so would succumb to cyber attack more readily. As an additional argument he or she reported that if we do not have that protection RBS will leave Scotland so as to protect itself. For myself the departure of a failed bank which is not even properly nationalised fails to keep me awake at night: but others may differ.
The authors give this account of current arrangements
QUOTE
In the UK, the National Cyber Security Programme was announced as part
of the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) in October 2010. It is
planned that a number of government departments will work with industry
and universities in order to reduce vulnerability to cyber-espionage, improve
ability to detect and defend against cyber-attack, incorporate cyber into
mainstream defence concepts and doctrine and ensure that the UK’s critical
infrastructure, vital government networks and services are resilient to
attack. The programme will be delivered by a new ‘joint cyber unit’ based
at Corsham and also at GCHQ near Cheltenham. Between these two sites
Britain will develop new techniques, tactics and plans to deliver military
effects through operations in cyberspace. In addition, of course, GCHQ’s
main function is to provide intelligence in the form of signals intelligence
(sigint) and information assurance to both the Westminster government and
the UK armed forces.
And the go on to say, without any explanation of why this is true (are you seeing a pattern yet?)
QUOTE
An independent Scotland would need to access such resources in some form
or other or face being left out in the cold
Well I am used to the cold, so that does not bother me. What does bother me is the information that GCHQ was built under a PFI and it costs a freaking fortune. Indeed the authors state that the costs of this are at a level that an independent Scotland would find crippling to replicate even in part. Course there is absolutely no alternative to PFI.........all buildings of that sort cost £1.5 billion, I am sure. Or not.
Anyway because of those irreducible costs the authors conclude that Scotland could not have its own cyber protection in any shape or form, so we would have to come to some arrangement with GCHQ. Curiously that is not because we would be more vulnerable to cyber attack, but because
QUOTE
without it the newly independent country would soon find itself at a distinct intelligence disadvantage
WTF do we need "intelligence" for, I am asking myself. We already established we are living in a "threat vacuum" and if we stop posturing around the world in military adventures and resource grabbing missions that threat will diminish. Since there is no threat at the moment, I look forward to terrorists sending us flowers and chocolates on our birthday. I do not think these authors are very clever, to be honest. Nor do I believe for one moment that the costs of setting something like this up need be prohibitive if we decide we want it. Just as long as we avoid PFI and keep the running costs down (currently a mere £200 million a year and I am not convinced that is value for money, given all the cyber attacks that seem to happen all the time despite the "protection")
Edited by FionaK - 9/2/2013, 02:41
