This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
I just saw this on Facebook. Are the SNP actually trying to force this through?
https://www.change.org/p/bbc-stop-the-snp-taking-control-of-the-bbc?recruit...
https://www.change.org/p/bbc-stop-the-snp-taking-control-of-the-bbc?recruit...
2
1
In reply to Gone for good:
No - that's just a hysterical rant from someone, presumably about this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-35658589
No - that's just a hysterical rant from someone, presumably about this:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-35658589
8
1
In reply to skog:
From that report:
"It said audience research had suggested that some viewers believed Reporting Scotland was of a lower quality than UK-wide news programmes, and that Scottish news was not covered in sufficient depth."
Nail on the head. 5 minutes of relatively minor, local news, 20 minutes of football updates, followed by the 'rain forecast'. Got to love it.
From that report:
"It said audience research had suggested that some viewers believed Reporting Scotland was of a lower quality than UK-wide news programmes, and that Scottish news was not covered in sufficient depth."
Nail on the head. 5 minutes of relatively minor, local news, 20 minutes of football updates, followed by the 'rain forecast'. Got to love it.
10
In reply to skog:
No? Not according to the BBC article you posted.
'The Scottish Government said the BBC need to catch up with devolution '.
I take that to mean they are trying to push it through.
No? Not according to the BBC article you posted.
'The Scottish Government said the BBC need to catch up with devolution '.
I take that to mean they are trying to push it through.
In reply to Gone for good:
The SNP would like it to happen. However, broadcasting isn't devolved, so there's no way for the Scottish Government to 'force it through', much less 'take over the BBC' - unless you consider the BBC to currently have been taken over by the Conservatives, that is!
There's an argument for it, but Fraser makes a compelling counter-argument above!
The (right-wing, pro-Union, obnoxious, clever and witty) journalist Alex Massie was talking about this on the radio this morning, and seemed to quite like the idea, as it would be "good for highlighting the SNP's failings in government, and those of any other party governing Scotland in the future", or words to that effect. He did wonder whether there was demand for it, but thought that the only way to find out is to try.
The SNP would like it to happen. However, broadcasting isn't devolved, so there's no way for the Scottish Government to 'force it through', much less 'take over the BBC' - unless you consider the BBC to currently have been taken over by the Conservatives, that is!
There's an argument for it, but Fraser makes a compelling counter-argument above!
The (right-wing, pro-Union, obnoxious, clever and witty) journalist Alex Massie was talking about this on the radio this morning, and seemed to quite like the idea, as it would be "good for highlighting the SNP's failings in government, and those of any other party governing Scotland in the future", or words to that effect. He did wonder whether there was demand for it, but thought that the only way to find out is to try.
3
In reply to Gone for good:
The Scottish Nationalist Party is supposed to take power from London and bring it to Scotland, the clue is in the name.
The BBC collects £323M in licence fees from Scotland but only spends £190M in Scotland. Its coverage during the independence referendum was biased to favour the No campaign. The SNP are right to twist its arm to spend more money in Scotland and get more of its news from people based in Scotland.
> I take that to mean they are trying to push it through.
The Scottish Nationalist Party is supposed to take power from London and bring it to Scotland, the clue is in the name.
The BBC collects £323M in licence fees from Scotland but only spends £190M in Scotland. Its coverage during the independence referendum was biased to favour the No campaign. The SNP are right to twist its arm to spend more money in Scotland and get more of its news from people based in Scotland.
10
10
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
Yes I can see that side of the argument but the article also goes onto say the quality of journalism is not maybe what it could be and that outside help will be have to be brought (bought) in. I guess a lot of that money gets spent on news and current affairs programmes anyway (newsnight, question time etc) so it's not as though the Scottish audience don't get the quality delivered to them.
Do you really want an extra half hour of Jackie Bird every evening?
Yes I can see that side of the argument but the article also goes onto say the quality of journalism is not maybe what it could be and that outside help will be have to be brought (bought) in. I guess a lot of that money gets spent on news and current affairs programmes anyway (newsnight, question time etc) so it's not as though the Scottish audience don't get the quality delivered to them.
Do you really want an extra half hour of Jackie Bird every evening?
3
4
In reply to Gone for good:
I get my news from the internet and my entertainment from Amazon and Netflix. If I was in charge I'd ask Amazon for a bid to give everyone in Scotland access to Prime and a digital book lending library and move some R&D jobs and production to Scotland. The BBC license fee is almost 2x the Amazon Prime subscription.
> Do you really want an extra half hour of Jackie Bird every evening?
I get my news from the internet and my entertainment from Amazon and Netflix. If I was in charge I'd ask Amazon for a bid to give everyone in Scotland access to Prime and a digital book lending library and move some R&D jobs and production to Scotland. The BBC license fee is almost 2x the Amazon Prime subscription.
In reply to Fraser:
What and the Scottish think the Regional news in the rest of the UK is any better? Only difference is in the south I get to here about how non league teams have got on - oh and there's always some sailor or other doing something.
What and the Scottish think the Regional news in the rest of the UK is any better? Only difference is in the south I get to here about how non league teams have got on - oh and there's always some sailor or other doing something.
Post edited at 22:52
1
2
In reply to balmybaldwin:
Scotland isn't a region, it's a country.
> What and the Scottish think the Regional news in the rest of the UK is any better?
Scotland isn't a region, it's a country.
10
3
1
In reply to Dr.S at work:
Single nucleotide polymorphism - Basically, everybody in Scotland is related to Wee Jimmy Krankie.
Single nucleotide polymorphism - Basically, everybody in Scotland is related to Wee Jimmy Krankie.
7
5
3
3
In reply to DaveHK:
Thank you so much for that. Brought a smile.
I am very tempted to start one of those petition thing to have local news before national news!
Cheers
Toby
Thank you so much for that. Brought a smile.
I am very tempted to start one of those petition thing to have local news before national news!
Cheers
Toby
1
1
In reply to aln:
Yawn. Every time I go home (Glasgow) this comes up. Scotland is a region, it is a nation but it is categorically not a country. It is a region of a country (UK) and it has a common culture within a defined boundary (nation). A country is a self-governing political entity (synonymous with state) which Scotland is not.
If Scotland's a country then so is Yorkshire.
> Scotland isn't a region, it's a country.
Yawn. Every time I go home (Glasgow) this comes up. Scotland is a region, it is a nation but it is categorically not a country. It is a region of a country (UK) and it has a common culture within a defined boundary (nation). A country is a self-governing political entity (synonymous with state) which Scotland is not.
If Scotland's a country then so is Yorkshire.
13
6
In reply to Toccata:
It is a country, but it's not a sovereign state. I know the UK does this differently to anywhere else in the world, but that's how it is.
It is a country, but it's not a sovereign state. I know the UK does this differently to anywhere else in the world, but that's how it is.
2
1
In reply to Toccata:
Here is Wikipedia's definition of country:
"A country may be an independent sovereign state or one that is occupied by another state, as a non-sovereign or formerly sovereign political division, or a geographic region associated with sets of previously independent or differently associated people with distinct political characteristics."
So Scotland is a country.
