Some in the independence camp have got a bit of a bee in their bonnet about the BBC, with such luminaries as Pete Wishart describing the corporation as the “institutional enemy” of independence. It will, he said, need to be replaced with a new SBC that can buy in £50-75m worth of BBC content a year. Newsnet Scotland’s attitude to the Beeb, similarly, is akin to the Daily Mail’s attitude to gay asylum-seeking carcinogens. Even the First Minister himself has played this game, invoking Godwin’s law by implying his own removal from a rugby commentary slot was so far up the scale of misbehaviour that we would normally associate it with the Nazis.
And to be fair, the BBC’s approach to anything non-metropolitan is often poor, and sometimes it does feel very partisan. Their treatment of the SNP during the 2010 leaders’ debates was unacceptable, for instance, although full equality would have been inappropriate for viewers outside Scotland. And it’s not just them: Greens can tell you a tonne of such stories. As just one illustration, on election day itself in 2007 the lunchtime news showed pictures of a certain Robin Harper voting while a voiceover intoned that he was only there for the cameras, having voted by post some days earlier. Could we get someone to correct this baseless nonsense even in time for the teatime news? We could not. Irritating. On a more minor but telling note, they were right to fix the infamous weather map tilt back in 2005, the most directly graphical illustration of a skewed agenda.
And yet I cannot agree with the SNP’s solution, just as I do not subscribe to the conspiracy theory that their anti-BBC attitudes are some kind of quid pro quo with the Evil One. I do not want an independent Scotland to cut itself off from the BBC and set up a new organisation instead, especially not one if it’s one that trades indy-scepticism for partisan political loyalty. I recognise the bathwater but I also value the baby.
Sure, Good Morning Scotland is essential listening during Scottish elections, despite its obsession with weather and travel reports, and I regard Newsnight Scotland as first-class if cramped (and I’d also rather it didn’t clash with what’s often the most interesting 20 minutes of the network edition), but their focus is necessarily narrower, less internationally-minded. Do we really want an SBC replacement for the remainder of Newsnight to have to staff foreign bureaux, including one to cover rUK news like just another outpost, or to have to try and replace Paul Mason or Susan Watts? I don’t.
After independence I would like to watch a Question Time that covers Scotland more, not less, and listen to a Today programme that deals with Scottish issues properly as well as providing excellent global coverage. Some of this can be achieved very easily now. As a start, they could use their own staff on the ground more for network news, for example, i.e. going to Brian Taylor or David Miller for comment on UK-wide programming rather than a separate Scotland correspondent.
Leaving the news and current affairs side for things I know less about, do we want to have to pay for more Scottish drama and other content as well as paying the BBC for what they do best? Wouldn’t it be better to see the BBC take a more radical approach and give more power and more channel access to their “nations and regions” instead?
BBC management couldn’t continue with the status quo if there’s a yes vote, clearly. An independent Scotland that retained that link would need to be a spur to the corporation to look at alternative models of management, structures that better reflect the growing diversity of their audiences. They should do so anyway, whatever the outcome of the referendum, not least because they’re competing with a revitalised and increasingly confident STV, an STV that’s expanding its hyperlocal services and doing well by doing so. A less constrained digital network gives the BBC the space to up their game accordingly. The right answer is not what would truly be separation, just as it isn’t for rail infrastructure or the electricity grid: it’s surely something more like devo max for BBC Scotland, or even that old Liberal solution, federalism.
#1 by Steve on June 19, 2012 - 6:45 pm
I can only assume the coverage of the jubilee completely passed you by.
#2 by James on June 20, 2012 - 9:43 am
Correct. But then I also hate soap operas, “reality” TV shows, Strictly, Top Gear, and much of the rest. So perhaps I was in a poor position to judge.
#3 by M G on June 19, 2012 - 7:34 pm
Several years ago ,when MRSA was in the headlines, it was Eorpa (now I think on BBC Alba) who sent a camera crew to compare and contrast the Dutch system,last year as students gathered in protest in Spain, the information was available widely across the internet( but until the whole occupy story broke) not on the BBC.
I’m sorry James, while I love BBC 4 and would happily pay a subscription to it, the rest of the BBC is either available in a box set or if essential viewing (although can’t think of anything essential off the top of my head ) available by other means.
The large marketing arm the BBC has created ensures this.
What disappoints me most about the BBC (in general) is how bland it is. There appears to be a very insular outlook in this global world,where even when reporters are sent overseas, you could write the script. There is never a ,France is successful in this or Greece is successful with that,what could we learn ?it is always don’t worry your pretty little heads compared to this lot,we;re doing ok.
My final point is, there are fantastically creative people here in Scotland,trying to produce radio and TV programmes,funny,relevant, dramatic,topical and,surely ,surely with funding,they too could produce good programmes and maybe even sell them to the BBC ?
