A proposal to simplify identity across tax, healthcare and driving records became, for many voters here, a question of whether the state could be trusted with a single point of access. No won comfortably, and the highest-respected arguments dwelt less on convenience than on security, competence and what might happen after the system was built.
The leading No case warned that joining records would create “one master identifier across huge areas of life”, making function creep and data breaches harder to contain. Another of the most-respected No voices cut through the grander fears with a less ideological objection: “We are incapable of doing it on time and on budget.”
Yes voters made the case for a more usable state: one contributor pointed to Denmark, where “one number for everything” makes official interactions easier; another argued that “we might as well focus on designing Digital ID for good, not evil.” But those appeals to convenience and design met a No case rooted in distrust of future governments and their ability to limit the system’s use.
The exchange was not simply about whether a shared identifier could streamline administration; it was about whether separate records offer protection or merely preserve needless friction. The room’s most-respected voices answered that question with caution: in this debate, the promise of simplicity could not outrun the fear of concentration.
52 Opinions
We are incapable of doing it on time and on budget
Having any sort of digital ID is dangerous. Firstly it is vulnerable to being hacked for there is no such thing as perfect security. Places that have something similar have seen this. The current Government One login was cracked by cyber experts and nothing was acknowledged by those responsible. Secondly there is the problem of scope creep by governments to control.
If I believed it were purely for convenience, sure! But we all know that this dystopian authoritarian government will use it to stamp out wrong thought! Just look at what they're doing with free speech and 2 tier policing. So, not a chance!
More digital I.D. ??? Christ... Look, the more info the Govt puts together, the more damaging it will be when the data is leaked. And it WILL be leaked to criminals or hostile states because this already happens to even the most tech and security careful, highly competent companies Our clown show govt apparatus hasn't a chance in hell of managing this competently You know it, I know it. The answer has to be NO
How many times does it need saying? NO DIGITAL ID's
This is yet another Globalist WEF/UN/EU Fabian & totalitarian control tool. Never in a million years should we accept this, they will only be happy when we are all chipped & our lives terminated at the touch of a button 😂 I had no objection to the original physical ID which would be your personal property to use when required, that was a good idea.
I think people just don’t like change. This isn’t some groundbreaking untested idea. Other countries already use digital IDs successfully, and they can make things more convenient and more secure.
No. A single digital ID linking NI, NHS and driving records creates one master identifier across huge areas of life. Convenience isn't worth the risks of function creep, surveillance, data breaches or future governments expanding its use. Keep identifiers separate, minimise the ability to link datasets, and don't make access to ordinary life dependent on one state-controlled digital identity.
Our government and outsourced agencies cannot be trusted, especially with our data. Digital ID is a control mechanism. We survived and thrived without before, this is potentially the gateway to social credit system. It is pretty much the reason why all these days centres are being built.
How many times are they going to revisit this digital ID plan, repackaging it in different ways when the end result will be the same. Complete control over our lives from governments that should never be trusted.. A quicker route to the dystopian and authoritarian future we are on course for but nobody has chosen or voted for.