Nation and country are overlapping terms and unless you want to get really selective about your definition to make a political point Scotland is a country.
> Yawn. Every time I go home (Glasgow) this comes up. Scotland is a region, it is a nation but it is categorically not a country. It is a region of a country (UK) and it has a common culture within a defined boundary (nation). A country is a self-governing political entity (synonymous with state) which Scotland is not.
Here is Wikipedia's definition of country:
"A country may be an independent sovereign state or one that is occupied by another state, as a non-sovereign or formerly sovereign political division, or a geographic region associated with sets of previously independent or differently associated people with distinct political characteristics."
So Scotland is a country.
Nation and country are overlapping terms and unless you want to get really selective about your definition to make a political point Scotland is a country.
6
1
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
And also by that definition a region, so this whole discussion is pedantic and pointless.
And also by that definition a region, so this whole discussion is pedantic and pointless.
12
2
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
I don't necessarily disagree, but what I gathered from the news when this came up last week was that the money spent in Scotland is for Scottish content, whilst the difference (£133M) covers the Scottish contribution towards national BBC content. If the BBC were to be carved up then there would be difficulty deciding the 'value' of this national coverage, with the BBC saying that it represents excellent value, and the SNP arguing that it doesn't.
I don't necessarily disagree, but what I gathered from the news when this came up last week was that the money spent in Scotland is for Scottish content, whilst the difference (£133M) covers the Scottish contribution towards national BBC content. If the BBC were to be carved up then there would be difficulty deciding the 'value' of this national coverage, with the BBC saying that it represents excellent value, and the SNP arguing that it doesn't.
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
No it's not. But if you're going to stretch the above to fit Scotland then Yorkshire's also a country. As is the City of London. And Anglesea.
They are not overlapping terms. In lay-usage they might be but not in accepted academic definition.
Scots trying to award themselves country status somehow reminds me of Daffyd's "But I'm the only gay in the village": pretends to want to but not that keen on going through with it.
> Here is Wikipedia's definition of country:
> "A country may be an independent sovereign state or one that is occupied by another state, as a non-sovereign or formerly sovereign political division, or a geographic region associated with sets of previously independent or differently associated people with distinct political characteristics."
> So Scotland is a country.
No it's not. But if you're going to stretch the above to fit Scotland then Yorkshire's also a country. As is the City of London. And Anglesea.
> Nation and country are overlapping terms and unless you want to get really selective about your definition to make a political point Scotland is a country.
They are not overlapping terms. In lay-usage they might be but not in accepted academic definition.
Scots trying to award themselves country status somehow reminds me of Daffyd's "But I'm the only gay in the village": pretends to want to but not that keen on going through with it.
3
4
In reply to Toccata:
Countries are defined by people who 'award themselves' country status. Scotland is a country because the Scots want it to be a country. Yorkshire is not a country because the people in Yorkshire don't want it to be one. The Scots voted not to be an independent country but that doesn't mean they don't see themselves as a country that could become independent if it chose to do so.
> Scots trying to award themselves country status somehow reminds me of Daffyd's "But I'm the only gay in the village": pretends to want to but not that keen on going through with it.
Countries are defined by people who 'award themselves' country status. Scotland is a country because the Scots want it to be a country. Yorkshire is not a country because the people in Yorkshire don't want it to be one. The Scots voted not to be an independent country but that doesn't mean they don't see themselves as a country that could become independent if it chose to do so.
Post edited at 10:43
1
1
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
A dignified response to my childish aside.
But Scots had a free choice as to whether they wanted to be a country or a region and they chose not to make Scotland a country. They remain a proud and respected nation. They remain a socially and economically important region of the UK.
> Countries are defined by people who 'award themselves' country status. Scotland is a country because the Scots want it to be a country.
A dignified response to my childish aside.
But Scots had a free choice as to whether they wanted to be a country or a region and they chose not to make Scotland a country. They remain a proud and respected nation. They remain a socially and economically important region of the UK.
7
1
In reply to Aly:
The BBC currently chooses to make a disproportionate amount of 'national' content in England. From what I remember some series that were made in Scotland got cut and not replaced changing the balance of expenditure.
If the BBC offering was excellent value it wouldn't need the state to force people to buy it. The whole concept of broadcast TV and radio is outdated and inherently inferior to internet services that let you access any content in their catalogue whenever you choose.
> I don't necessarily disagree, but what I gathered from the news when this came up last week was that the money spent in Scotland is for Scottish content, whilst the difference (£133M) covers the Scottish contribution towards national BBC content. If the BBC were to be carved up then there would be difficulty deciding the 'value' of this national coverage, with the BBC saying that it represents excellent value, and the SNP arguing that it doesn't.
The BBC currently chooses to make a disproportionate amount of 'national' content in England. From what I remember some series that were made in Scotland got cut and not replaced changing the balance of expenditure.
If the BBC offering was excellent value it wouldn't need the state to force people to buy it. The whole concept of broadcast TV and radio is outdated and inherently inferior to internet services that let you access any content in their catalogue whenever you choose.
1
2
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
Some of us do.
> Countries are defined by people who 'award themselves' country status. ... Yorkshire is not a country because the people in Yorkshire don't want it to be one. ...
Some of us do.
6
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
Not true. The BBC does (and probably should a bit more) produce television and radio of fantastic quality that simply wouldn't be viable under a commercial model. I can understand why you don't like Nick Robinson (I don't but for different reasons), but to suggest you can do the "inform" and "educate" bits as well as the "entertain" under a commercial model doesn't pan out. Check the quality of documentaries across Amazon, Netflix and the BBC and once you get past the top few picks on the first two, the quality goes distinctly 'cable'.
> If the BBC offering was excellent value it wouldn't need the state to force people to buy it. The whole concept of broadcast TV and radio is outdated and inherently inferior to internet services that let you access any content in their catalogue whenever you choose.
Not true. The BBC does (and probably should a bit more) produce television and radio of fantastic quality that simply wouldn't be viable under a commercial model. I can understand why you don't like Nick Robinson (I don't but for different reasons), but to suggest you can do the "inform" and "educate" bits as well as the "entertain" under a commercial model doesn't pan out. Check the quality of documentaries across Amazon, Netflix and the BBC and once you get past the top few picks on the first two, the quality goes distinctly 'cable'.
3
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
Do you mean that you have a problem with where programmes are made, or that there are not enough programmes available for Scottish viewers only, or produced in Scotland for Scottish audiences? Is it that you think Scotland is under-represented over the whole BBC spectrum of BBC content?
To be fair, if you think it's bad value you don't have to buy it. You can still access radio and Iplayer without a licence. Nobody is forced to buy a licence.
If the BBC split, presumably the new BBC Scotland would take that extra £133M and would have to decide whether to use it to buy national content from the rest of the BBC, at a price they were willing to sell it for, or invest into improving and expanding the content which is currently Scotland only?
> The BBC currently chooses to make a disproportionate amount of 'national' content in England. From what I remember some series that were made in Scotland got cut and not replaced changing the balance of expenditure.