As for BBC Scotland,I ;m afraid the England games coming on,so don’t have time to even go there
#4 by Allan on June 19, 2012 - 7:48 pm
Ah, but while there is no quid pro quo with regards to the BBC, the SNP and the Digger both have similar attidudes towards the BBC for diferent reasons (It’s not just the BBC that the SNP leadership are in step with Murdoch, look for example at their agreement about the use of “Two in the Bush” economics). In any case, if you want to see a real quid pro quo, look no furthet than Mr Jeremy Hunt…
However, the problem is not with BBC Scotland pre se, but with the quality of the talent they employ. Both Watts and Mason are excellent reporters and yet are used in essentially a late night slot (admittedly where the likes of Mardell, Davis and Flanders made their marks) which highlights the strength of talent and also that really there is no Scottish equivilent working in Scotland for the BBC.
#5 by andrewgraemesmith on June 19, 2012 - 11:19 pm
I may be missing something as I dont see the daily news, but I do watch Newsnight Scotland and Sunday Politics Scotland and both of them are alright. Neither one are as good as the London based broadcasts (in terms of presentation, quality of guests and the reporting itself) but both are ok. I don’t see a particularly strong anti SNP bias in either, although if there is then I don’t see it being supported by any favourable coverage for the opposition either. However, when Paxman or Neil get involved they make their feelings quite clear (to be fair Neil is a pretty good interviewer and does that to most people).
Not sure what the point you were making about the Jubilee coverage was Steve, but weren’t the complaints because it wasn’t good enough as opposed to there being too much of it?
#6 by Doug Daniel on June 20, 2012 - 8:39 am
You’re obviously not a republican then!* The jubilee coverage has been obscenely deferential. I thought the kind of sycophancy on show died out in the 70s, but clearly not.
*(Or just didn’t see much of it yourself, possibly because you didn’t make the mistake of taking that week off work.)
#7 by M G on June 20, 2012 - 1:36 am
Much more succinct than me,a good article written by a former BBC employee over at The Scottish Review.
#8 by Thomas Widmann on June 20, 2012 - 7:26 am
I must admit I don’t really see the benefit of maintaining a “federal” BBC after a Yes vote. The Scottish license fees (if kept at their current level) will ensure plenty of funding for several good Scottish TV and radio channels. In addition, it’s quite likely that at least viewers with a satellite dish will still be able to watch the rUK BBC, so they’ll get more TV, not less, out of independence.
Because a Scottish foreign policy hasn’t existed for three hundred years, I think many people here are forgetting that the rUK and Scotland will be looking differently at many topics, including North Sea oil, UN Security Council matters (provided the rUK keeps its permanent seat), the EU, the Falklands & Gibraltar, etc. You simply cannot expect an English reporter employed by the London office of the BBC to supply stories about any of these topics to an independent Scotland.
#9 by Doug Daniel on June 20, 2012 - 12:33 pm
I think it’s important to note that, while Norway and Denmark both have no trouble funding public service broadcasting, they do so on a TV licence that is roughly £100 more than ours is. Personally I’d be prepared to pay that, but it’s something to keep in mind. Ireland, on the other hand, has a slightly cheaper TV licence than us, but RTE is partially funded by advertising.
#10 by Thomas Widmann on June 20, 2012 - 1:58 pm
Don’t forget that average salaries are higher in Denmark and Norway than here, which will have an effect on the price of producing TV. I therefore doubt Scottish licence payers would have to pay £100 more to get the quality they want (although I wouldn’t rule out a small rise).
#11 by Doug Daniel on June 20, 2012 - 2:51 pm
I did consider that, but I couldn’t be bothered checking if it was as true for Denmark as it is for Norway!
Either way, I think people who think an SBC couldn’t possibly produce quality programmes for a similar licence fee to the BBC need to bear in mind that the BBC wastes an incredible amount of money. The amount they’ve paid in the past to people like Jonathan Ross (and continue to pay to Paxman and Norton), as well as management types, is ridiculous. That’s before you even approach their big money mistakes like The Voice, when they forget they’re a public service broadcaster and try to compete with commercial TV instead.
#12 by Thomas Widmann on June 20, 2012 - 2:58 pm
Indeed. Although I’m sure the SBC will make a few mistakes, too! 🙂
The Danish minimum salary is around £11, by the way.
#13 by Indy on June 20, 2012 - 8:37 am
I have no objection to the Jubilee coverage as the BBC does that kind of thing very well and, whether people like it or not, a huge number of people down south and even some in Scotland support the royal family and all that malarkey.
However I was very disappointed that the BBC failed to give any real coverage to the story about workfare people being forced to do the river pageant in quite appalling conditions. I think that was a big story, it was genuinely shocking and you do have to wonder why they didn’t give it more prominence. It’s that kind of thing that makes you question the agenda that operates at the BBC, much as I am a fan of a lot of their output it’s just a bit too cosy sometimes.
