Alex Salmond outlines life after BBC if Scots go independent

http://i207.photobucket.com/albums/bb263/slimkid_buckeye/animations/orson-wells-clapping.gif

But of course...anyone is free to come and discuss the finer points of Scottish independence over on Metropol.

I guess they could launch a "BBC Scotland" in the same way they have BBC America, BBC Canada etc. - without the PSB commitments, though the BBC being the BBC means they probably couldn't strike a deal where the BBC automatically sells shows to "BBC Scotland".

Advertising revenue would be limited to <9% of current levels. I think independence would severely restrict any BBC channel exclusively for Scotland being anything more than just a secondary digital channel showing reruns; much like Dave.

It is far more likely that BBC Worldwide will look to introduce BBC Entertainment, BBC Knowledge and BBC World News.

Sorry, Gavin, I didn't mean to get your back up. Nobody outside of Scotland without access to your own media will have a clear and full understanding of all the issues facing Scotland with regards to independence. But, I stand by my point that independence in this day and age would be lunacy and I really don't care whether that offends SNP voters. Likewise, I disagree with many of the Coalition's policies and I'm not bothered if that offends their voters too. Politics is not about voters' sensibilities. The SNP may well have been supported by a clear majority, but I can't honestly think of a benefit of Scottish independence.

As for the BBC, I stand by my point on that too. You say my 'all or nothing' approach is merely an 'arbitrary' decision... well what do you mean by the term 'independence'? Shall I take it that you don't want anything to do with the UK... oh, except for the BBC. Oh yes, and the currency... Where do you draw the line? Again, I'm sorry if this offends you, Gavin, but independence should mean independence. And that includes the BBC. Why should Scotland get total access to all the UK's BBC services without contributing a penny towards it? Would the UK grant such access to Portugal or some other foreign country?

And your request for a ban on the discussion of politics makes no sense. How do you envisage we discuss the future of Scottish broadcasting without actually straying into politics? It's all inter-connected.

Many of the desirable aspects of "independence" could be delivered with increased devolution. Whether that is offered or not as a second question still has to be decided - and that will come after debate and discussion.

So there is another option which is not "all or nothing". If you lived north of the border you'd probably be aware of that - but as you rightly say, very little detail makes it to the network short of soundbites and (usually negative) commentary.

Its hardly likely that any political comments therefore will have come from a clear understanding of the matters at hand, and on those terms its pretty difficult to stomach, as it happens.

You either want independence or you don't though. Increased devolution is not independence. This thread talks about what happens "if Scots go independent". If that happens, then bye bye domestic BBC. I cannot see any way around that which would be practical/politically possible.

You're really being quite patronising, Gavin. I may well not live in Scotland (and as such have no direct experience of the SNP or what it's like to be a Scot) but I am aware of the 'devolution plus' option. But, AIUI, that would be a compromise if Scotland rejects independence. Like Mr Kite says, it can't be semi-independence. That's just more devolution. If Scotland votes for independence, then that really should mean total separation in all forms. Other than geographically, should Scots choose independence, Scotland should be no more connected to the UK than Italy, France or any other country you can think of. And that means getting the international versions of the BBC and nothing else. I think this would be a political hot potato in the UK, as I really can't see many British people being happy for Scotland to leave the Union but still get TV services they no longer pay for. That just isn't going to happen.

Jesus Christ. If I tactfully put that there's more to the referendum than one question I'm being patronising, yet you and this Kite person are able to tell ME that devolution plus/max isn't independence, its "just more devolution".

Who's patronising who?

We don't know if the referendum will contain one question or two. We don't know, so you certainly don't know.

If there's a second option for more devolution, some people who have an inside ear in the realm of Scottish politics suggest that there may be greater agreement within the SNP to that than is commonly held. Certainly greater devolution is what many people I know want; and right now its what I want.

If we end up with full independence then the BBC as we know it will end. I'm not arguing that fact. The BBC, however, is merely ONE thing that will end as we know it.

Its not beyond the wit of man to create new broadcasting frameworks and companies and governing bodies for that and everything else.

But the reasons for or against independence or further devolution are really not based on whether we want to see Top Gear or Huw Edwards reading a bulletin, and its laughable to suggest it's a deal-breaker.

It is strongly suspected that if there was a referendum tomorrow the SNP would lose quite dramatically. The reason that they wish to drag it out is two fold, firstly so that they can hope that the Tory govt becomes hideous enough to gather them up a bit more support but also to give a bit more demonstration of how the SNP could operate under "devo-max".

The problem with a lot of the nationalist types is they are all mouth and don't think things through. This cannot be said about the people at the top of the SNP and I suspect that - despite what they may say out loud - they know fine well that most Scots would prefer devo-max to independence. I suspect if they had their own way they could ignore the whole vote for a good few years longer but to keep the nationalist base quiet they need to have the thing to get it over with.

Many people who voted SNP did so for reasons other than independence. Whether that was the vote grabbing removing of bridge tolls or the fact they had became utterly sick of the negative campaigning and smug expectation of Scottish Labour that they'd get into power yet again without any effort.

Believe it or not, there are also a hell of a lot of people up here who vote Tory. Just not enough of them concentrated in the right places to get a large number of MPs / MSPs.


I'd have to agree with Gav on the point that coverage of Holyrood politics south of the border is exceptionally poor and tends to give a very slanted view of things that are far more complex than they initially appear.

I'm this Kite person and yet you're not being patronising? Outright offensive is a better term. Anyway, Scott person, devolution max isn't independence. I can tell you that and I am telling you that. Independence == separate country. That's the near universal definition of it. Greenland has something like devolution max, if not more, yet it isn't an independent country by most definitions, it is still a part of Denmark. The Republic of Ireland is an independent country. Australia is an independent country. Outside of the likes of Kosovo & Transnistria, there's nothing ambigious about it.

I see no way how the BBC could remain Scotland's state broadcaster in the event of a 'yes' vote in the upcoming independence referendum. I don't think it can be done. Would the BBC have two charters? What about licence fee rates? They could easily end up being different in both territories. Where and what quantity of 'British' programmes are made where would cause yet more arguments. And at the end of the day, there has to be one head henchoz at the top of the hierarchy. Who appoints him or her and in which of the two lands does that person base themselves?

There's no example on earth where two separate countries share a state broadcaster and I don't see the BBC making it a first. You, apparently, agree with that at least, so all should be well.

And yet you have beat your drum on the same point AGAIN in the post before your grudging acceptance that I'm not remotely arguing the point.

I expect you don't require a partner to waltz with either, being as you do both parts yourself.

Well don't let me stop you, dear.

You're the one who started with the offensive crap (and are carrying on with it). I'm been putting my point of view across, like I'm allowed to. I've done nothing to deserve your attitude. So yes, please cease.