Do you mean that you have a problem with where programmes are made, or that there are not enough programmes available for Scottish viewers only, or produced in Scotland for Scottish audiences? Is it that you think Scotland is under-represented over the whole BBC spectrum of BBC content?
> If the BBC offering was excellent value it wouldn't need the state to force people to buy it. The whole concept of broadcast TV and radio is outdated and inherently inferior to internet services that let you access any content in their catalogue whenever you choose.
To be fair, if you think it's bad value you don't have to buy it. You can still access radio and Iplayer without a licence. Nobody is forced to buy a licence.
If the BBC split, presumably the new BBC Scotland would take that extra £133M and would have to decide whether to use it to buy national content from the rest of the BBC, at a price they were willing to sell it for, or invest into improving and expanding the content which is currently Scotland only?
1
1
In reply to skog:
Several years since I lived in Scotland, but it was always annoying watching the news, the so called 'national' news (on first) was mostly focused on event in/around London, maybe justified as that's where the UK government is based but often long pieces on education or health which didn't apply to Scotland (& often not introduced as being only about England). And when something in Scotland was deemed on 'national' interest it would feature in both the national & Scottish sections which seems a waste of airtime. A decently produced Scottish news would address these issues.
For what its worth, its similar with national & regional TV news in France so not just a UK problem
Several years since I lived in Scotland, but it was always annoying watching the news, the so called 'national' news (on first) was mostly focused on event in/around London, maybe justified as that's where the UK government is based but often long pieces on education or health which didn't apply to Scotland (& often not introduced as being only about England). And when something in Scotland was deemed on 'national' interest it would feature in both the national & Scottish sections which seems a waste of airtime. A decently produced Scottish news would address these issues.
For what its worth, its similar with national & regional TV news in France so not just a UK problem
4
In reply to Doug:
That echoes my feelings. Often, when the BBC present a completely English report or set of statistics for example on the national news, there's no equivalent piece or figures for the other areas of Britain. It's really, really annoying and perhaps they don't even realise they do it. Why not present purely English pieces on the relevant regional news, the same as they seem to expect Scotland to do? Either that or give the information for the whole of Britain and not just England.
And before anyone asks the question, no - I was and still am against independence.
That echoes my feelings. Often, when the BBC present a completely English report or set of statistics for example on the national news, there's no equivalent piece or figures for the other areas of Britain. It's really, really annoying and perhaps they don't even realise they do it. Why not present purely English pieces on the relevant regional news, the same as they seem to expect Scotland to do? Either that or give the information for the whole of Britain and not just England.
And before anyone asks the question, no - I was and still am against independence.
4
In reply to Doug and Fraser:
I find myself agreeing, but then remembering that it has been years since I've watched the news on TV!
I think it may be a good thing, and is probably worth trying, but I don't really have any strong feelings on it.
I find myself agreeing, but then remembering that it has been years since I've watched the news on TV!
I think it may be a good thing, and is probably worth trying, but I don't really have any strong feelings on it.
In reply to Aly:
In my view the license fee should be scrapped and the BBC left to fend for itself but if it is to stay funded by what is effectively a tax it should lose its unionist bias by doing more of the News coverage within Scotland and commission more 'national' content from Scotland so as to even out the money it collects against the money it spends within Scotland. From what I remember from an article I read a while ago there was some long running drama series that was shot in Scotland and got cancelled which significantly reduced BBC spending in Scotland.
If it was just me I wouldn't have a licence but other family members like the TV as background noise. I never listen to radio and the only thing I ever watched on iPlayer was Top Gear.
The BBC is already selling content to Netflix and Amazon. There is a global market for content and a global price point for subscription services which is more like £7 a month than £12 a month. The BBC can delay things but in the end it either adjusts or dies.
> Do you mean that you have a problem with where programmes are made, or that there are not enough programmes available for Scottish viewers only, or produced in Scotland for Scottish audiences? Is it that you think Scotland is under-represented over the whole BBC spectrum of BBC content?
In my view the license fee should be scrapped and the BBC left to fend for itself but if it is to stay funded by what is effectively a tax it should lose its unionist bias by doing more of the News coverage within Scotland and commission more 'national' content from Scotland so as to even out the money it collects against the money it spends within Scotland. From what I remember from an article I read a while ago there was some long running drama series that was shot in Scotland and got cancelled which significantly reduced BBC spending in Scotland.
> To be fair, if you think it's bad value you don't have to buy it. You can still access radio and Iplayer without a licence. Nobody is forced to buy a licence.
If it was just me I wouldn't have a licence but other family members like the TV as background noise. I never listen to radio and the only thing I ever watched on iPlayer was Top Gear.
> If the BBC split, presumably the new BBC Scotland would take that extra £133M and would have to decide whether to use it to buy national content from the rest of the BBC, at a price they were willing to sell it for, or invest into improving and expanding the content which is currently Scotland only?
The BBC is already selling content to Netflix and Amazon. There is a global market for content and a global price point for subscription services which is more like £7 a month than £12 a month. The BBC can delay things but in the end it either adjusts or dies.
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
BBC Alba makes some very good television. Eorpa is a fantastic current events programme; ok, if you don't speak Gaelic you have to read the subtitles, but often it's subtitled anyway because they cover some obscure but fascinating events all over Europe. There are also frequent, excellent documentaries on various aspects of Scottish history, culture, regions, people, etc.
I think your comment is a bit unfair, since the BBC supports radio and television aimed at the Scottish Gaelic speaking audience. With the television at least non-Gaelic speakers can watch and enjoy, too, radio, I admit is a bit harder. But Gaelic is easy to learn, took me about 3 years
BBC Alba makes some very good television. Eorpa is a fantastic current events programme; ok, if you don't speak Gaelic you have to read the subtitles, but often it's subtitled anyway because they cover some obscure but fascinating events all over Europe. There are also frequent, excellent documentaries on various aspects of Scottish history, culture, regions, people, etc.
I think your comment is a bit unfair, since the BBC supports radio and television aimed at the Scottish Gaelic speaking audience. With the television at least non-Gaelic speakers can watch and enjoy, too, radio, I admit is a bit harder. But Gaelic is easy to learn, took me about 3 years
In reply to damhan-allaidh:
The BBC only puts £8 million a year into BBC Alba. It also gets 12 million from the Scottish government and 1 million from the UK government. The BBC is collecting more than £100 million more in Scotland than it spends in Scotland.
Why not devolve responsibility for the BBC and let the MSPs decide where to spend the £323 million it collects from Scotland.
> I think your comment is a bit unfair, since the BBC supports radio and television aimed at the Scottish Gaelic speaking audience. With the television at least non-Gaelic speakers can watch and enjoy, too, radio, I admit is a bit harder. But Gaelic is easy to learn, took me about 3 years
The BBC only puts £8 million a year into BBC Alba. It also gets 12 million from the Scottish government and 1 million from the UK government. The BBC is collecting more than £100 million more in Scotland than it spends in Scotland.
Why not devolve responsibility for the BBC and let the MSPs decide where to spend the £323 million it collects from Scotland.
Post edited at 14:11
1
1
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
So have a propaganda channel? No attempt at impartiality?
