How scotlands independence would effect current broadband ?

Just was thinking would there be a openreach scotland branch ect made if independence happens?

Or would this not change

also we may get a new currency (not the £) it would be interesting to see if prices change in relation to uk currency and if scotlands money would focus more into broadband not spots than the uk goverment is at the moment

i'm not sure if theres any BDUK funds allocated for scotland and if so would we still get if not a part of the uk?

would love to hear some thoughts on this

BT itself, being a private company, can happily operate over the borders.

The issue I think would be with regulation. It is likely that Scotland would start their own regulation of telecoms rather than being ruled by Ofcom. That means the regulation in Scotland could be very different from the rest of the UK resulting in potentially different solutions, costs and rules.

That difference in regulation could then trigger BT to setup a Scotland arm. In fact, there could just be a BT Scotland if the Scottish regulation did not require the Chinese walls between different BT divisions.

And I guess Scotland could also decide to put a USO on "superfast" broadband which could significantly change the landscape of delivery - although I would guess they would have to fund that somehow.

A little off-topic, but I wonder what they'd do about a country code TLD?

They shouldn't really use .uk and the Seychelles have already grabbed .sc

Regulation - they will need their own regulator who could just copy OFCOM but there will be a cost. The cost to Scotland will be relatively higher than that of the existing UK. Whether it is telecoms, power, or whatever, it will need to be set up. All these costs are being ignored but will have to be met ultimately by the consumers.

In reply to a post by billford:

A little off-topic, but I wonder what they'd do about a country code TLD?

They shouldn't really use .uk and the Seychelles have already grabbed .sc

They will get .nmpt Named after the Scottish Numpty Party.

I dare say that Alex Salmond has assumed they can continue using UK even if they break away from the union... Seems the general theme - keep everything they like and get rid of everything else, perfect option for Scots.

.pi is available for "Pictland". There is no obvious 2 letter TLD available that starts with S.

In reply to a post by MHC:

They will get .nmpt Named after the Scottish Numpty Party.

Nice thought

But ccTLDs are only 2 letters.

In reply to a post by billford:

... the Seychelles have already grabbed .sc

On the other hand:

In reference to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.sc:

.sc is the Internet country code top-level domain (ccTLD) for Seychelles. The TLD was marketed to businesses in Scotland and South Carolina, however, the domains are subject to Seychelles registry rules. While SCregistrars, a company who marketed .sc domains to a target audience of Scottish sites, has since closed down the .sc extension remains available through the Afilias Global platform via various well-known registrars internationally for direct registration at second-level.

So they could use it.

The emergence of new countries is a regular occurrence. The usual starting point for a ccTLD is the country's alpha-2 code as registered under ISO 3166-1:2013. In turn, that is likely to be an abbreviation of the alpha-3 code. The UK is unusual in that the ccTLD is .uk whereas the ISO codes are GB and GBR. Since the range of unallocated codes is increasingly restricted, there can be no assumption that new codes will correspond to simple abbreviations of the country's name in English.

21 out of 26 alpha-2 codes starting with the letter S have already been allocated and none of the unallocated alternatives is especially mnemonic (e.g. SF or SW), so the Scottish Government might opt for something completely different. Variants of Caledonia aren't much better. NB and NBR for North Britain (as in the former railway line) are available.

.nb could be attractive� as in nota bene

I have always thought that we have been too causal about who can register for a .uk or .co.uk domain name. Many believe that they are dealing with a company geographically placed in the UK with such a web extension.

The same sort of applies to phone numbers when a uk area code can be routed to a phone anywhere in the world. Generally OK and useful but morally right?

IMHO if the YES vote swings that way then any Scottish company using .uk or .co.uk should be banned from doing so and that calls to and from Scotland should be classed as international. And get away from the country code being 44; I think there was a proposal on the table that the Scotland country code would become 442. I guess that was for technical reasons, but I don't like it. Get their own I would say!

In reply to a post by billford:

.nb could be attractive� as in nota bene

Not really, more likely to be .us

Just think how much money could be made by teh UK in charging International Transits for data and voice! As far as I know there are no major international links from Scotland and traffic is routed though England

If Scotland vote yes and the ban the use of .co.uk then surely that will filter to England too if the other 2 nations decide for independence too us there will be no "United Kingdom"

Complete anal retention imho though.

