I soent New Year in Sweden a couple of years ago and their setpiece ‘Hogmanay’ show on the 31st is held in Denmark* (with both Danish* and Swedish guests). Noone finds it strange in the least.

*Might be Norway/Norwegian, get the two mixed up sometimes Sarah Palin style, but the point still stands.

Indeed, the exception which proves the rule was the 1992 Westminster Election, when Kinnock held a poll lead up until 8 days before polling, before losing to John Major.

In terms of unseating an incumbant, which is the pertinant point here. Blair & Cameron understood that they had to create a momentum in the polls, which would translate to electorial success. This is why both the re-writing of Clause IV was announced (by Blair), and why Osborne promised to look at Inheritance Tax (this had the dual purpose of re-launching the Tories after Brown took office and sowed the seeds of doubt in Brown’s head that he could win an election in the Autumn od 2007 – ultimately this generated a poll lead that Brown would never overhaul).

To return to my earlier point, Yes Scotland are behind in the polls, and to date do not look like overhauling “Better Together” – which means that “Better Together” don’t really need to do very much.

null:

On the TV/broadcasting side of things – at the moment Scots license fee payers put in 340m but only 100m is being spent in Scotland so we are being short-changed. That makes us mugs.
With independence the state broadcaster would therefore have another 240m to play with. Some of that would be used to make more domestic programming – providing jobs and an economic benefit as well as a social/cultural/political benefit. Some of it could be used to buy into programming from elsewhere which of course would include the BBC but would not be the BBC exclusively.
Because yes the BBC is great but it is not the only great broadcaster out there. Other people have mentioned HBO and I think many of us would agree that Game of Thrones is outstanding TV. Packed full of British actors – but not made by the BBC. There is a bigger world of broadcasting out there than just the choices made by BBC executives.
And it’s a world that might be interested in buying some of our stuff too. We may scoff at the tartan and heather stuff but there are millions of people out there in the world who have Scots ancestry and might be into a bit of Bonnie Prince Charlie meets the Stag in the Glen. We shouldn’t just be thinking of broadcasting in terms of what we ourselves want to watch, we should also be thinking about what the rest of the world wants to watch and what can we give them? It is a global market we are talking about after all.

That’s a pretty facetious argument. And contradicts itself

(1) We are paying for the programmes we watch. Did Chris Hoy winning gold on BBC shortchange us because it wasn’t made by BBC Scotland? Does Doctor Who shortchange us because we like watching it but don’t get to make it?

Do you really propose that programming and production should be based on devolved budgets? Or should we concnetrate on the programmes people want to watch???

(2)In your first argument the “£240m” where we are short-changed would now go into making programmes – like Holby City or Antiques Roadshow (!) we watch but don’t make.

Not even any mention on the impact of such a budget cut on the BBC. With a 8% cut in resources and only a £100m cut in expenditure that £240m will need to come out of somewhere.

Most TV, including the BBC, is pap nowadays and that is because a good proportion of people are well satisfied with a diet of game shows, reality TV and soaps. There is volume but not much quality, and this is where the BBC might claim to have a (well-funded) edge. I remember being surprised a how lowbrow the S4C Welsh language channel was. RTE is better, but I was suprised to see Eastenders appear on it a few years ago. I guess this might be the kind of arrangement the First Minister is proposing.

Whether we like it or not, television is the way that culture is transmitted nowadays. On that basis, why would an idependent Scotland not aspire to have its own broadcasting service? It would provide a great many high quality jobs and if we were good enough, could offer export potential. Scots are far too lacking in ambition. And by the way, I’ve lived and worked in the Irish Republic and RTE is fine. BBC is provided free to a large chunk of their population as a propaganda tool of the UK government IMHO.

With independence the state broadcaster would therefore have another 240m to play with. Some of that would be used to make more domestic programming – providing jobs and an economic benefit as well as a social/cultural/political benefit. Some of it could be used to buy into programming from elsewhere which of course would include the BBC but would not be the BBC exclusively.

Because yes the BBC is great but it is not the only great broadcaster out there. Other people have mentioned HBO and I think many of us would agree that Game of Thrones is outstanding TV. Packed full of British actors – but not made by the BBC. There is a bigger world of broadcasting out there than just the choices made by BBC executives.

