SM
It's a shame some of the comments that are made here. Rather similar to the arguments against Scotland becoming independent. I'm actually not pro-independence. However, I strongly doubt that Scotland would become bankrupt and it's TV industry would struggle to survive alone. Frankly, it's plain stupid to make comments like that. Ireland DID struggle when it got independence, but it's worth remembering this happened in the 1920s!!!! Times have moved on. Scotland's economy is diverse enough to cope. However, I won't go into that as this is a TV forum. More importantly the TV industry could quite easily cope. Look at the Faroe Islands. (Scotland's northern neighbour) They have a population of around 45,000 (most small Scottish towns have larger populations than that) yet they manage to sustain a VERY successfull state TV station which produces around 30% of homegrown TV. It gets around 80% viewership, despite the country also receiving TV stations from Denmark and some Norwegian TV. I would like Scotland to stay in Britain. However, English people (and some Scots for that matter) warning us that 'you won't survive without us' will only stoke the flames of the pro-independence movement and also encourage broadcasters like BBC Scotland to go back to the old days of fighting for more autonomy. And finally, on a similar note - it's well worth keeping an eye on STV in the coming months. My bet is that by the end of the year we will see it producing MUCH more local programming and network programming. Alan Clements is due to arrive and all staff have been told that the future is now much brighter for them (rather like ITV staff were told when Michael Grade arrived down south)
HR
OK, relating to television, particularly SMG/STV/Grampian (as it should have remained), how can anybody suggest that a company that has cut and rehashed its broadcast operation so often in the past 15 years, survive in a independent Scotland?
You are assuming that Scotland will retain the same amount of population, be able to share the network programmes as part of the overall ITV network and do the seemingly impossible task of increasing revenue whilst accepting a reduced amount of profit.
As for producing more local programming, look back into the annals of time to TWW. A local programming operation, producing Welsh language programmes on a ommercial scale. It foundered within eighteen months and had to be baled out by other companies.
As for comments stoking the fire of independence and 'us English' lording it over the Scottish population, I am of the opinion that we are all equal in a United Kingdom, and that each constituent part contributes significant variety to the whole mix. I do find, since living here, that certain parts of the population do seem to have a problem with national identity, and seem to want to push a Saltire down your throat at every opportunity. I don't see why people have to be so shallow as to be so scared of their identity to do this.
I do believe that the media in general, do seem to push English opinions down people's throats (the Rugby World Cup being a point), but surely it is upto other members of the United Kingdom to band together to stop this.
smgboi posted:
It's a shame some of the comments that are made here. Rather similar to the arguments against Scotland becoming independent. I'm actually not pro-independence. However, I strongly doubt that Scotland would become bankrupt and it's TV industry would struggle to survive alone. Frankly, it's plain stupid to make comments like that. Ireland DID struggle when it got independence, but it's worth remembering this happened in the 1920s!!!! Times have moved on. Scotland's economy is diverse enough to cope. However, I won't go into that as this is a TV forum. More importantly the TV industry could quite easily cope. Look at the Faroe Islands. (Scotland's northern neighbour) They have a population of around 45,000 (most small Scottish towns have larger populations than that) yet they manage to sustain a VERY successfull state TV station which produces around 30% of homegrown TV. It gets around 80% viewership, despite the country also receiving TV stations from Denmark and some Norwegian TV. I would like Scotland to stay in Britain. However, English people (and some Scots for that matter) warning us that 'you won't survive without us' will only stoke the flames of the pro-independence movement and also encourage broadcasters like BBC Scotland to go back to the old days of fighting for more autonomy. And finally, on a similar note - it's well worth keeping an eye on STV in the coming months. My bet is that by the end of the year we will see it producing MUCH more local programming and network programming. Alan Clements is due to arrive and all staff have been told that the future is now much brighter for them (rather like ITV staff were told when Michael Grade arrived down south)
OK, relating to television, particularly SMG/STV/Grampian (as it should have remained), how can anybody suggest that a company that has cut and rehashed its broadcast operation so often in the past 15 years, survive in a independent Scotland?