Some people will vote for independance solely to be rid of the royal family (aka waste of tax patyers money)

The Northern Irish have no desire to become independent - they were partitioned of from the southern terrorists because they wanted to stay British and that opinion still prevails.

The Welsh did at one time want some form, but they saw the light and realised how much is "subsidised" by England.

As for the Royal Family - they will remain as the Scottish Royal Family.

In reply to a post by MHC:

The Northern Irish have no desire to become independent - they were partitioned of from the southern terrorists because they wanted to stay British and that opinion still prevails.

Note that it was primarily the Protestant descendants of Scots living in NI that wished to remain British, not the indigenous Irish.

Quote :The Northern Irish have no desire to become independent - they were partitioned of from the southern terrorists because they wanted to stay British and that opinion still prevails.##

That must be why Sinn Fein does so badly in Northern Ireland , and the English Daily Mail makes such an efficient lining for pet-poop trays !

Not sure if this would make any difference

The exchange called IXScotland will be LINX's first dedicated Internet Exchange (IXP) for the region

https://www.linx.net/publicity/2013releases/pr2013-0...

still has to go through england i think.

Thare does look to be fibre links into scotland from ireland.

In reply to a post by MHC:

Just think how much money could be made by teh UK in charging International Transits for data and voice! As far as I know there are no major international links from Scotland and traffic is routed though England

Those links belong to private companies, surely?

In reply to a post by RossMcG:

Some people will vote for independance solely to be rid of the royal family (aka waste of tax patyers money)

How much would a presidential system cost?

[off topic]

In reply to a post by ian72:

I dare say that Alex Salmond has assumed they can continue using UK even if they break away from the union...

An Independent Scotland cannot be prevented from using UK or the .uk TLD.

The definition of (the) UK would have to be revised.

Great Britain

[further off topic]
ALL currently held UK Passports would have to be reworded and re-issued!

Nothing has changed since 1920.

Edited by JimmyBoy (Sat 14-Jun-14 16:02:25)

In reply to a post by JimmyBoy:

An Independent Scotland cannot be prevented from using UK or the .uk TLD.

I think it very unlikely that Nominet will restrict purchase of .uk to UK entities.

Also the .scot domain will go live soon regardless of the outcome of the referendum. Ironically Salmond supports the new domain, even though independence would probably mean they could get a standard two-character country TLD from ICANN as well.

The links are from Scotland to Northern Ireland - still part of the UK.

Ireland does have some small bandwidth links into a coupl eof transatlantic links - but to access those Scottish traffic would need to go via te UK.

It would cost an awful lot less than keeping these people cosseted and fawned over >>

