Scottish Independence

I know it's a rather simple question, but would the BBC continue to be called the BBC, if it wasn't the state broadcaster in Scotland? Since it wouldn't be covering all of Britain.

Indeed, there are loads of issues. An 'SBC' financed by a licence fee, would probably see that fee being very much higher than the BBC one is at present, unless the programming was cut, (take a look at the amount of imported stuff, and oldish movies on Irish TV during peak time as an example) The BBC would (quite rightly) charge for their programming to be shown in Scotland. Or, it could carry advertising, to supplement the licence fee (like RTE) but of course that would damage STV and commercial radio.

To be honest, there are many other institutions in Scotland, that would have similar challenges, but I'm sure Mr Salmond has thought it all through properly

Channel 4 is available on cable and satellite, and is on the Sky EPG (albeit in a version in which some foreign programs are blocked, a daft position since the UK version can be tuned in via Other Channels, but I suppose Channel 4 have to be seen to be doing something).

Channel 5 is a completely different kettle of fish, its not on cable (except in Dungarvan) and although its on satellite, it isn't on the Sky EPG.

Most people in Ireland take a cable or Sky package, there are very few reliant on just terrestrial, and so the vast majority of homes have all of the BBC services (except BBC Parliament). UTV has been on cable since day one and the other ITV stations are on cable too now (since UPC and ITV came to an agreement in December - they had been previously available during 2010 but were not available from April-December last year).

As I mentioned there is some blocking of programming on certain channels - Channel 4 on Sky, the ITV channels on cable (though not UTV), and ESPN blocks UEFA Europa League football on satellite. But other than that the versions of the channels are mostly the same as the UK. Where there are regional variations offered it is almost always the Northern Ireland version only (this was not always the case, historically the Wales versions would have been offered instead along the East and South coasts.)

Depends on what the semantics of the post-independence UK would be.

The island of which Scotland is a part is called "Great Britain." This is not a political name, it is a geographical name. It is equivalent to "North America."

Therefore, if Scotland were to secede, the name of what is left behind would no longer be strictly accurate -- the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" would be erroneous as it would include a part of the island of GB over which it no longer had a sovereign right.

It could, theoretically but improbably, be renamed the "United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland". However, as "American" (in terms of the American Broadcasting Company etc) has become the de facto term for an inhabitant of the USA, despite being equally valid as describing an inhabitant of Panama or Chile, so I expect "British" to remain a de facto demonym for the domains controlled by Brenda. Therefore, I believe, however inaccurate it may prove to be given that Britons have not lived in England for over a thousand years, that British will out.

In addition to that "the British Isles" includes the Republic of Ireland-- not part of QEII's remit! Of course people natives of Eire are not classed as British.

A person from the UK, Crown Dependencies or British Overseas Terrotories may call himself or herself "British" (IE possess British passport)

Actually the building was privately financed by its owners, Johnston Controls, and is simply leased to the BBC.

Not quite. Johnson Controls do not own BBC Pacific Quay, they simply provide the facilities management (cleaning, catering, security etc) on an outsourced contract. The building was paid for by the BBC issuing a £110m bond secured on the building, which was then sold and leased back from Trillium for £7.4m a year over 30 years. (Trillium previously provided facilities management as well). £59m of the cost of the fit out of PQ (an investment due to last x number of years into the future) was paid for directly by the BBC. Not a simple case of just transferring the lease.

(source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/review_report_research/vfm/major_estates.txt)

I think one can rule any the possibility of BBC One and Two not being available in some form. The national broadcasters in France, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands are widely available in countries that share their languages, and the situation would most likely be the same in Scotland, as it is in Ireland.

They could continue running the BBC channels as joint British-Scottish operations, with Scotland and the UK paying in proportion to their populations. There are several examples of this on the continent, including 3sat and Arte. Especially in Germany, people seem content with having the majority of their license fee go to the federal broadcasters and not to the regional PSBs, as there is a long history of cooperation the bundesländer.

As for the other broadcasters, we would probably see the establishment of a "Scottish Ofcom" to license DTT muxes and commercial PSBs (if that term is still relevant). One can only speculate about what its policies would be like, but it is still an interesting topic. Would they continue the laissez-faire approach taken by Ofcom, or would broadcast licensing get a flair of old Labour and Scottish nationalism?

I think joint Scottish - English BBC would be the best way forward.

Which would need new legislation from the new Independent Scottish Government on a licence fee. Which could be awkward if they decide to lower it!

So perhaps it would just be network BBC One/Two rather than a BBC One/Two Scotland?

that sounds like a crap deal