And it’s a world that might be interested in buying some of our stuff too. We may scoff at the tartan and heather stuff but there are millions of people out there in the world who have Scots ancestry and might be into a bit of Bonnie Prince Charlie meets the Stag in the Glen. We shouldn’t just be thinking of broadcasting in terms of what we ourselves want to watch, we should also be thinking about what the rest of the world wants to watch and what can we give them? It is a global market we are talking about after all.

But other than being amazed that you can actually watch Limmys Show without hurting your tv i tend to agree. One of my big bug bears with the BBC is actually not how little they spend making programmes, but how much. And how little they get out of that.

There is so much good US (and actually canadian) tv out there that unless you dig through teh channels you wont see. I think the last BBC drama i made any effort to watch was Silk….and it was what 6 episodes?

In contrast before the the last legal drama i had any real intrest in was Boston Legal (DENNY CRANE!) and it was 20 odd eps a season.

That being said the BBC do tend to pull out of the hat (from time to time) top notch, and interesting documentaries. I still get funny looks when i tell people how good the BBC4 series on the national grid was….but then on the otehr hand the last time i looked on iplayer (yesterday) in hope of a good sciencey docu i got nothing. And its been a good few weeks since i saw a docu on the bbc that was really good hard questioning science.

But then of course like you say its about more than just the BBC.

For my money the best docu series yet made was the world at war….which was ITV, and just the otehr night channel 4 did a programme on Islam that is well worth a watch.

CSI, NCIS, Law & Order, The Mentalist, Big Bang Theory – all American shows, none of which are on the BBC.
The Killing, Borgen, The Bridge – Scandinavian shows which are on the BBC, but which would almost certainly be bought up by a Scottish TV channel.
Poirot – British, but not on the BBC, and I would expect the STV arrangement to continue post-independence anyway.
Repeats of Columbo and various other detective shows (keen-eyed BN readers may have noticed a subtle trend in my watching habits by now)
– all syndicated shows, available all over the world.
Limmy’s Show, Burnistoun – BBC Scotland, and as the makers of both shows are pro-independence, I see no reason why they wouldn’t continue making shows for an SBC.

The only things I can think of that I watch which are specific to the BBC are news and current affairs programmes, all of which will automatically become more relevant for not having to spend time on issues that do not affect us up here because of devolution, and which are likely to become better quality as a direct result of many future top journalists, presenters and producers no longer seeking promotion out of the merely regional BBC Scotland and into the big time in Television Centre. In fact, such is the dire quality of much of BBC Scotland’s news and current affairs output that it’s an argument for a distinct SBC all in itself.

Essentially, so much of TV is now syndicated worldwide that the only thing we’re likely to miss if we have our own SBC service is news and current affairs, and if anyone is determined to see English news, there are always ways to find it. Even my all-time favourite BBC stalwart, Alan Partridge, has jumped ship to Sky.

(Actually I’ve suddenly remembered that Stewart Lee’s Comedy Vehicle is one unmissable BBC show I watch, but I’ve got both series on DVD, and there’s always the internet…)

It’s actually the other channels I’m interested to know about – would Channel 4 etc remain pan-British, or would they be restricted to rUK? After all, these guys don’t do regional TV at the moment (not that I can think of, anyway).

Is the quality of programming that good that I would object to the licence fee being replaced by advertising revenue? No.
Is the quality of the BBC web portal something worth paying a subscription for rather than the licence fee? No.
Is the quality of radio output justified by a licence fee? No.

Obviously, there are some small exceptions to these general rules, but by and large, the vast majority of output funded by a forced licence fee passes me by completely or wouldnt be hugely affected by an alternate funding model.

I’d be far more interested in how the licence fee was reworked to fund more targetted and higher quality output in various ways.

BBC Scotland is amateurish beyond belief, and anyone pointing me in the direction of Radio 1, the Archers, and Eastenders as championing the BBC should be forced to watch River City on continuous loop.

Note: That said, Radio Five Live would be first thing plucked from choppy waters should the good ship BBC go down.