Simple gold crown.svg Queen Elizabeth II (b. 1926)
(1) The Prince of Wales (Prince Charles; b. 1948) B D W
(2) The Duke of Cambridge (Prince William; b. 1982) B D W
(3) Prince George of Cambridge (b. 2013) B D
(4) Prince Henry of Wales (b. 1984) B D W
(5) The Duke of York (Prince Andrew; b. 1960) B D W
(6) Princess Beatrice of York (b. 1988) B D W
(7) Princess Eugenie of York (b. 1990) B D W
(8) The Earl of Wessex (Prince Edward; b. 1964) B D W
(9) Viscount Severn (James Mountbatten-Windsor; b. 2007) B D W
(10) Lady Louise Windsor (b. 2003) B D W
(11) The Princess Royal (Princess Anne; b. 1950) B D W
(12) Peter Phillips (b. 1977) B D W
(13) Savannah Phillips (b. 2010) B D W
(14) Isla Phillips (b. 2012) B D W
(15) Zara Tindall (n�e Phillips; b. 1981) B D W
(16) Mia Tindall (b. 2014) [8][9]
Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon (1930�2002)D88
(17) Viscount Linley (David Armstrong-Jones; b. 1961) B D W
(18) Charles Armstrong-Jones (b. 1999) B D W
(19) Margarita Armstrong-Jones (b. 2002) B D W
(20) Lady Sarah Chatto (n�e Armstrong-Jones; b. 1964) B D W
(21) Samuel Chatto (b. 1996) B D W
(22) Arthur Chatto (b. 1999) B D W
Prince Henry, Duke of Gloucester (1900�1974)1952
(23) The Duke of Gloucester (Prince Richard; b. 1944) B D W
(24) Earl of Ulster (Alexander Windsor; b. 1974) B D W
(25) Lord Culloden (Xan Windsor; b. 2007) B D W
(26) Lady Cosima Windsor (b. 2010) B D W
(27) Lady Davina Lewis (n�e Windsor; b. 1977) B D W
(28) Tane Lewis (b. 2012) B[n 3]
(29) Senna Lewis (b. 2010) B D W[n 3]
(30) Lady Rose Gilman (n�e Windsor; b. 1980) B D W
(31) Rufus Gilman (b. 2012) B[n 3]
(32) Lyla Gilman (b. 2010) B D W[n 3]
Prince George, Duke of Kent (1902�1942)
(33) The Duke of Kent (Prince Edward; b. 1935) B D W
Earl of St Andrews (George Windsor; b. 1962) MC / D W
Lord Downpatrick (Edward Windsor; b. 1988) XC / D W
Lady Marina Charlotte Windsor (b. 1992) XC / W
(34) Lady Amelia Windsor (b. 1995) B D W
Lord Nicholas Windsor (b. 1970) XC / D W
(35) Albert Windsor (b. 2007) B W[n 4]
(36) Leopold Windsor (b. 2009) B W
(37) Louis Windsor (b. 2014)[10]
(38) Lady Helen Taylor (n�e Windsor; b. 1964) B D W[n 5]
(39) Columbus Taylor (b. 1994) B W
(40) Cassius Taylor (b. 1996) B W
(41) Eloise Taylor (b. 2003) B W
(42) Estella Taylor (b. 2004) B W
Prince Michael of Kent (b. 1942) MC / W
(43) Lord Frederick Windsor (b. 1979) B W
(44) Maud Windsor (b. 2013) B[11]
(45) Lady Gabriella Windsor (b. 1981) B W
(46) Princess Alexandra, The Honourable Lady Ogilvy (b. 1936) B
(47) James Ogilvy (b. 1964) B
(48) Alexander Ogilvy (b. 1996) B
(49) Flora Ogilvy (b. 1994) B
(50) Marina Ogilvy (b. 1966) B
(51) Christian Mowatt (b. 1993) B
(52) Zenouska Mowatt (b. 1990) B
Notes and sources:

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

In reply to a post by JimmyBoy:

An Independent Scotland cannot be prevented from using UK or the .uk TLD.

I think it very unlikely that Nominet will restrict purchase of .uk to UK entities.

I like a referendum on that.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

In reply to a post by RossMcG:

Some people will vote for independance solely to be rid of the royal family (aka waste of tax patyers money)

How much would a presidential system cost?

For me IMHO that's neither here nor there, just getting shot of the royals would be enough. However that will never happen :/

I wonder if England will get a vote for independence, after all they have as much right to break away as everyone else.

In reply to a post by RossMcG:

For me IMHO that's neither here nor there, just getting shot of the royals would be enough. However that will never happen :/

Yeah, seems like Salmond is pretty fond of the Queen. In fact he reckons England should become a republic so that the Queen can become head of state in Scotland.

In reference to www.theguardian.com/politics/wintour-and-watt/2011/may/25/alexsalmo...:

Alex Salmond, the first minister of Scotland, has just given a gushing interview about the Queen in which he raises an intriguing prospect. The SNP leader tells Prospect magazine that an independent Scotland would keep the Queen as head of state while England would be better off as a republic.

We all know what the previous Queen Elizabeth would have done about him.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

We all know what the previous Queen Elizabeth would have done about him.

............. Invite him to her bed-chamber ??



.........hey there Lizzie fancy a deep fried po-ta-toe ??

I was thinking more about a Scottish person.

In reply to a post by JimmyBoy:

[off topic]

In reply to a post by ian72:

I dare say that Alex Salmond has assumed they can continue using UK even if they break away from the union...

An Independent Scotland cannot be prevented from using UK or the .uk TLD.

The definition of (the) UK would have to be revised.

Great Britain

[further off topic]
ALL currently held UK Passports would have to be reworded and re-issued!

Nothing has changed since 1920.

Scottish independence would mean the definition of the UK is revised - the UK will no longer include Scotland. The UK is a political creation not geographical and as soon as the political membership changes then so does the definition.