Also are you suggesting blocking all other BBC channels, radio etc from Scotland?
> Why not devolve responsibility for the BBC and let the MSPs decide where to spend the £323 million it collects from Scotland.
So have a propaganda channel? No attempt at impartiality?
Also are you suggesting blocking all other BBC channels, radio etc from Scotland?
1
1
In reply to Gone for good:
God help us if we are going to have to put up with more insular Scottish news done poorly. I've lived in Scotland for almost 20yrs and I still switch off the Scottish news. In the past I always had to find the London broadcasts to avoid Gordon Brewer's smarmy poor imitation of Paxo on Scottish Newsnight. Jackie Bird does my head in. The SNP have been getting an incredibly easy ride for years now. I'd like a more unionistic attitude in the general news ie more Scottish coverage in the general BBC and ITV news, more Scottish coverage in the mainstream rags. It seems to me that thats what a joined up country should be doing whether or not there is devolution, which to me is just a bit of localism. And I say all this having voted Yes in the referendum!
God help us if we are going to have to put up with more insular Scottish news done poorly. I've lived in Scotland for almost 20yrs and I still switch off the Scottish news. In the past I always had to find the London broadcasts to avoid Gordon Brewer's smarmy poor imitation of Paxo on Scottish Newsnight. Jackie Bird does my head in. The SNP have been getting an incredibly easy ride for years now. I'd like a more unionistic attitude in the general news ie more Scottish coverage in the general BBC and ITV news, more Scottish coverage in the mainstream rags. It seems to me that thats what a joined up country should be doing whether or not there is devolution, which to me is just a bit of localism. And I say all this having voted Yes in the referendum!
3
In reply to KevinD:
Why would the Scottish Government do a worse job of managing the £323 million collected in Scotland for the benefit of Scotland than the Westminster government? If there is an SNP majority in the Scottish Government it is because people in Scotland want it that way.
There is nothing impartial about the BBC. It might be able to claim it is roughly midway between Labour and the Tories but that doesn't make it unbiased on issues like Unionism, Monarchy, Immigration and the EU or stop it being London-centric.
I'm not suggesting blocking anything. I'm suggesting that the Scottish Government gets power over the license fee collection in Scotland and control over any money raised from it. It could decide to scrap it entirely, to halve it and buy a reduced service from the BBC or someone else, to split it between the BBC and other vendors or whatever else it thinks of. My guess is that will result in either a lower licence fee in Scotland or far more programming being bought from suppliers in Scotland.
Broadcast radio and TV are getting killed by the internet anyway, may as well get ahead of the trend and spend money on content provided over the internet.
> So have a propaganda channel? No attempt at impartiality?
Why would the Scottish Government do a worse job of managing the £323 million collected in Scotland for the benefit of Scotland than the Westminster government? If there is an SNP majority in the Scottish Government it is because people in Scotland want it that way.
There is nothing impartial about the BBC. It might be able to claim it is roughly midway between Labour and the Tories but that doesn't make it unbiased on issues like Unionism, Monarchy, Immigration and the EU or stop it being London-centric.
> Also are you suggesting blocking all other BBC channels, radio etc from Scotland?
I'm not suggesting blocking anything. I'm suggesting that the Scottish Government gets power over the license fee collection in Scotland and control over any money raised from it. It could decide to scrap it entirely, to halve it and buy a reduced service from the BBC or someone else, to split it between the BBC and other vendors or whatever else it thinks of. My guess is that will result in either a lower licence fee in Scotland or far more programming being bought from suppliers in Scotland.
Broadcast radio and TV are getting killed by the internet anyway, may as well get ahead of the trend and spend money on content provided over the internet.
2
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
You seem to be missing the fact the BBC is directly managed by the Westminster government. Can you not spot a minor problem with tying it so close? Even the current system is badly flawed.
So you want to replace it with a Edinburgh (most probably) centric version where the rest of Scotland is mostly ignored.
Which then gives the problem of ensuring the Scottish population doesnt have access to the rest of the BBC content. It would be a bit freeloading otherwise wouldnt it?
> Why would the Scottish Government do a worse job of managing the £323 million collected in Scotland for the benefit of Scotland than the Westminster government? If there is an SNP majority in the Scottish Government it is because people in Scotland want it that way.
You seem to be missing the fact the BBC is directly managed by the Westminster government. Can you not spot a minor problem with tying it so close? Even the current system is badly flawed.
> or stop it being London-centric.
So you want to replace it with a Edinburgh (most probably) centric version where the rest of Scotland is mostly ignored.
> I'm not suggesting blocking anything. I'm suggesting that the Scottish Government gets power over the license fee collection in Scotland and control over any money raised from it.
Which then gives the problem of ensuring the Scottish population doesnt have access to the rest of the BBC content. It would be a bit freeloading otherwise wouldnt it?
2
1
In reply to Gone for good:
Pfft. The drop in oil prices torpedoed the nationalist argument for independence and instead of facing up they are just trying to take over everything they can that will make it easier next time!
Last thing we want is political control over broadcasting. That's going back into the dark ages. Maybe that is what is wanted? They should get on with running the country!
Pfft. The drop in oil prices torpedoed the nationalist argument for independence and instead of facing up they are just trying to take over everything they can that will make it easier next time!
Last thing we want is political control over broadcasting. That's going back into the dark ages. Maybe that is what is wanted? They should get on with running the country!
2
3
In reply to Doug:
there is nothing to stop ITV jumping in doing it, if there is demand and the ratings are high, the ad revenue would cover it?
> A decently produced Scottish news would address these issues.
> For what its worth, its similar with national & regional TV news in France so not just a UK problem
> For what its worth, its similar with national & regional TV news in France so not just a UK problem
there is nothing to stop ITV jumping in doing it, if there is demand and the ratings are high, the ad revenue would cover it?
1
In reply to Gone for good:
Gaelic TV? When 2 per cent of the Scottish population speak it, I think you may have an argument, until then...
Gaelic TV? When 2 per cent of the Scottish population speak it, I think you may have an argument, until then...
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
would it not be cheaper for SNP just to send every Scottish household a DVD of local hero and braveheart, any Scottish parliament led TV channel would just turn into another propaganda tool.
If the Scottish population voted to remain under control of Westminister, then it's in their interest to watch UK national news? It's better than regional tenuous links to major events, that most regional TV news broadcasts already do.
> Broadcast radio and TV are getting killed by the internet anyway, may as well get ahead of the trend and spend money on content provided over the internet.
would it not be cheaper for SNP just to send every Scottish household a DVD of local hero and braveheart, any Scottish parliament led TV channel would just turn into another propaganda tool.
If the Scottish population voted to remain under control of Westminister, then it's in their interest to watch UK national news? It's better than regional tenuous links to major events, that most regional TV news broadcasts already do.
2
4
In reply to hokkyokusei:
We also have to endure BBC local news 'Look North' which seems to think that 'Yorkshire' is synonymous with 'Leeds', when obvs. Sheffield is the capital of Yorkshire
> Some of us do.
