BBC to trial Scottish Six

Because Scotland has its own parliament. Things affecting health, education, pretty much everything apart from foreign affairs that affect England either don't affect Scotland or aren't as relevant.

Although Scotland isn't independent, it may as well be in many respects. Many independent countries have smaller populations but (as you'd expect) have much more dedicated news programming.

Although London has an assembly it isn't devolved anywhere near as much as Scotland is. Maybe it should have more news too. But that's a separate discussion

There's a difference between a local news show that broadcasts things happening in a local area like a city or a town and a national show that looks at things affecting a whole country.

That's why I mentioned Reporting Scotland and whether those issues like health and schools affecting the entire nation really belong there.

A parliament for a non-sovereign nation whose population is half that of London's. Furthermore, coverage of world news and defence and national security matters is solely the responsibility of the BBC News team in New Broadcasting House.

I live in London. The BBC struggles to fill half an hour of London news as it is. Most of the capital's news is amply covered by network news, and the rest of it you could fit in a 15 minute bulletin and have time for a cartoon.

Much of the decisions about Scotland's future are taken nowhere near Westminster, so much of the national news is irrelevant up there. Therefore, bigger requirements.

It's not really the world news that needs huge alteration, although consideration of how it affects Scotland specifically may be of interest. It's more the (unavoidable, as it stands) plague of England and Wales only stories.

And the juxtaposition on Reporting Scotland at times is rather clunky - relatively low-level crime stories mixed in with matters of national significance.

Population isn't the only thing. Scotland may not be sovereign, but in most areas it may as well be. Plus, it's valid to have a Scottish perspective on world events. A "London perspective" wouldn't be as different from what is on the UK national news.

Population has got nothing to do with it. Scotland's population is over 5.3 million and growing, London's over 8 million.

Comparing regions of England with a nation of the UK is unhelpful. The law, education, the NHS are the same in England from north to south. The problem is that the news doesn't cater for the 5.3 million people appropriately as everything from law, to education, to tax is different to England, of which London is part of.

As I've said before on this forum, the BBC is going through a tough time in Scotland and it needs to act if it ever wants to be viewed as a credible source for information again. About half of the population does not trust BBC Scotland to be impartial and neutral in its reporting. This may go some way to help the situation, but I'm reserving judgment on that one.

I don't buy the BBC bias argument one bit. Any time I ask for examples of it it's either one Nick Robinson report or a lot of stuff that's hugely open to interpretation. While individual reports are correctly open to scrutiny, the whole tactic of trying to undermine the BBC seems two years ahead of what Trump's up to in America right now. Both sides are at it though, to a greater or lesser extent.

There is a case for decentralisation of the BBC from having virtually everything coming from London though.

The bias argument isn't just Nick Robinson, that was probably the last straw, though, which resulted in the protests outside PQ.

The main argument appears to be the running order of news stories on the website; no facility to comment on news stories; stories on RS continually being about the government in Scotland; staff affiliations to the Labour Party; the way in which the SNP were interviewed when compared to the unionist parties etc, and the list goes on.

I'm not saying it's necessarily biased, but I can see why people are uncomfortable with the BBC in Scotland, as can, I assume, the BBC itself, although it'll never admit to that.

Regardless of whether or not there is a bias, the BBC will be worried and will try to act to address the issue. As stated earlier, a survey the BBC carried out itself found around half of Scots have lost trust in the organisation. From a simple business point of view, it needs to address this as there is a risk to its financial prospects. More than 2 million people deciding they have a right to withhold their license fee, for example, could be disastrous for an organisation having to already tighten its belt.

Stories on Reporting Scotland being about the government in Scotland? The government in Scotland being challenged on its record? Heaven forfend.

The list goes on? No it doesn't.

Unproven allegations of staff affiliations to the Labour party? Great. Fantastic.

Like I said before, the Yes cause is to be commended on not going down the populist anti-immigration route. But in terms of trying to demonise the media, Alex Salmond was two years ahead of Donald Trump. Thank God Sturgeon's in now, but the damage has already been done.

Hey, don't shoot the messenger!

The point is that the majority of the stories on RS are about the government when there is more happening in the country that gets ignored. STV News seems to be able to balance it well, but as they are a commercial broadcaster, they have to be more balanced.

You may not agree or like the criticism, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and putting your head in the sand isn't going to help.

There's a documentary about BBC Scotland which I watched last night and it basically confirms what I've said, as well as some extra points I wasn't aware of. As a news outlet, its reporting of some of the stories is questionable. The scenes at George Square on the 19th Sept being one.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TXQYuLUAbyw