3 ms·

This is not how the article approached technologically sovereign at all, as is this is just a strawman argument. No one proposed that sovereignty is about produ

This is not how the article approached technologically sovereign at all, as is this is just a strawman argument. No one proposed that sovereignty is about producing everything from scratch yourself. Here's the actual excerpt: > One question countries have to ask themselves if whether they have all the critical technologies needed to run a country and its economy. > “The answer for Britain” is “absolutely no, there is no chance in hell that Britain could ever become technologically sovereign,” he said.

shubb 4y ago
Do you mind explaining more clearly the difference between your understanding of what the article means, and what the GP wrote? They seem pretty similar?
- registeredcorn 4y ago
  I'm in the same boat as you. I'm not sure exactly what, "whether they have all the critical technologies needed to run a country and its economy", means. When I think "critical technologies" I think of a lot of what SilverBirch was bringing up. When I think of, critical technologies [...] to run a country and its economy, I think of things like: EMS, traffic lights, the stock market, electricity, etc. Similarly, saying something like "economy" could either mean, "businesses specific to Britain", or, "the 'economic climate' of Britain, which is influenced by a global market". Example: Can a technology firm start up in Britain? Absolutely. They might even do well, depending on how they're run. Can a technology firm start up in Britain and immediately sustain the current economy that British Citizens are currently accustomed to? That's a bit of a taller order. It's hard to get a feel for exactly what is meant by how the statement was worded. Any country can compete, but without the global resources provided by businesses that exist across the world, any local-only upstart is going to struggle to be competitive in any part of any market.
  - bobthepanda 4y ago
    Yeah, even something “simple” like a replacement of Visa or Mastercard is quite complicated.
    - 411111111111111 4y ago
      That's not how these two credit card networks work. You have card issuers and acquirers, both of these can be local, so it's not a big issue if you're cut off from the world. It's more like a web of trust peer-to-peer protocol, so if a foreign entity removes you from the web of trust, you'll still be able to have transactions with anyone that still considers you trustworthy. That's probably the only reason why visa/Mastercard is so broadly accepted. Amex is run differently, and it's rarely accepted outside of the USA for example
    - sdnas211 4y ago
      It isn't simple because Mastercard literally runs the interbank payment network for the UK.
      - bobthepanda 4y ago
        Which is why simple is in quotes. “Simple”, as in everyone takes it for granted
  - ethbr0 4y ago
    I think you're reasoning about it from the wrong end. The implied precursor I took from the article was that another nation suddenly decides to remove access to a critical technology, via coercing or ordering the company supplying that technology. "Technological sovereignty," in the context of the article and quotes, would mean a country has the means to continue without that access. This doesn't mean creating a commercially-viable, world-leading industry (there can only be so many of those!), but does mean having a plan and emergency suppliers who can make functional substitutes. As an example, the US's strategic petroleum reserve made it sovereign in the matter of energy (effectively, and pre-recent production increases). Which is also a good example because it didn't mean 1:1 replacement of 100% of supply volume, but rather replacing enough so that alternate suppliers can be switched to and restricting access lost its power. But that was my read. Ymmv.
    - registeredcorn 4y ago
      Ah, that makes sense. Thanks for that! I was coming at it from a, "Let's isolate ourselves!" type thing.
radicalbyte 4y ago
Why would anyone expect that from a small country? If it was part of the EU - yeah you should expect the EU to be technically sovereign. But not a small island who decided to leave (so they could make bankers richer and the poor poorer).
denton-scratch 4y ago
I hit a paywall. http://archive.today/U6BUV http://archive.today/U6BUV > [...] whether they have all the critical technologies needed to run a country and its economy. That's what he seems to mean by "technologically sovereign": apparently, it comes down to being able to build computers from sand and copper ore. Well, if you define "sovereign" that way, then of course the UK can never be sovereign. Napoleon called us a nation of shopkeepers; we've been dependent on trade for 400 years. Maybe he's just having a go at the new Tory leadership, which has some odd notions about being completely independent of any one else on principle. But if that's it, it doesn't come across in the article.
darkteflon 4y ago
I get your point, but the word “sovereign” carries very particular implications that make it a poor choice by the interviewee in this context. I think it’s uncharitable to characterise GP’s argument as a strawman.