We also have to endure BBC local news 'Look North' which seems to think that 'Yorkshire' is synonymous with 'Leeds', when obvs. Sheffield is the capital of Yorkshire
3
1
In reply to paul_in_cumbria:
Look North, otherwise known as 'Look Leeds'. A brother used to call it that when we all lived in the family home, and I keep thinking 'He was right' as another feature about Leeds comes on.
> We also have to endure BBC local news 'Look North' which seems to think that 'Yorkshire' is synonymous with 'Leeds', when obvs. Sheffield is the capital of Yorkshire
Look North, otherwise known as 'Look Leeds'. A brother used to call it that when we all lived in the family home, and I keep thinking 'He was right' as another feature about Leeds comes on.
Post edited at 18:13
In reply to paul_in_cumbria:
As a newish Sheffield resident I'm quite glad it doesn't have the Yorkshirist superiority complex (with a strong undercurrent of blatant xenophobia) that I remember in Leeds! But then again my neighbour said that Sheffielders are just Midlanders with pretensions to being Northerners anyway.
As a newish Sheffield resident I'm quite glad it doesn't have the Yorkshirist superiority complex (with a strong undercurrent of blatant xenophobia) that I remember in Leeds! But then again my neighbour said that Sheffielders are just Midlanders with pretensions to being Northerners anyway.
1
In reply to TobyA:
I've got a Sheffield postcode in the Derbyshire Dales, which I'm reliably informed is the 'Midlands'
> As a newish Sheffield resident I'm quite glad it doesn't have the Yorkshirist superiority complex (with a strong undercurrent of blatant xenophobia) that I remember in Leeds! But then again my neighbour said that Sheffielders are just Midlanders with pretensions to being Northerners anyway.
I've got a Sheffield postcode in the Derbyshire Dales, which I'm reliably informed is the 'Midlands'
In reply to aln:
But it represents the same number of people as for example the North West of England and many less that the South East.
> Scotland isn't a region, it's a country.
But it represents the same number of people as for example the North West of England and many less that the South East.
In reply to The New NickB:
all the Yorkshires added together have the same population as Scotland.
> But it represents the same number of people as for example the North West of England and many less that the South East.
all the Yorkshires added together have the same population as Scotland.
In reply to summo:
I'd happily watch national news if it *was* national. My own complaint is that is not, it's 99% English with the very occasional reference to other parts of the country. Not sure if you're English, but if you are, you probably don't notice how partisan the news and it's references are to England.
True, but that's not saying much I'm afraid.
> If the Scottish population voted to remain under control of Westminister, then it's in their interest to watch UK national news?
I'd happily watch national news if it *was* national. My own complaint is that is not, it's 99% English with the very occasional reference to other parts of the country. Not sure if you're English, but if you are, you probably don't notice how partisan the news and it's references are to England.
> It's better than regional tenuous links to major events, that most regional TV news broadcasts already do.
True, but that's not saying much I'm afraid.
5
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
I'm the opposite. I never watch telly but I listen to radio all day. Mostly BBC radio. It's why I continue to pay the license fee
> I never listen to radio
I'm the opposite. I never watch telly but I listen to radio all day. Mostly BBC radio. It's why I continue to pay the license fee
In reply to Toccata:
It's because of people like you that we never got independence.
This is a country it's called scotland whether you like it or not....
Oh and stick your down thumb up your arse who ever you are. Numpty
It's because of people like you that we never got independence.
This is a country it's called scotland whether you like it or not....
Oh and stick your down thumb up your arse who ever you are. Numpty
Post edited at 23:57
3
7
In reply to Toccata:
Just watch London jump to agree if Yorkshire wanted to split!
> If Scotland's a country then so is Yorkshire.
Just watch London jump to agree if Yorkshire wanted to split!
1
In reply to ryan p:
Sadly I never got to vote but I did talk a lot of people into voting no. Independence really was a silly idea and I'm glad common sense prevailed.
It isn't a country. But why don't you try renaming other things instead if it makes you feel better?
> It's because of people like you that we never got independence.
Sadly I never got to vote but I did talk a lot of people into voting no. Independence really was a silly idea and I'm glad common sense prevailed.
> This is a country it's called scotland whether you like it or not....
It isn't a country. But why don't you try renaming other things instead if it makes you feel better?
1
3
In reply to ryan p:
Err yeah, well done for grasping that more people thought it a bad idea than a good one...
> It's because of people like you that we never got independence.
Err yeah, well done for grasping that more people thought it a bad idea than a good one...
1
In reply to Fraser:
I think 99% probably overplays it, and folk in parts of England have a similar perception of the U.K. News as it pertains to their 'area' of the U.K. People in the South West or the North East of England, parts of the U.K. With populations of a similar proportion of the U.K. Population to Wales, NI or Scotland get very little coverage.
The rather haphazard structure of the U.K. And the frequent UK England conflation is regrettable of course.
> I'd happily watch national news if it *was* national. My own complaint is that is not, it's 99% English with the very occasional reference to other parts of the country. Not sure if you're English, but if you are, you probably don't notice how partisan the news and it's references are.
I think 99% probably overplays it, and folk in parts of England have a similar perception of the U.K. News as it pertains to their 'area' of the U.K. People in the South West or the North East of England, parts of the U.K. With populations of a similar proportion of the U.K. Population to Wales, NI or Scotland get very little coverage.
The rather haphazard structure of the U.K. And the frequent UK England conflation is regrettable of course.
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
it gathers a lot more in Yorkshire than it spends there too. Mind you those f*ckers across the Pennines in Salford get more spending than they contribute - disgraceful!
Whilst there is a UK state, there needs to be a significant proportion of spending from the national broadcaster at the UK state level. That some of that spending has moved away from London to one of the other areas of the U.K. Is a good thing.
> The BBC only puts £8 million a year into BBC Alba. It also gets 12 million from the Scottish government and 1 million from the UK government. The BBC is collecting more than £100 million more in Scotland than it spends in Scotland.
it gathers a lot more in Yorkshire than it spends there too. Mind you those f*ckers across the Pennines in Salford get more spending than they contribute - disgraceful!
Whilst there is a UK state, there needs to be a significant proportion of spending from the national broadcaster at the UK state level. That some of that spending has moved away from London to one of the other areas of the U.K. Is a good thing.
1
In reply to Fraser:
Perhaps proportional national news, 10% of Scottish news, 10% Yorkshire, 0.01% isle of Wight.....
I agree, given that per capita more UK treasury money is spent north of the border, perhaps 'the English' as you put it, rather than people living in England, should hear about how the money is spent.
> I'd happily watch national news if it *was* national. My own complaint is that is not, it's 99% English with the very occasional reference to other parts of the country. Not sure if you're English, but if you are, you probably don't notice how partisan the news and it's references are to England.
Perhaps proportional national news, 10% of Scottish news, 10% Yorkshire, 0.01% isle of Wight.....
I agree, given that per capita more UK treasury money is spent north of the border, perhaps 'the English' as you put it, rather than people living in England, should hear about how the money is spent.