You are assuming that Scotland will retain the same amount of population, be able to share the network programmes as part of the overall ITV network and do the seemingly impossible task of increasing revenue whilst accepting a reduced amount of profit.
As for producing more local programming, look back into the annals of time to TWW. A local programming operation, producing Welsh language programmes on a ommercial scale. It foundered within eighteen months and had to be baled out by other companies.
As for comments stoking the fire of independence and 'us English' lording it over the Scottish population, I am of the opinion that we are all equal in a United Kingdom, and that each constituent part contributes significant variety to the whole mix. I do find, since living here, that certain parts of the population do seem to have a problem with national identity, and seem to want to push a Saltire down your throat at every opportunity. I don't see why people have to be so shallow as to be so scared of their identity to do this.
I do believe that the media in general, do seem to push English opinions down people's throats (the Rugby World Cup being a point), but surely it is upto other members of the United Kingdom to band together to stop this.
DW
[QUOTE] As for producing more local programming, look back into the annals of time to TWW. A local programming operation, producing Welsh language programmes on a ommercial scale. It foundered within eighteen months and had to be baled out by other companies.
Just a quick note of clarification re. the above. The company which actually failed was WWN (Wales Television West and North) also known by the more familiar name Teledu Cymru. It was given the licence to serve West and North Wales (as you may have guessed by the name!) and started broadcasting in 1962. It had techinal problems from the word go, because one of the major transmitters serving North West Wales wasn't ready in time for the station's on air date, so it started with a much smaller potential audience than it had anticipated. It also faced tough rules on the number of locally-produced programmes (as you mention a number of which were in Welsh) and all of this while trying to be a commercial company serving a mainly rural area. (Remember South Wales with its' major centres of population received TWW). In the end Teledu Cymru was given programmes for free by TWW and other neighbouring stations, but it couldn't continue, and folded in 1964. The licence was taken by TWW - although I think I'm right in saying that the Teledu Cymru name was still used on screen along with TWW. I think I'm also right in saying that Teledu Cymru has the dubious distinction of being the only ITV company ever to go bankrupt (although TV-AM came pretty close in the early days of course!!)
Hope the above is of some interest - feel free to correct anything.
Mind you, what all that has to do with Scottish independence is another matter......
Just a quick note of clarification re. the above. The company which actually failed was WWN (Wales Television West and North) also known by the more familiar name Teledu Cymru. It was given the licence to serve West and North Wales (as you may have guessed by the name!) and started broadcasting in 1962. It had techinal problems from the word go, because one of the major transmitters serving North West Wales wasn't ready in time for the station's on air date, so it started with a much smaller potential audience than it had anticipated. It also faced tough rules on the number of locally-produced programmes (as you mention a number of which were in Welsh) and all of this while trying to be a commercial company serving a mainly rural area. (Remember South Wales with its' major centres of population received TWW). In the end Teledu Cymru was given programmes for free by TWW and other neighbouring stations, but it couldn't continue, and folded in 1964. The licence was taken by TWW - although I think I'm right in saying that the Teledu Cymru name was still used on screen along with TWW. I think I'm also right in saying that Teledu Cymru has the dubious distinction of being the only ITV company ever to go bankrupt (although TV-AM came pretty close in the early days of course!!)
Hope the above is of some interest - feel free to correct anything.
Mind you, what all that has to do with Scottish independence is another matter......
HR
[quote="DaveWales"]
Sorry Dave, you are correct, but was not TC taken over by TWW? The memory plays tricks you know!
Quote:
As for producing more local programming, look back into the annals of time to TWW. A local programming operation, producing Welsh language programmes on a ommercial scale. It foundered within eighteen months and had to be baled out by other companies.
