BBC National News: Presentation

Well Mr Sammond, gave a speech seemingly speaking for Scotland, and I was appauled with how anti-english he was, and know no-one would be allowed to talk like that about the Scots in the UK Parliament.

I got my figures from the 2001 census online results, a tad out of date, but the populace would have only increased across the board, so the balance shouldn't be too different.

I know that they don't cover the day to day decisions of these devolved parliaments fully, and have no objections to them being covered, but not instead of, more than, or at the expense of the UK Parliament, and English affairs, as they affect far more people.

Also I ment no offence with my reference to the troubles of Northern Ireland, but when they were once violent and affected the UK as a whole, they are political in nature these days, and are still given importance above events in the Scottish and Welsh devolved powers.

Perhaps if Scotland were covered in the news more thoroughly, you would know that he doesn't hold a majority - and that Independence is a matter of party politics here. Its not a view held by everyone and it certainly isn't dictated by whoever the First Minister is.



Well if you understand and agree that these matter should be aired, why are you fighting against it?

No one, no one said that news relevant to Scotland, Wales and NI should be given instead of English news. I used words like "balance", and I was very careful to. They could stick 6 minutes onto the bulletin and please everyone. Would a 45 minute bulletin be such a hurdle?

The problem is that neither network editors nor you are listening to what is being said. If you didn't dismiss the point quite so readily then you might see that the compromise asked for is minimal, achievable and would be highly satisfactory.

I have an interest in politics, I don't agree with devolution, unless the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish, pay for their own services, have their own taxes and have their own votes independent of the UK, or they just unite around the UK Government proper and we go back to one united government.

Its unfair that the English, Welsh and Northern Irish, pay money to the scots for their free universities and their free prescriptions, as a point of Principle. Subsidising others happens too much in the UK, Londoners subsidise the Northern England regions, as well as the Nations, and England subsidise the smaller nations.

But this is not a political thread, and I am going off topic. I think that the License Fee should not be moved from the single figure we all pay. I think that there should be fixed amounts which are put to the regional services, but each person pays the same amount for their local services, but because of the spread of populations, the regions would get differing amounts of funding, which means funding is much fairer, and the regional/nations can provide a service that is comparable to the amount of people they need to serve.

Get your facts right. The Welsh get free prescriptions. The Scots do not at present (though Salmond does wish to push that through)

Indeed - and worth noting that this is not a political issue per se.

The BBC is there to serve the UK in its current state. If the UK is made up of devolved parliaments then they have a duty to reflect that.

So, you're saying it's OK to take the same money off everyone and then not offer them the same level of service?

The BBC is a public service broadcaster and only exists by virtue of the income from a statutory tax. They should provide the same level of service to someone in an isolated cottage in Stromness or St Erth as they do to a licence-payer in a crowded block of flats in Stepney.

I have been very clear, I am not fighting against covering devolved government news, but all this talk of balance, can't be tilted so each nation gets an equal amount of time per bulletin, the "balance" should be based on the population of people affected. There have been a number of people who have asked for a Scotland Six, or for preference for their own area, which I think is several steps too far.

At a very basic level, the percentage of the bulletin for each nation, should be the percentage of the population compared to the rest of the UK as a whole.

The current BBC Report is saying 80% of the audience is from England, so 20% should be left to the devolved administrations. But you can be sure, that people will kick up a stink about that.

Then how do you propose they have a fair system, where I in London, am not paying for some small village to get a large studio and extra cameras. With my suggestion, people pay the same amount for their own local services, even if it means smaller regions get smaller services.

Err.. did I ask for equal time in every bulletin? You're putting words in my mouth again . Please refrain from doing that. "Balance" does not mean "equal". I am taking into account population into my view of what "balance" is, and currently we don't even receive the "20%" of airtime you pointed out from the report.

If there is a story regarding, say, prescription charges which affects all of Wales or Scotland, I don't think its ureasonable to run that in the Six O'Clock News.

A similar story affecting England will of course run - and when it is it should be made clear that the story relates to England.

Some days there won't be a story to tell from the Welsh Assembly or the Scottish Parliament. No one is asking for time-fillers. I'm not asking for a Scottish Six, just a reasonable balance in existing bulletin, and more clarity on the reporting of devolved matters.

How much more reasonable can I be?

But that's not the crux of what you've argued.

Whatever your comments about Scotland, Wales and NI, you have argured that because 20% of the ENGLISH population lives in London, the rest should be virtually ignored despite contributing 80% of the ENGLISH licence revenue.

As for subsidising the Northern English regions, you will find that the London Assembly's subsidy from central government is grossly disproportionate to it's population when compared to the other English regions.

No that's not what I said, the national news should give preference to England, not London. Also on the money side, I think its fair that an equal amount is taken from everyone's license fee, and put into their local services. Yes this would mean larger regions getting more money and more resources, but that is a fair way of allocating money, instead of the status quo. It may seem fair for some but it is not a truly fair and representative way of funding local news, it would be the same as London or Manchester, paying money for services in Newcastle or Birmingham, or Clacton etc. Local people, paying for local news, makes sense to me...

Why? Shouldn't stories be delivered because of importance, not relevance to people who don't care? If Scotland burst into flame, and on the same day, Gordon Brown exposed a love affain with David Cameron, I would expect the Scotland story to take precedence - because it is more important. I don't care where my money goes - as long as it makes good TV. If it helps fund a story for cake making in Berwick, as long as it's good for Berwick, I'm OK.