Post edited at 08:31
In reply to summo:
Fair points indeed, and apologies, I should have said those in England rather than English. You'd still be surprised though at how frequently a statement which references 'England/ English' would be more correct as 'Britain / British'. News presenters are better at making this correction but guests or outside reports are often guilty of the error.
And granted, perhaps not 99%.
Fair points indeed, and apologies, I should have said those in England rather than English. You'd still be surprised though at how frequently a statement which references 'England/ English' would be more correct as 'Britain / British'. News presenters are better at making this correction but guests or outside reports are often guilty of the error.
And granted, perhaps not 99%.
3
In reply to summo:
Can we not split up the news by population size or attendance size instead...
That way there will be as many stories about SW England as there is about Scotland. Scotland can also enjoy hearing about Exeter City's football results in the same way we hear about Inverness CT results on the National news.
> Perhaps proportional national news, 10% of Scottish news, 10% Yorkshire, 0.01% isle of Wight.....
Can we not split up the news by population size or attendance size instead...
That way there will be as many stories about SW England as there is about Scotland. Scotland can also enjoy hearing about Exeter City's football results in the same way we hear about Inverness CT results on the National news.
In reply to Timmd:
Look East had a similar problem in that it mostly focussed on the highlights of Norwich occasionally venturing into the rest of Norfolk and only on special occasions going to the other counties.
I suspect all that would happen with an independent Scottish BBC is that people would then start complaining about how it was focussed just on Edinburgh.
> Look North, otherwise known as 'Look Leeds'.
Look East had a similar problem in that it mostly focussed on the highlights of Norwich occasionally venturing into the rest of Norfolk and only on special occasions going to the other counties.
I suspect all that would happen with an independent Scottish BBC is that people would then start complaining about how it was focussed just on Edinburgh.
Post edited at 09:38
In reply to KevinD:
Except that BBC Scotland is based in Glasgow - but I'm sure it would have a central belt bias, maybe justified as that's where most of the Scottish population live
> I suspect all that would happen with an independent Scottish BBC is that people would then start complaining about how it was focussed just on Edinburgh.
Except that BBC Scotland is based in Glasgow - but I'm sure it would have a central belt bias, maybe justified as that's where most of the Scottish population live
In reply to Toccata:
Renaming? What am I renaming?
I never chose to call it scotland and I haven't renamed a thing.
You are wired to the moon
Renaming? What am I renaming?
I never chose to call it scotland and I haven't renamed a thing.
You are wired to the moon
1
In reply to ryan p:
Lots of people came together to stop Scottish independence happening. You don't have to like it (I don't!), but you need to respect it.
If Scottish independence is still something you want, you'll have to think longer term - and remember that these are the people you'll have to persuade!
And, as MG pointed out, there really isn't a lot of point in arguing about what 'country' means. Let's live as if Scotland is a country, and see where it takes us!
Lots of people came together to stop Scottish independence happening. You don't have to like it (I don't!), but you need to respect it.
If Scottish independence is still something you want, you'll have to think longer term - and remember that these are the people you'll have to persuade!
And, as MG pointed out, there really isn't a lot of point in arguing about what 'country' means. Let's live as if Scotland is a country, and see where it takes us!
1
In reply to Eeyore:
I agree, I'd much rather know that Maggie of portree has knitted her hundreth jumper of the year, than big important London based economic stuff.
In reality if it was worth it, the independent would have done this already.
I agree, I'd much rather know that Maggie of portree has knitted her hundreth jumper of the year, than big important London based economic stuff.
In reality if it was worth it, the independent would have done this already.
In reply to summo:
Isn't the BBC meant to do things that have value, but are not necessarily commercially viable?
If not, I really don't see much point in it.
I'm still not convinced the 'Scottish Six' will be a success, but why not try and see?
Isn't the BBC meant to do things that have value, but are not necessarily commercially viable?
If not, I really don't see much point in it.
I'm still not convinced the 'Scottish Six' will be a success, but why not try and see?
1
In reply to skog:
All I said was that scotland is a country i couldn't care if we are still a part of the UK it makes no difference to me what so ever.
I never said I don't like it or even mention not liking anything to do with it. I don't care about politics 1 tiny bit.
Hell my mother was born in Leeds so why would I care.
I still stand by what I said. This is a country and a beutie if one at that. No wonder london didn't want us to leave!
All I said was that scotland is a country i couldn't care if we are still a part of the UK it makes no difference to me what so ever.
I never said I don't like it or even mention not liking anything to do with it. I don't care about politics 1 tiny bit.
Hell my mother was born in Leeds so why would I care.
I still stand by what I said. This is a country and a beutie if one at that. No wonder london didn't want us to leave!
Post edited at 14:02
1
In reply to ryan p:
Is Leeds really that depressing?
> Hell my mother was born in Leeds so why would I care.
Is Leeds really that depressing?
In reply to skog:
I would agree in principle, the best stuff on the Bbc is niche, the stuff Destined for mass market is often dire.
But, why should Scotland be special. More people live south of Hadrians wall and north of Liverpool/hull, special northern tv as well?
I would agree in principle, the best stuff on the Bbc is niche, the stuff Destined for mass market is often dire.
But, why should Scotland be special. More people live south of Hadrians wall and north of Liverpool/hull, special northern tv as well?
In reply to summo:
It has its own parliament, legal system, health service and education system, for a start.
Maybe, if enough people think it's worth trying.
> But, why should Scotland be special.
It has its own parliament, legal system, health service and education system, for a start.
> More people live south of Hadrians wall and north of Liverpool/hull, special northern tv as well?
Maybe, if enough people think it's worth trying.
2
In reply to skog:
given that the majority didn't vote for independence, they should be content with that little list and leave the rest alone? Or is it all part of independence by stealth?
> It has its own parliament, legal system, health service and education system, for a start.
given that the majority didn't vote for independence, they should be content with that little list and leave the rest alone? Or is it all part of independence by stealth?
1
1
In reply to skog:
to steer the population in a given direction, depending on which channel you wish to watch?
> I think you're missing what the point of the news is.
to steer the population in a given direction, depending on which channel you wish to watch?
In reply to summo:
I was shooting for something more along the lines of "reporting on stuff that's of interest or relevance".
Do you think the BBC is basically just a propaganda machine, then? I've met many who'd agree, but I think it does a passable job at balance much of the time.
I was shooting for something more along the lines of "reporting on stuff that's of interest or relevance".
Do you think the BBC is basically just a propaganda machine, then? I've met many who'd agree, but I think it does a passable job at balance much of the time.
1
In reply to skog:
I think it tries it's best, but perhaps an institutionalised state funded organisation employs people of a given mentality or thinking, compared to a purely commercial station that has arms in many nations, so there will always be differences but I don't think they are glaring. I bet some staff were cringing when that 16yr old on question time ate the two pro Europe luvvies for breakfast though.
> Do you think the BBC is basically just a propaganda machine, then? I've met many who'd agree, but I think it does a passable job at balance much of the time.
I think it tries it's best, but perhaps an institutionalised state funded organisation employs people of a given mentality or thinking, compared to a purely commercial station that has arms in many nations, so there will always be differences but I don't think they are glaring. I bet some staff were cringing when that 16yr old on question time ate the two pro Europe luvvies for breakfast though.
