Scotland's BIG question: Will independence cost me my broadband?

Re: Realism

"BBC Worldwide partially funds and then sells BBC programming worldwide"

Indeed, but does this mean that SBS is going to produce content and give it to BBC Worldwide, and receive profit share in return? Plausible I suppose but does that mean they still get profit share even if no-one outside Scotland or the rest of the UK wants the content they product?

Would it not make more sense for the SBS to sell their content to the BBC like they would (and the BBC do already) to any other third party television network, and reap the profits that way, assuming they product anything that people want.

Re: Realism

Here in the Republic of Ireland my TV Licence is soon to change to an even move annoying concept : The Public Service Broadcasting Charge. That means it's just going to be a household charge with no opt out possibly collected by the Tax Office.

Those funds go primarily to RTE which is Ireland's semi-commercial public service broadcaster - funds itself 50:50 from the licence fee and adverts. At present that's €160 a year per household.

A % also goes to other commercial broadcasters and community radio stations that apply for funding for tje production of public service programmes.

BBC is widely available here on cable and it's carried on Sky Digital in Ireland. However, we pay for it. BBC Worldwide charges cable providers and BSkyB Ireland a royalty fee for BBC 1, 2, 3, 4 and Cbeebees etc

Channel 4 has an ad sales office in a Dublin and operates commercially here running Irish adverts on Channel 4 and E4 etc ccarried on Sky and cable.

Sky and various other channels do similar.

ITV isn't officially available here but most ITV programming is available on TV3 (main commercial TV channel) and UTV northern Ireland is on cable and sells Irish ads.

I don't see how an independent Scotland could just assume it's going to keep BBC.

It'll probably have to turn BBC Scotland into something like RTE in Ireland. Probably SBC or something like that and pay for BBC content and channels commercially like we do.

Re: Realism

"And it should be obvious that an independent Scottish postal service is bound to cost more, simply because there's a greater proportion of remote locations than for the UK as a whole. I'm sure the same must be true for telephone and broadband services as well."

Does that mean that the cost in England and Wales will come down?

Re: Realism

Ah; the Salmond effect: as long as Alex repeats the magic mantra "everyone in the newly formed country will be able to get broadband" enough times, it will become true, along with keeping the Pound and the Queen (although I'm happy to concede on that last one, as long as they promise not to let any Windsors stray south of Balmoral ever again).

Re: Realism

"And it should be obvious that an independent Scottish postal service is bound to cost more, simply because there's a greater proportion of remote locations than for the UK as a whole. I'm sure the same must be true for telephone and broadband services as well."

I'm not sure about that - while the overall population density of Scotland is lower than for the UK as a whole, there are large areas of Scotland that have no population, and therefore don't require any Postal or wired services at all. Mobile coverage may be an issue in some of those areas, but population clustering may mean that Scotland isn't necessarily any worse off that the rest of the UK it comes to telephone, broadband and postal services.

Re: Realism

If faced with a rational argument, spout patriotic poetry. Got it.

Re: Realism

"Combine that with other wonderful plans such as a pinning your national economic future to a currency union with the rest of the UK, which the UK government has already said they won't agree to"

It shows that I'm not an economist, but that has always confused me.

What's stopping an imdependent Scotland (or any other country) deciding to mirror the value of the UK pound? The only restriction I can see is potentially international copyright laws, but why then couldn't they keep parity but call it (say) the 'ellbie' or something.

I realise I'm being stupid here, so please reply with constructive answers not flames :-)

Re: Realism

"Scots, wha hae wi Wallace bled,

Scots, wham Bruce has aften led,

Welcome tae yer gory bed,

Or tae victorie.

I think that the Scots will surpise you."

Not as much as the English surprised the Scots at Culloden, which is what this little piece was written about.

Re: Realism

"Like it or not, Scottish licence fee payers have financially contributed to the BBC"

Yes ok, I'll give you that. But an arrangement where a portion of ongoing profits for an indefinite future period go to the SBS would equally be theft. What about in x number of years time, when any content produced during the period funded by money from the Scots is no longer sold by BBC Worldwide or broadcast at all. For BBC Worldwide to continue to fund the SBS at that point would equally be theft.

Either as you say a lump sum should be paid, or simply the past contributions should be written off as having paid for content received at the time and/or be considered as part of the cost of independence.

After all, although you don't need a TV licence to watch pre-recorded content on iPlayer and such, previously having paid for a TV licence doesn't have any bearing on your entitlement to watch content produced during the period that you did pay for in the future.

Re: Realism

"Assuming a proportionate share, then Scottish licence fee payers own around 10% of BBC Worldwide, and 10% of future revenue streams on current productions, because they paid for it."

That's fine just so long we can use the same model for the oil and gas in international waters off Scotland - the UK government has funded all of the exploration and development via tax allowances, so Scotland presumably owns only a proportional share based on the size of it's population or GDP contribution, etc.

Re: Realism

An international law professor I saw present to the Scottish Affairs Committee of Parliament said that international legal conventions point to an independent Scotland being entitled to a claim to a share of the UK's assets, but no claim on its institutions. The logic is that turning your back on the UK means turning your back on UK state institutions, even the ones (like the BBC or the £) you like and feel you have paid towards.

So it would make sense for Scotland to have a claim to a share of the BBC's assets like buildings and kit located in Scotland. Would the BBC's back catalogue of telly programmes count as an asset that could be divvied up?

Expect many such squabbles after independence!