Just a quick note of clarification re. the above. The company which actually failed was WWN (Wales Television West and North) also known by the more familiar name Teledu Cymru. It was given the licence to serve West and North Wales (as you may have guessed by the name!) and started broadcasting in 1962. It had techinal problems from the word go, because one of the major transmitters serving North West Wales wasn't ready in time for the station's on air date, so it started with a much smaller potential audience than it had anticipated. It also faced tough rules on the number of locally-produced programmes (as you mention a number of which were in Welsh) and all of this while trying to be a commercial company serving a mainly rural area. (Remember South Wales with its' major centres of population received TWW). In the end Teledu Cymru was given programmes for free by TWW and other neighbouring stations, but it couldn't continue, and folded in 1964. The licence was taken by TWW - although I think I'm right in saying that the Teledu Cymru name was still used on screen along with TWW. I think I'm also right in saying that Teledu Cymru has the dubious distinction of being the only ITV company ever to go bankrupt (although TV-AM came pretty close in the early days of course!!)
Hope the above is of some interest - feel free to correct anything.
Mind you, what all that has to do with Scottish independence is another matter......
Just a quick note of clarification re. the above. The company which actually failed was WWN (Wales Television West and North) also known by the more familiar name Teledu Cymru. It was given the licence to serve West and North Wales (as you may have guessed by the name!) and started broadcasting in 1962. It had techinal problems from the word go, because one of the major transmitters serving North West Wales wasn't ready in time for the station's on air date, so it started with a much smaller potential audience than it had anticipated. It also faced tough rules on the number of locally-produced programmes (as you mention a number of which were in Welsh) and all of this while trying to be a commercial company serving a mainly rural area. (Remember South Wales with its' major centres of population received TWW). In the end Teledu Cymru was given programmes for free by TWW and other neighbouring stations, but it couldn't continue, and folded in 1964. The licence was taken by TWW - although I think I'm right in saying that the Teledu Cymru name was still used on screen along with TWW. I think I'm also right in saying that Teledu Cymru has the dubious distinction of being the only ITV company ever to go bankrupt (although TV-AM came pretty close in the early days of course!!)
Hope the above is of some interest - feel free to correct anything.
Mind you, what all that has to do with Scottish independence is another matter......
Sorry Dave, you are correct, but was not TC taken over by TWW? The memory plays tricks you know!
RM
That's like saying that the US isn't independent, because they are in the UN and NATO. To me, the only power the EU has is through ecenomics, and the governmental aspect is just barely more powerful than the UN in the respect to mandates and treaties.
I think you have been misinformed about the EU
! The USA isn't answerable to the UN and NATO in every aspect of domestic political life is it? Its farming and fishing policies aren't set by the UN. Americans don't have 75% of their laws made by the UN. The Americans don't have their rail companies broken up by the UN, or their postal service ditacted to by the UN. Nor is the UN asking for a global army or UN visas, a NATO constitution or NATO passports. Nor does the UN decide what
adverts are shown on TV
The EU (or EEC is it was) only had economic power until in 1992, then the member states signed up to the Maastricht Treaty; that is when the EU came into being, and turned into a de facto superstate. The EU constitution has far more political power than any UN treaty that the USA or the UK has signed up for. The UN also doesn't take £12 billion of UK taxpayers' money each year.
seamus21514 posted:
Roger Mellie posted:
Good point about the EU.
The SNP is hypocritcal on this point. They want to leave the UK to become an independent nation-- yet the SNP want Scotland to remain part of the EU! How exactly will Scotland be independent if it is part of the EU?
SNP claims Westminister lords it over the UK, it takes Scotland's money with little in return and Westminister is undemocratic. The EU is far worse than Westminster than all those counts!! After all-- how is the fishing industry in Scotland these days Mr Salmond?
The ironic thing is that 75% of legislation that passes through Westminister is from the EU anyway
The SNP is hypocritcal on this point. They want to leave the UK to become an independent nation-- yet the SNP want Scotland to remain part of the EU! How exactly will Scotland be independent if it is part of the EU?
SNP claims Westminister lords it over the UK, it takes Scotland's money with little in return and Westminister is undemocratic. The EU is far worse than Westminster than all those counts!! After all-- how is the fishing industry in Scotland these days Mr Salmond?