In reply to summo:
OK.
Why do you think this would be any worse if more of it was managed in Scotland? Or North England? Or any other region, nation or city desiring more localised news?
OK.
Why do you think this would be any worse if more of it was managed in Scotland? Or North England? Or any other region, nation or city desiring more localised news?
In reply to skog:
logic would dictate that less would spent sourcing content, the more different regions produce their own news. As every programme regardless of the audience numbers would have some base production costs, studios, staff etc.. so if you take an extreme example and there are 4 or 5 regional full scale news programmes, you have quadrupled your base costs, but the audience remains the same size in total. Which either means to balance things you spend less money on roving reporters or pay extra money into the news pot? Which would mean people have to decide if they wish to pay more, to have regional version of things.
Not sure how well I explained that.
> Why do you think this would be any worse if more of it was managed in Scotland? Or North England? Or any other region, nation or city desiring more localised news?
logic would dictate that less would spent sourcing content, the more different regions produce their own news. As every programme regardless of the audience numbers would have some base production costs, studios, staff etc.. so if you take an extreme example and there are 4 or 5 regional full scale news programmes, you have quadrupled your base costs, but the audience remains the same size in total. Which either means to balance things you spend less money on roving reporters or pay extra money into the news pot? Which would mean people have to decide if they wish to pay more, to have regional version of things.
Not sure how well I explained that.
Post edited at 16:58
In reply to Gone for good:
I'm staggered by the ignorance and bigotry of those posters on this thread that suggest that Scotland is not a country. I suggest that they have a look at a few books covering Scottish history and statehood. The BBC was an unhealthy and partisan cheerleader against independence during the referendum. And only recently we've heard that BBC Scotland hasn't even bothered to secure viewing rights to the next three Scottish football games. We'll have to pay to see them. Can you imagine that happening in England? The fact is that Scottish taxpayers pay for a full BBC service and get a second rate service designed for the English market. Apart from anything else the concept of Britishness is a meaningless fabrication. The vast majority of Scots that I know and grew up with feel Scottish and not British. And among those almost all those Scots that I know who voted No now feel cheated ( now that they can see how meaningless the promises of home rule were) and when we decide to call a second referendum I'm sure we'll get the right result. A stimulating thought for all those British nationalists and Unionists out there.
I'm staggered by the ignorance and bigotry of those posters on this thread that suggest that Scotland is not a country. I suggest that they have a look at a few books covering Scottish history and statehood. The BBC was an unhealthy and partisan cheerleader against independence during the referendum. And only recently we've heard that BBC Scotland hasn't even bothered to secure viewing rights to the next three Scottish football games. We'll have to pay to see them. Can you imagine that happening in England? The fact is that Scottish taxpayers pay for a full BBC service and get a second rate service designed for the English market. Apart from anything else the concept of Britishness is a meaningless fabrication. The vast majority of Scots that I know and grew up with feel Scottish and not British. And among those almost all those Scots that I know who voted No now feel cheated ( now that they can see how meaningless the promises of home rule were) and when we decide to call a second referendum I'm sure we'll get the right result. A stimulating thought for all those British nationalists and Unionists out there.
4
5
In reply to summo:
Maybe. It'll always be a balancing act.
Viewing figures might go up if it's more relevant, of course. Or they might not. I know one way to find out...
Maybe. It'll always be a balancing act.
Viewing figures might go up if it's more relevant, of course. Or they might not. I know one way to find out...
4
2
In reply to alastairmac:
Scotland a country; sometimes when fishing you have to wait a while for something to take the bait, well done.
I think sporting rights have often gone to ITV or other commercial channels, so I don't think it's any particular exception right now.
Get the right result? sounds like the EU school of democracy, no election result is binding until you get the one you want!!
Home rule, what happens if the UK votes out, Scotland has another referendum and it's still no to independence? Then what?
> I'm staggered by the ignorance and bigotry of those posters on this thread that suggest that Scotland is not a country. I suggest that they have a look at a few books covering Scottish history and statehood. The BBC was an unhealthy and partisan cheerleader against independence during the referendum. And only recently we've heard that BBC Scotland hasn't even bothered to secure viewing rights to the next three Scottish football games. We'll have to pay to see them. Can you imagine that happening in England? The fact is that Scottish taxpayers pay for a full BBC service and get a second rate service designed for the English market. Apart from anything else the concept of Britishness is a meaningless fabrication. The vast majority of Scots that I know and grew up with feel Scottish and not British. And among those almost all those Scots that I know who voted No now feel cheated ( now that they can see how meaningless the promises of home rule were) and when we decide to call a second referendum I'm sure we'll get the right result. A stimulating thought for all those British nationalists and Unionists out there.
Scotland a country; sometimes when fishing you have to wait a while for something to take the bait, well done.
I think sporting rights have often gone to ITV or other commercial channels, so I don't think it's any particular exception right now.
Get the right result? sounds like the EU school of democracy, no election result is binding until you get the one you want!!
Home rule, what happens if the UK votes out, Scotland has another referendum and it's still no to independence? Then what?
1
In reply to paul_in_cumbria:
It could be worse. Our BBC local news thinks 'Cumbria' is synonymous with 'Newcastle' for some reason. The odd story about flooding in Carlisle mixed in with tales of dangerous dogs, chip pan fires and stabbings from the other side of the country is our tea time entertainment. For variety we watch ITV to catch up on tweed fairs in Hawick and missing cows in Dumfries.
> We also have to endure BBC local news 'Look North' which seems to think that 'Yorkshire' is synonymous with 'Leeds', when obvs. Sheffield is the capital of Yorkshire
It could be worse. Our BBC local news thinks 'Cumbria' is synonymous with 'Newcastle' for some reason. The odd story about flooding in Carlisle mixed in with tales of dangerous dogs, chip pan fires and stabbings from the other side of the country is our tea time entertainment. For variety we watch ITV to catch up on tweed fairs in Hawick and missing cows in Dumfries.
In reply to alastairmac:
Finally someone with a brain in there head. Spot on well said. If I was a big writer or even had the brain to put it in words then i wouldn't have got it half as good. Very good sir
Finally someone with a brain in there head. Spot on well said. If I was a big writer or even had the brain to put it in words then i wouldn't have got it half as good. Very good sir
2
3
> I'd lay off the cheap wine if I were you.
And the wacky backy
2
1
In reply to summo:
Then we will know we have been cheated again.
> Scotland a country; sometimes when fishing you have to wait a while for something to take the bait, well done.
> I think sporting rights have often gone to ITV or other commercial channels, so I don't think it's any particular exception right now.
> Get the right result? sounds like the EU school of democracy, no election result is binding until you get the one you want!!
> Home rule, what happens if the UK votes out, Scotland has another referendum and it's still no to independence? Then what?
Then we will know we have been cheated again.
2
6
In reply to Toccata:
This is getting way off the OP so apologies for that, but presumably you'd classify England as being a region too rather than a country. Is that correct? I'm not really bothered either way what Scotland / England / whichever are called, I just wonder if you see both as having the same classification.