#14 by Iain Menzies on June 20, 2012 - 3:14 pm
cos ot turned out to be total nonsense perhaps?
#15 by Doug Daniel on June 20, 2012 - 9:32 am
Let’s be honest, there’s something very amateurish about BBC Scotland. Not only does it have a very high rate of mistakes compared to the BBC as a whole (the wrong captions in reports, VTs not playing, that sort of silly thing), but it just feels very parochial and of lower substance. I put this down to it being nothing more than a regional branch of the BBC, and this means anyone with real talent will soon by promoted up to the “real” BBC, in the same way anyone with talent in the Labour party goes to Westminster rather than Holyrood.
But Scotland isn’t just a region, we’re a nation. We deserve a national broadcaster that looks at events from a Scottish perspective, and not just the “coming up, more on that story which was already covered far better by the 6 O’Clock News, once we’ve told you about a cat stuck up a tree” coverage that we currently get. Part of this problem is doubtless the continued cut in funding BBC Scotland is receiving, which merely highlights even more why we need a Scottish broadcaster – BBC Scotland is just another department.
I think your desire to see a Question Time that covers Scotland more can only be achieved by a Scottish version. One of the major criticisms of BBCQT is that it is so London-centric, and that Dimbledore is clueless about Scotland, typified by how ready he is to trot out the subsidy line. That won’t improve. The BBC has proven itself incapable of adjusting to devolution, and I see no reason to think that it would adjust to independence any better. We already see too much on the English education, health and justice systems – all of which are utterly irrelevant to Scotland except to show us how bad things could really be if we didn’t have devolution – and I see no reason why the main BBC news and current affairs output wouldn’t become totally irrelevant under independence. Will I care what gaffes Westminster MPs and ministers have made when their decisions no longer affect my life? Will English EU relations be any more relevant than Irish EU relations? No.
I think the ideal situation would be an independent SBC which works closely with the BBC (rUKBC?). It would handle news and current affairs entirely on its own, but would work with the BBC on other things, in the same way Sweden’s SVT and Denmark’s DR worked together to create The Bridge last year. And as MG points out above, an SBC would be able to sell programmes to the BBC in a way which BBC Scotland doesn’t, so it would stop being purely funded by the licence fee. Limmy’s Show and Burnistoun are two that spring to mind that would definitely be sellable assets.
Oh, and it would need to cover football tournaments as well. After the appalling commentary last night (admittedly by ITV rather than the BBC), this is quite possibly the most important reason for having a Scottish broadcaster…
#16 by Ben Achie on June 20, 2012 - 10:02 am
Correct, James! Radically change the shape of the relationship between the constituent countries that make up the UK, and the BBC will follow. Best start to show willing though would be for Westminster to devolve broadcasting to Holyrood, and we all know that will not happen this side of independence (bit like Trident removal!).
#17 by Grahamski on June 20, 2012 - 10:26 am
I do find it interesting that the SNP have moved from the claims they were making right up until last year about the BBC – that the service would remain the same in a separate Scotland – to something now closer to the truth.
For me this is just another example of the good ship SNP Mythology foundering on the rocks of reality…
#18 by Indy on June 20, 2012 - 10:56 am
The other point to be made regarding the news agenda is the one referenced by James. I think STV Local is genuinely quite groundbreaking. I am addicted to it! And so are quite a lot of people I know. At a local level the BBC are not that great.
But it’s not just about news coverage is it? It’s about the whole range of programming and that’s what is important to most people. But in a post indy scenario we will continue to be able to buy into BBC programming and the news side of things will to a certain extent sort itself out I think.
#19 by AFaulds on June 20, 2012 - 12:17 pm
Whether it’s an improved BBC Scotland or a new broadcaster entirely, we do need to do something – largely in terms of improving political coverage and local news. Local news in particular is pretty dire – Reporting Scotland is basically all about Glasgow, Edinburgh and the Old Firm. If you do get something from another area, it’s probably a stupid thing like “the dug with nae eyes” story they ran a couple of years ago that has stuck in my mind as the fluffiest of fluff pieces in broadcast history. We could do with more about local councils, charities and sporting events, perhaps by creating more broadcast “regions” within Scotland.
Reforming the BBC to provide such services might be the easiest option, but if we weren’t able to do that I don’t see anything to stop us having both the BBC and a new Scottish broadcaster – after all, the BBC already broadcasts all over the world, it shouldn’t be too hard to find a way for it to keep providing a service to Scotland after independence.
#20 by Thomas Widmann on June 20, 2012 - 2:04 pm
Good point. Denmark’s second TV channel, TV2, broadcasts regional news programmes. Denmark (with more or less the same population as Scotland) is divided into 8 regions for this purpose (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TV_2_(Denmark) ).
I would like to see this in Scotland, too.