Thread by @swardley

X : Thoughts on digital sovereignty?
Me : Blah, blah, blah.
X : Eh?
Me : Most people talk a lot of nonsense when it comes to digital sovereignty. One of my least favourite topics filled with hand waving political consultants pretending to be generals - swardley.medium.com/digital-sovere…

... it's up there with the old "let's create an industrial policy without any understanding of the landscape" wheeze ... endless hand waving and posturing by people who haven't got a clue and shouldn't be allowed to run a booze up in a brewery (see Vince Cable).

X : You don't like Vince Cable?
Me : I struggle to think of a minister who was more useless. In an era of titans like Francis Maude then Cable was out of his depth and it showed.

X : What about Cameron?
Me : There were some mistakes, some parts (e.g. the dogma of austerity) were plain wrong but he also enabled huge amounts of change. Alas he will be remembered for the referendum. It's easy to pick on Cameron but he was a decent leader.

X : What about those who suffered under austerity?
Me : As I said, the dogma was plainly wrong but that's a wider issue with that party and society in general. As a collective, there is a need for that "we" vs "me" discussion.

X : Do you see any signs of us having that "we" vs "me" discussion?
Me : No. I suspect we missed that opportunity when Corbyn failed. Instead, we have lots of platitudes and hand waving on issues like digital sovereignty and industrial policy. Good gig for management consultants.

X : Not very positive for the future?
Me : Quite the opposite. I see possibilities. The existing crop of leaders will be replaced. I see opportunity with Matt Hancock and Lisa Nandy as respective leaders of their parties.

X : Not sure I understand your issue with digital sovereignty?
Me : Digital sovereignty is just like physical sovereignty. The difference is people are trying to protect borders without looking at a map to see where their borders are. Instead of maps they use blah,blah and blah.

The topic is worthy of more than just a tweet stream - so I finally got around to writing something on it - swardley.medium.com/digital-sovere…

... in the abscence of maps, the subject of digital sovereignty is ruled by storytellers which means it's used as a dog whistle for any old dogma that a persuasive story teller wants to force on a nation. See also "industrial policy" which is also another mostly clueless area.

Your question should be "why does it matter" ... well, it didn't used to. Alas, China plays a more strategic game and shows signs of high levels of contextual play. In such an environment, the usual game of story tellers pushing dogma just doesn't cut it. We are being outplayed.

i.e. we need to build our own cloud or we need to protect data etc etc ... are usually stories pushed by vendors with their own self interests. We should be asking "where" do we need to protect, "where" are the borders for our collective, our values ... but that needs a map.

X : Nations should build their own clouds?
Me : It's not a good idea to start building fortifications to protect borders without first looking at the map to see where the borders are. It's like saying "for Sovereignty we need to build a 100 foot wall through Sheffield" ...

... the standard of the conversation in digital sovereignty is woeful, it's mostly political consultants playing at being generals with no maps and a desire to push a set of beliefs onto a landscape they don't understand. No good will come of it.

X : Industrial policy?
Me : What it lacks in situational awareness, it makes up for in an abundance of good stories and catchy phrases ... "let's industry 4.0 that moonshot with a bit of citizen democracy".

Wake me up when the nightmare is over.