> If Scotland's a country then so is Yorkshire.
This is getting way off the OP so apologies for that, but presumably you'd classify England as being a region too rather than a country. Is that correct? I'm not really bothered either way what Scotland / England / whichever are called, I just wonder if you see both as having the same classification.
3
In reply to Fraser:
Probably yes but a bit of an odd way of describing it because it is such an peculiar portion of Britain - Scotland is the "top bit" which is more obviously a region of the whole.
Probably yes but a bit of an odd way of describing it because it is such an peculiar portion of Britain - Scotland is the "top bit" which is more obviously a region of the whole.
In reply to MG:
Have you seen the Aussie globe which puts the south pole at the 'top'?
https://www.flourish.org/upsidedownmap/
Have you seen the Aussie globe which puts the south pole at the 'top'?
https://www.flourish.org/upsidedownmap/
1
In reply to Fraser:
Sure, there's no problem with describing England as a region of the UK, strange thing to get upset about. Probably depends how nationalistic you are.
Oh, and Ryan, cheated? Dry your eyes lass.
Sure, there's no problem with describing England as a region of the UK, strange thing to get upset about. Probably depends how nationalistic you are.
Oh, and Ryan, cheated? Dry your eyes lass.
5
4
In reply to Sir Chasm:
I agree, that's why I'm not upset by it. It was a fairly simple question, I was merely asking Toccata if they classified England the same as they did Scotland.
> Sure, there's no problem with describing England as a region of the UK, strange thing to get upset about. Probably depends how nationalistic you are.
I agree, that's why I'm not upset by it. It was a fairly simple question, I was merely asking Toccata if they classified England the same as they did Scotland.
1
In reply to Sir Chasm:
Oh we got cheated it a well known fact.
I don't cry over politics I'm afraid.
Oh we got cheated it a well known fact.
I don't cry over politics I'm afraid.
2
3
In reply to summo:
Logic would suggest the BBC could get more content for its money if it didn't buy so much from the most expensive city in the UK.
This is about far more than regional News. If the BBC spent as much in Scotland as it collects in Scotland there would be £110M more being spent in Scotland. That would mean a Scottish actor or camera person or company supplying services to the broadcasting would have a better chance of making a living without leaving Scotland.
If we actually wanted value for money the best thing would be for the Scottish Government to scrap the license fee and let the BBC compete in a free market. Or collect the license fee and make the BBC bid against other vendors including internet services. As I pointed out Amazon and Netflix will sell a better service for £7 a month than the BBC supplies for £12 a month.
> logic would dictate that less would spent sourcing content, the more different regions produce their own news.
Logic would suggest the BBC could get more content for its money if it didn't buy so much from the most expensive city in the UK.
This is about far more than regional News. If the BBC spent as much in Scotland as it collects in Scotland there would be £110M more being spent in Scotland. That would mean a Scottish actor or camera person or company supplying services to the broadcasting would have a better chance of making a living without leaving Scotland.
If we actually wanted value for money the best thing would be for the Scottish Government to scrap the license fee and let the BBC compete in a free market. Or collect the license fee and make the BBC bid against other vendors including internet services. As I pointed out Amazon and Netflix will sell a better service for £7 a month than the BBC supplies for £12 a month.
2
In reply to KevinD:
I'd be quite happy if the outcome of transfering power to Holyrood was a decision to abolish the licence fee in Scotland and make the BBC compete for consumers on equal terms with STV/ newspaper websites and Amazon/Netflix.
If that didn't happen I'd still see it as a step forward to have the £323 million license fee money collected in Scotland managed by Holyrood rather than Westminster. Having the BBC controlled by Westminster is the worst case solution.
> You seem to be missing the fact the BBC is directly managed by the Westminster government. Can you not spot a minor problem with tying it so close? Even the current system is badly flawed.
I'd be quite happy if the outcome of transfering power to Holyrood was a decision to abolish the licence fee in Scotland and make the BBC compete for consumers on equal terms with STV/ newspaper websites and Amazon/Netflix.
If that didn't happen I'd still see it as a step forward to have the £323 million license fee money collected in Scotland managed by Holyrood rather than Westminster. Having the BBC controlled by Westminster is the worst case solution.
2
In reply to Fraser:
>I was merely asking Toccata if they classified England the same as they did Scotland.
Interesting question. I realise I don't really think of the UK as Scotland-Wales etc but more as Kent-Oxfordshire-Fife etc. so yes England's a region.
Anyway time to let the thread return to the original topic.
>I was merely asking Toccata if they classified England the same as they did Scotland.
Interesting question. I realise I don't really think of the UK as Scotland-Wales etc but more as Kent-Oxfordshire-Fife etc. so yes England's a region.
Anyway time to let the thread return to the original topic.
1
In reply to alastairmac:
"...,And only recently we've heard that BBC Scotland hasn't even bothered to secure viewing rights to the next three Scottish football games. We'll have to pay to see them. Can you imagine that happening in England? "
Did they not bother to bid, or was their bid nor high enough? England games in a number of sports have been on pay per view on lots of occasions - how much licence fee payer should be spent on sport versus reporting the goings on in Holyrood effectively?
"Apart from anything else the concept of Britishness is a meaningless fabrication. "
Ignorant Bigot
"...,And only recently we've heard that BBC Scotland hasn't even bothered to secure viewing rights to the next three Scottish football games. We'll have to pay to see them. Can you imagine that happening in England? "
Did they not bother to bid, or was their bid nor high enough? England games in a number of sports have been on pay per view on lots of occasions - how much licence fee payer should be spent on sport versus reporting the goings on in Holyrood effectively?
"Apart from anything else the concept of Britishness is a meaningless fabrication. "
Ignorant Bigot
2
2
In reply to Toccata:
Kent and Oxfordshire are counties, Fife is a Kingdom.
> Interesting question. I realise I don't really think of the UK as Scotland-Wales etc but more as Kent-Oxfordshire-Fife etc. so yes England's a region.
Kent and Oxfordshire are counties, Fife is a Kingdom.
2
In reply to drmarten:
Kent was a kingdom
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Kent
However Fife was not
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fife
<<runs and hides from the angry hoards of fifers>>
Kent was a kingdom
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Kent
However Fife was not
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fife
<<runs and hides from the angry hoards of fifers>>
4
1
In reply to Dr.S at work:
my much loved granny was a fifer. I feel honour bound to condemn your scurrilous use of facts to pursue your mendacious vendetta against the good people of fife. how dare you! and down with that sort of thing!
my much loved granny was a fifer. I feel honour bound to condemn your scurrilous use of facts to pursue your mendacious vendetta against the good people of fife. how dare you! and down with that sort of thing!
3
In reply to Gone for good:
I don't like the idea of paying money for my TV for a company like the BBC. They have all the hallmarks of old companies that seem to think they are above the law. Sh####g kids being acceptable albeit in the past is a tad off putting.
I don't like the idea of paying money for my TV for a company like the BBC. They have all the hallmarks of old companies that seem to think they are above the law. Sh####g kids being acceptable albeit in the past is a tad off putting.
1
1
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...