The ironic thing is that 75% of legislation that passes through Westminister is from the EU anyway
That's like saying that the US isn't independent, because they are in the UN and NATO. To me, the only power the EU has is through ecenomics, and the governmental aspect is just barely more powerful than the UN in the respect to mandates and treaties.
I think you have been misinformed about the EU
! The USA isn't answerable to the UN and NATO in every aspect of domestic political life is it? Its farming and fishing policies aren't set by the UN. Americans don't have 75% of their laws made by the UN. The Americans don't have their rail companies broken up by the UN, or their postal service ditacted to by the UN. Nor is the UN asking for a global army or UN visas, a NATO constitution or NATO passports. Nor does the UN decide what
adverts are shown on TV
The EU (or EEC is it was) only had economic power until in 1992, then the member states signed up to the Maastricht Treaty; that is when the EU came into being, and turned into a de facto superstate. The EU constitution has far more political power than any UN treaty that the USA or the UK has signed up for. The UN also doesn't take £12 billion of UK taxpayers' money each year.
DW
Sorry Dave, you are correct, but was not TC taken over by TWW? The memory plays tricks you know!
Huddy I think you are right TC was taken over by TWW - thanks for the correction!. As for memory playing tricks, I'm happy to say that all this happened quite a few years before I was born
Huddy Refreshed posted:
Sorry Dave, you are correct, but was not TC taken over by TWW? The memory plays tricks you know!
Huddy I think you are right TC was taken over by TWW - thanks for the correction!. As for memory playing tricks, I'm happy to say that all this happened quite a few years before I was born
AB
It might be useful for some of the people reading to get an explanation of the current position in Scotland and the process which could potentially lead to independence. You hear so much nonsense from people - north and south of the border - who think it would happen days after an SNP election victory!!
Here's the potential process.
1 The SNP becomes the single largest party in the Scottish Parliament next month. With a PR system there's no realistic chance of them having a majority - and with the current arithmetic it's virtually impossible the SNP and the minor parties which also back independence will have a majority. (eg the Greens, Solidarity.)
2 The Liberal Democrats agree to a coalition deal with the SNP - but are forced to accept a referendum of independence as part of the package. (The Lib Dems say they won't do this but that's an argument for another place. It's not inconceivable they may accept a referendum as long as they have the right to campaign for a No vote. Another option may be a multi-option referendum with more devolution also a choice)
3 A referendum is held in 2010 as promised by the SNP - with Labour, the Lib Dems and the Conservatives all campaigning vigorously for a No vote along with most of the popular press. However, a Yes vote is still achieved. (The result is by no means certain. Opinion polls on independence vary widely - I suspect this is because a lot of people don't know the difference between independence and further devolution.)
As for the effect on broadcasting, the SNP's current policy is to create a Scottish Broadcasting Corporation which would, in effect, be a Scottish version of RTE.
This would, in effect, mean the main BBC tv and radio services would be replaced in Scotland - even if the SBC and the BBC maintained a close working relationship. There was a very interesting article on SNP broadcasting in the Sunday Herald a few weeks back - apologies for not having a link.
However the impact on commercial broadcasters is likely to be minimal. The links between STV and ITV Network are commercial ones - and the SNP recognise how difficult commercially it might be to actually force STV to increase Scottish output though they certainly would not complain if STV did.
I don't think there's even a suggestion of trying to interfere with C4 or five let alone the channels with no pretence of being public services.
I hate to say this, but the possibility of Scots being deprived of favourite BBC programmes would probably be quite an effective campaigning tool for unionists in the run up to any referendum. You can just imagine the headlines in the Daily Record. ("Doctor Who Faces Extermination After Independence". "Strictly No Dancing - Brucie To Disappear in Independent Scotland" etc etc etc)
To be honest I suspect many nationalists realise how unpopular this would be and, whatever their policy may be just now, they would probably leave the BBC alone in return for a Scottish Six - plus a Scottish One and Ten!!!
Here's the potential process.
1 The SNP becomes the single largest party in the Scottish Parliament next month. With a PR system there's no realistic chance of them having a majority - and with the current arithmetic it's virtually impossible the SNP and the minor parties which also back independence will have a majority. (eg the Greens, Solidarity.)