Nominet do not currently restrict who can apply for .uk or .co.uk domains. However, I would be surprised if companies in Scotland that are keen on independence would want to use UK domains as they will no longer be members of the UK. And Nominet could put restrictions on in future as some other countries do for their domains.

In reply to a post by ian72:

However, I would be surprised if companies in Scotland that are keen on independence would want to use UK domains as they will no longer be members of the UK.

Following a "yes" vote for independence, a lot of larger companies would just continue to use .com in both countries I suspect.

Smaller companies operating purely in Scotland with a .uk domain would most likely migrate to .ab or whatever ccTLD ICANN assigns (leaving the new .scot domain dead in the water just after it launches).

Edited by Oliver341 (Mon 16-Jun-14 12:05:07)

BT would almost certainly have to set up a separate BT Scotland Company. If Scotland gets a new currency then they exchange rate will fluctuate

As far as BDUK is concerned this is a UK government program so would cease to operate in Scotland unless Scotland took over the funding

Usually a Company cannot operate in another jurisdiction. It would require a separate BT Scotland Company registered in Scotland. It may operate as a subsidiary company of the BT Group company though

In reply to a post by Bob_s2:

Usually a Company cannot operate in another jurisdiction. It would require a separate BT Scotland Company registered in Scotland. It may operate as a subsidiary company of the BT Group company though

Really? Are you saying that people like Amazon/Microsoft/Apple/etc have separate subsidiaries in every country that they operate in? I am not saying you are wrong but that would really surprise me if it is the case.

In reply to a post by ian72:

Really? Are you saying that people like Amazon/Microsoft/Apple/etc have separate subsidiaries in every country that they operate in?

In terms of Amazon UK, the registered trading company is in Luxembourg. I think the EU makes the location of the registered company somewhat irrelevant if both the customer location and registered address are within the EU.

If Scotland goes independent and does not immediately join the EU, it makes it more likely that companies will have to register new company addresses within Scotland.

If Scotland goes independent what rights does England have to remain within the EU?

Surely they must also apply to become a member.

England will remain part of the United Kingdom, which is the member of the European Union. Were England to leave the United Kingdom, then yes, it would have to re-apply in the same way.

The question is whether the United Kingdom exists as an entity that retains EU membership. The argument is that if the United Kingdom retains membership after the entity changes so significantly then Scotland should automatically get membership as well (as Scotland is as much a part of the ex UK as the rest of the entities that currently make up the UK).

I think some people should read up on what the United Kingdom is.

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

I think some people should read up on what the United Kingdom is.

Are you suggesting I need to?

I believe the United Kingdom is a country made up of Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Island. It is a political entity made by the joining of these 4. Before 1707 the UK did not exist and came into existance as a joining of England and Scotland. Therefore if half the founding parties of the union were to leave then does the union still exist.

Feel free to correct me if you believe I am incorrect.

Edited by ian72 (Wed 18-Jun-14 08:44:51)

You're incorrect. It is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. You may look it up here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom

In reply to a post by ian72:

The argument is that if the United Kingdom retains membership after the entity changes so significantly then Scotland should automatically get membership as well (as Scotland is as much a part of the ex UK as the rest of the entities that currently make up the UK).

Even if Scotland leaves the UK, the capital city of the UK remains the same, the currency remains the same, the parliament remains the same, the prime minister remains the same, etc.

I remain unconvinced by your argument, unless you can point to anything the EU has said on the issue.

I didn't say it was my argument or that I felt the argument had merit. I stated what the argument that I had seen was. Some people are arguing that Scotland have as much right to retain EU membership as the United Kingdom would after the break up.

Only the EU/courts can decide whether this is the case.

I am unclear as to where I was incorrect? That article seems to support what I said? Do you fancy expanding on what parts of my statement were factually wrong?

In reply to a post by ian72:

I didn't say it was my argument or that I felt the argument had merit.

Fair enough. There are two Ians on this thread and I think my comments were better directed to the prior.

That makes sense. Looking back I can see how your question relates to IanBB's post...

In reply to a post by BatBoy:

It is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

You are correct!

However, GB is a geographic concept of an Island (9th largest in the World), hence the reason that NI is not part of GB.

If Scotland wishes to separate itself from the existing Political definition of the UK, then that definition will have to change - for the simple reason that Scotland will still be part of the geographical concept of the Island of GB.