Alex Salmond outlines life after BBC if Scots go independent

It's not too literal. Independence is independence. The currency example you've brought up is probably the very best example of what I'm talking about. If a separated Scotland were to keep the pound (and it's a huge assumption to believe it wouldn't be forced to join ERMII and eventually the Euro), it would have to accept the remainder of the UK having the sole policy making. It's all very good the SNP saying "England doesn't own sterling" and similar jingoistic soundbites but it doesn't change the reality. They are right in one way though; England doesn't own sterling, the UK does and if Scotland divorces from the UK it divorces from sterling too. I see no reason whatsover why the remainder of the UK would want to go out of its way to accomodate an independent and extra-territorial Scotland on this any more than any other foreign country; especially when it involves setting up a 'currency union' in the style of the Euro - and we can all see how well that's panning out.

At the end of the day, if they leave the UK, they leave UK institutions. It's all part of the package. What Scots will need to decide is whether any of the percieved pros (UN seat, own Eurovision entry or whatever) outweigh the cons. Personally, I'm not convinced it is but we'll see what the majority think in two years time.

The independence of Scotland would simply be the end of the Union of England & Scotland. The unravelling of the connective services would take years - it wouldn't happen overnight, if at all.

The BBC would probably be well down the list of important considerations.

You seem a bit dismissive of the practicality of it all. The BBC would go as it could not possibly stay together. It would be impractical. I would imagine that broadcasting would actually be one of those things that would be sorted before the official independence day but even if it wasn't, the TV schedules may very well not just change suddenly, but the constitutional status of the BBC would change instantly regardless. It would suddenly be a foreign company that the new state had no control over, despite Scotland now having responsibility for its own broadcasting. Same with the currency. Again, even if no arrangements were to be made to replace the currency to coincide with the first day of independence, Scotland would still lose its influence on sterling and it would become a foreign currency that Scotland was using unilaterally in an instant.

So what about Pacific Quay? Who would technically own the facility there?

Isn't PQ a Peel Holdings job, so presumably a new organisation could conceivably take over the lease?

Reading the Guardian article again I can't help thinking Salmond's idea of it being "built on the assets and staff of BBC Scotland" is unrealistic. I imagine that quite a few of the assets actually belong to other departments/subsidiaries such as BBC Studios and Post Production rather than BBC Scotland.

Potentially if BBC (Scotland) was replaced with 'SBC' it would be Scotland who would loose out and it might actually benefit the rest of the UK. Scotland makes up only 9% of UK households, which would see BBC loose up to £340m out of £3.5bn it currently receives via the licence fee. Presumably if replaced with 'SBC' it would definitely see the closing of BBC Alba, BBC Radio Scotland, and BBC Radio Nan Gaidheal. The amount this would save isn't clear though as they come under 'other' on a previous MediaGuardian article about how the licence was spent.

If Salmond wanted "popular BBC shows" to still be available via the SBC it would presumably require them to pay BBC Worldwide for the rights to broadcast those programmes. This would mean that the BBC would be receiving some of the lost licence fee money via BBC Worldwide to help fund the programmes.

It all sounds rather like a headline grabbing sound-byte which hasn't actually been thought through properly (if at all).

*snort* shurley not?

I'd hazard a guess that providing the Scottish language services and having an arbitrary base up there outweights the income from Scottish licence payers. It would probably be a blessing in disguise if the BBC no longer had to make programmes in Scotland to appease <9% of the UK population.

I'm with Mr Kite on this one. Independence should mean independence. Scots can't pick and choose which bits of the UK they want/don't want. It should be all or nothing. I've absolutely nothing against Scotland or Scots (in fact, my surname is Scottish so clearly I have my origins there) but from this side of the border, it seems all the SNP does is bleat on about how great Scotland is and how inferior England and the rest of the UK is. I hope to God that Scots are provided with a very in-depth analysis of the ramifications of total independence, as I think it would be absolute lunacy to cut ties with the UK. The world is rapidly becoming several big powerful blocs and at the same time Scotland thinks it can go it alone. It would end up with even less influence than it does now through the UK.

Anyway, politics aside, I really do think if Scotland wants independence then that should mean forfeiting the BBC's domestic output. Scots wouldn't be contributing financially to the BBC any more, so all it should be entitled to is international services like BBC World News, the BBC World Service and programmes distributed through BBC Worldwide. And as has been pointed out, such a scenario could potentially be better for the BBC than having Scotland as part of the UK.

Out of all this talk something seems to been forgotten about.....

BBC Alba

What would happen to that?

Presumably it would become SBC Alba (that would be Scottish Broadcasting Corporation Scotland), and hold the same relation to SBC to what it does within BBC Scotland. Remember it's joint venture and not a true part of the BBC.

With the greatest of respect, you're not exactly getting a clear picture of what the SNP stand for or what they have delivered since gaining office.

Moreover, they were voted with a solid and clear majority in the last election - certainly more than can be said for the coalition - so flicking them away with disdain reads as dismissive to those Scots who voted for them.

I'm sure that's not your intention.

The debate which faces Scotland is more complicated than the "all or nothing" that you've (arbitrarily) decided it should be. And its not going to be decided on this forum - and so far I've not even read a meaningful piece of speculation.

As we're not allowed to discuss gaffer tape in the context of the Sky News studio, could I ask for a ban on discussion of the politics of the Scottish referendum?