2 The Liberal Democrats agree to a coalition deal with the SNP - but are forced to accept a referendum of independence as part of the package. (The Lib Dems say they won't do this but that's an argument for another place. It's not inconceivable they may accept a referendum as long as they have the right to campaign for a No vote. Another option may be a multi-option referendum with more devolution also a choice)
3 A referendum is held in 2010 as promised by the SNP - with Labour, the Lib Dems and the Conservatives all campaigning vigorously for a No vote along with most of the popular press. However, a Yes vote is still achieved. (The result is by no means certain. Opinion polls on independence vary widely - I suspect this is because a lot of people don't know the difference between independence and further devolution.)
As for the effect on broadcasting, the SNP's current policy is to create a Scottish Broadcasting Corporation which would, in effect, be a Scottish version of RTE.
This would, in effect, mean the main BBC tv and radio services would be replaced in Scotland - even if the SBC and the BBC maintained a close working relationship. There was a very interesting article on SNP broadcasting in the Sunday Herald a few weeks back - apologies for not having a link.
However the impact on commercial broadcasters is likely to be minimal. The links between STV and ITV Network are commercial ones - and the SNP recognise how difficult commercially it might be to actually force STV to increase Scottish output though they certainly would not complain if STV did.
I don't think there's even a suggestion of trying to interfere with C4 or five let alone the channels with no pretence of being public services.
I hate to say this, but the possibility of Scots being deprived of favourite BBC programmes would probably be quite an effective campaigning tool for unionists in the run up to any referendum. You can just imagine the headlines in the Daily Record. ("Doctor Who Faces Extermination After Independence". "Strictly No Dancing - Brucie To Disappear in Independent Scotland" etc etc etc)
To be honest I suspect many nationalists realise how unpopular this would be and, whatever their policy may be just now, they would probably leave the BBC alone in return for a Scottish Six - plus a Scottish One and Ten!!!
JO
High Road finished up after the Queen Mum died. Some believe it was only being made for her!
As Gavin states, there is no High Road anymore. However, you will be able to see Joe McFadden (Gary McDonald ), as the new lead policeman in Heartbeat, from the end of this year.
Gavin Scott posted:
miss hellfire posted:
We have this topic on metropol and MP24/7 version is way more fun than this one. We have Sea-monsters, trolls, Kilts and Welsh cornish pasties to discuss over there. Mind you we haven't discussed to Scots programmes. Is take the high road still going? Will us English lot still get to see Taggart?
High Road finished up after the Queen Mum died. Some believe it was only being made for her!
As Gavin states, there is no High Road anymore. However, you will be able to see Joe McFadden (Gary McDonald ), as the new lead policeman in Heartbeat, from the end of this year.
SM
So all in all I think it's quite easy to see that an independent Scotland would have far more issues to deal with than broadcasting. Basically, we would say little difference to our channels other than a new SBC rather than BBC Scotland. It's also worth noting that with a new independent Scotland there would now be 3 state broadcasters on the British Isles and this could spark the creation of a new federation like Nordvision. This is all the Scandinavian state broadcasters coming together to share programming, etc. Once again, proof that SBC won't have 'no programmes to show'. I refer back to SVF TV in Faroe (population 40,000) which even has its own coverage of F1!
HE
That's not a little difference. It's a huge whopper of a difference. SBC isn't just a renamed BBC Scotland, it's fundamentally different and would spell the end of many top BBC shows appearing north of the Border. You can't have it both ways.. spending all licence fee money raised in Scotland on Scottish programming *and* have your pick of BBC programming and expect it for free.
smgboi posted:
Basically, we would say little difference to our channels other than a new SBC rather than BBC Scotland.
That's not a little difference. It's a huge whopper of a difference. SBC isn't just a renamed BBC Scotland, it's fundamentally different and would spell the end of many top BBC shows appearing north of the Border. You can't have it both ways.. spending all licence fee money raised in Scotland on Scottish programming *and* have your pick of BBC programming and expect it for free.