Alex Salmond outlines life after BBC if Scots go independent

Ah, a good point. I wonder how long it'd take this hypothetical Scottish broadcaster to get to that sort of level where RTE is now. Suppose it depends on what sharing/licensing of resources/technology they could have with the BBC. And cost for stuff like this hypothetical broadcaster to get a website, sort out catch up etc and more. Build the team to deal with advertisements, because those aren't in the BBC right now - heck - setting up a regulator, would that need to be done? And which people'd stay at the SBC and not move elsewhere to the BBC (if they could afford it with 8% less license fee income - but possibly more BBC Worldwide income by selling stuff to this SBC at commercial rates)

Not to say it's impossible but those are just some things that pop to mind when I'm thinking about what would need to be done.

Another article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/aug/25/alex-salmond-bbc-harriet-harman?CMP=twt_fd

It's all very well too saying it could be funded by a hybrid of licence fee and advertising - but I doubt viewers would be happy at all to be paying around the same (or more) as what they paid for the BBC and then have to endure advertising too. An "SBC" taking advertising would also harm STV and other commercial broadcasters too.

they would also need a worldwide newsgathering operation. That doesn't come cheap...

Anybody get the feeling this is just a rouse to get the Scottish Six back on the agenda as a better idea than the BBC pulling out of Scotland?

The scenario of a separate 'SBC' is interesting. Although I have long welcomed constitutional separation and the abolition of feudal rights to tax revenue, I suspect that they would have to grovel to the rest of the C3 license-olders for anything resembling ITV1

Is there anything in the rule book that say BBC can not carry on as before? if independents does happen? BBC already series 4 countries. It would need to make some changes,

What rule book are you talking about?

The BBC operates according to what's set out in government charter. How could a government of the United Kingdom, set out what the national broadcaster of an independent Scotland is to do?

But that doesn't happen in Ireland though, does it?

The Scottish broadcaster would have trouble trying to dictate what the BBC does in it's patch.
The Irish people don't seem to mind, I still don't think RTE shows that many ads compared to ITV or Channel 4 though. That said it's all they've been used to. I'd say one of justifications for licence fee for many of the British people would be, they get some decent TV and radio which is ad free.

It doesn't.
It broadcasts to one country (the United Kingdom) plus the crown dependencies of the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands (by agreement with Tynwald and the bailiwicks, which impose the same licence fee as the UK), although it is also viewed in other countries, such as the Republic of Ireland, the Netherlands etc.

If Scotland became independent (ie a different country) and had different laws (yes, I know many are different now) it would almost certainly soon have different broadcasting laws.

That could mean the end of all current trans-UK broadcasters (BBC, Independent Television, Channel 4, 5 etc) broadcasting in Scotland and other things filling their space.

It would also have different regulators.

However, a small country of five million people would not generate enough money to fill the schedules, so the chances are that its schedules would be dominated by "English" television programmes, just as Canada's are dominated by US tv.

The channels they were broadcast on would depend on the shape of television as it developed in Scotland. No doubt it would evolve but radical change would come sooner or later.

I could imagine that at first there could be a deal that kept the BBC in tact (with the Scots demanding 10 per cent or so of BBC money being spent in Scotland).

However, the "national" BBC news would be dropped in Scotland because there would be two "nations". It would not be dissimilar to the news on BBC Radio Scotland, which mixes Scots, UK and international news.

Something similar would have to happen for STV and Channel 4.

Scots already moan that the "national" news is too London-centric. Imagine how annoyed they'd be if they watched news dominated by the politics of a foreign country (as the rest of the UK would become), English cricket results etc.

No, but the BBC services on Sky's EPG occupy different positions, 168/169 ISTR, and the full range is not available, though there's nothing to stop the savvy tuning into them manually of course.

Irish Republic coverage for BBC services is to a degree by special arrangement, due the legacy of them being available on RoI cable systems legitimately.

If an SBC wanted to establish itself, it would have to attract people away from the BBC, so quite possibly it would ask Sky, Virgin, and Freesat to remove BBC services from their EPGs. Indeed would a Scottish 'Ofcom' even allow Sky and Virgin to operate in Scotland ?

The nearest precident we have for this, is when RTE launched, there were already some TV sets in the Republic receiving BBC and ITV services. Of course today, to all intents and purposes EVERY home in Scotland is receiving the Beeb.

I don't understand the proposal. Is he suggesting that this SBC would replace the BBC or supplement it ?

On the one hand he's suggesting the break-up of the BBC with the seizing of BBC Scotland broadcasting assets and the next saying you'll still have Eastenders & Top Gear ? How ?

Would an independent Scotland also see the ripping up of the Channel 3 licence agreement ? Presumably to no longer include a Scottish licence. Would this see an end to STV's affiliate status to ITV1, and pave the way for an ITV1 launch in Scotland ?

But if Scotland becomes Independent we WOULD STILL Be Crown Dependent..... We would end up like Isle of man.

If Alex was smart he would just leave the BBC as it is, but put in some certain demands, such as Scottish six, and few more scottish shows. we don't need alot more.

No you wouldn't! Scotland would have the same constitutional status in relation to the UK as Australia and Canada have today i.e. independent countries with HMQ as head of state but most definitely an independent country separate from the United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Wrong, I'm afraid.

The SNP says it wants Scotland to be independent, not a crown dependency of the UK.
The ultimate sovereignty of the crown dependencies rests with the UK (which means, if it really wanted to, Westminster could make impose laws on the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, although it hasn't done that for many years).

External relations of the crown dependencies lies is the responsibility of the UK.
So if a Manxman or a Channel Islander needs embassy help, for example, the UK would provide it.
Nationality issues lie with the UK.

The SNP wants sovereignty to lie with Scotland. It wants its own external relations, embassies etc. It wants Holyrood to have the ultimate power. The SNP would not want Scotland to be potentially overruled by Westminster.