shubb 4y ago

Do you mind explaining more clearly the difference between your understanding of what the article means, and what the GP wrote? They seem pretty similar?

registeredcorn 4y ago
I'm in the same boat as you. I'm not sure exactly what, "whether they have all the critical technologies needed to run a country and its economy", means. When I think "critical technologies" I think of a lot of what SilverBirch was bringing up. When I think of, critical technologies [...] to run a country and its economy, I think of things like: EMS, traffic lights, the stock market, electricity, etc. Similarly, saying something like "economy" could either mean, "businesses specific to Britain", or, "the 'economic climate' of Britain, which is influenced by a global market". Example: Can a technology firm start up in Britain? Absolutely. They might even do well, depending on how they're run. Can a technology firm start up in Britain and immediately sustain the current economy that British Citizens are currently accustomed to? That's a bit of a taller order. It's hard to get a feel for exactly what is meant by how the statement was worded. Any country can compete, but without the global resources provided by businesses that exist across the world, any local-only upstart is going to struggle to be competitive in any part of any market.
- bobthepanda 4y ago
  Yeah, even something “simple” like a replacement of Visa or Mastercard is quite complicated.
  - 411111111111111 4y ago
    That's not how these two credit card networks work. You have card issuers and acquirers, both of these can be local, so it's not a big issue if you're cut off from the world. It's more like a web of trust peer-to-peer protocol, so if a foreign entity removes you from the web of trust, you'll still be able to have transactions with anyone that still considers you trustworthy. That's probably the only reason why visa/Mastercard is so broadly accepted. Amex is run differently, and it's rarely accepted outside of the USA for example
  - sdnas211 4y ago
    It isn't simple because Mastercard literally runs the interbank payment network for the UK.
    - bobthepanda 4y ago
      Which is why simple is in quotes. “Simple”, as in everyone takes it for granted
- ethbr0 4y ago
  I think you're reasoning about it from the wrong end. The implied precursor I took from the article was that another nation suddenly decides to remove access to a critical technology, via coercing or ordering the company supplying that technology. "Technological sovereignty," in the context of the article and quotes, would mean a country has the means to continue without that access. This doesn't mean creating a commercially-viable, world-leading industry (there can only be so many of those!), but does mean having a plan and emergency suppliers who can make functional substitutes. As an example, the US's strategic petroleum reserve made it sovereign in the matter of energy (effectively, and pre-recent production increases). Which is also a good example because it didn't mean 1:1 replacement of 100% of supply volume, but rather replacing enough so that alternate suppliers can be switched to and restricting access lost its power. But that was my read. Ymmv.
  - registeredcorn 4y ago
    Ah, that makes sense. Thanks for that! I was coming at it from a, "Let's isolate ourselves!" type thing.

radicalbyte 4y ago

Why would anyone expect that from a small country? If it was part of the EU - yeah you should expect the EU to be technically sovereign. But not a small island who decided to leave (so they could make bankers richer and the poor poorer).

denton-scratch 4y ago

I hit a paywall. http://archive.today/U6BUV http://archive.today/U6BUV > [...] whether they have all the critical technologies needed to run a country and its economy. That's what he seems to mean by "technologically sovereign": apparently, it comes down to being able to build computers from sand and copper ore. Well, if you define "sovereign" that way, then of course the UK can never be sovereign. Napoleon called us a nation of shopkeepers; we've been dependent on trade for 400 years. Maybe he's just having a go at the new Tory leadership, which has some odd notions about being completely independent of any one else on principle. But if that's it, it doesn't come across in the article.

darkteflon 4y ago

I get your point, but the word “sovereign” carries very particular implications that make it a poor choice by the interviewee in this context. I think it’s uncharitable to characterise GP’s argument as a strawman.