Reading through David Torrance’s recent travails in which he had a (slightly self-satisfied) Road to Damascus ‘the UK is great!’ moment, I had my own revelation as to just why I’m not bought into the No campaign that DT now seems certain is on its way to victory.
Having asked where I was from (I always say Scotland with the caveat that I work in London), his face glowed and the compliments flowed. After salvaging a disappointing situation by booking a cheap flight from Borispol Airport to Georgia, again I was struck by how others see us. On the corridor linking my Aerosvit flight to Tbilisi’s International Airport, posters proudly proclaimed that the Bank of Georgia was listed on the London Stock Exchange.
Then, on the high-octane taxi journey into the Georgian capital’s charming Old Town, I noticed European Union flags everywhere. Later I learned this was a manifestation of a (probably quixotic) Georgian desire to join the EU. Although London’s banking sector and the European project might appear bruised and battered to us – perhaps irreparably – to Georgia’s political elite they represent something to strive for.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s great that some chap in Georgia is enamoured by the London Stock Exchange but for me personally, well, I honestly just don’t care. This guy might as well have a penchant for the French Euronext or the Stockholm OMX exchanges. Good for them. I simply don’t recognise the London Stock Exchange, and most other such institutions, as being something that I and my forebears helped to create. Indeed, the London Stock Exchange is a shining example of why I want to opt-out of the United Kingdom and into an institution that I feel a part of and feel excited to be a part of. Furthermore, the Stock Exchange has 3,000 companies listed on it from 70 different countries and LSE itself is a plc owned by major shareholders Borse Dubai (21% owners), Qatar Investment Authority (15%) and Fidelity International (5%, based in America or Bermuda, depending on which holding company is the ultimate parent). The CEO is Xavier Rolet from France.
So the London Stock Exchange is an odd company to make one go all goose bumpy about being British, unless one just likes the name.
Anyway, the argument that we should vote for the United Kingdom because our institutions are so great is fatally undermined when people have no attachment to said institutions. The two main exceptions that I personally make to my ambivalence to most things British are the NHS and the BBC.
The NHS, taken first because it’s the easiest to dismiss, has already been severed in two at the border with Nicola Sturgeon responsible for a wholly Scottish and distinctly more public health service than her counterpart Andrew Lansley who, for now, covers England and Wales. There’s no overlap there, the NHS’ are, for want of a better word, independent. There is no reason to fear the end of NHS post-independence.
The BBC is an entirely different kettle of fish, and Brian Wilson clearly took merriment in pressing Alex Salmond’s many available buttons on this very issue in the Scotsman recently, the killer line perhaps being: “I have heard of setting the aspirational bar low, but this really does take the shortbread. “Cry Freedom! Our telly will be like RTE”!” The man has a point.
The BBC is wonderful, it carries a global gold standard and for the price of a few beers a month one gets internet, radio, news and an abundance of excellent TV and sport. I can’t say I’ve ever watched RTE, but a Scottish equivalent in place of the BBC would surely be a poorer result.
If voting Yes to independence means saying farewell to the BBC, then many sitting at home will be thinking again.
For me, the straightforward solution is simply to keep the BBC post-independence. “But there’s no longer a Britain” people complain, which is factually incorrect aside from anything else as it is the political entity ‘the UK’ that is at risk of being broken up, not the geographically sound Britain. The British Broadcasting Corporation will still have a natural home whatever the outcome in 2014 is.
Nowhere in the rules for what faces us over the next couple of years is a diktat that independence must involve shutting ourselves off from the rest of the world. We can keep the Queen, keep the pound and keep the BBC if we want (and rUK wants). We can decide for ourselves how we run things. See how much fun this is? Sure, it’s independence-lite, or Devo Max heavy, depending on your point of view and/or party colours, but there’s nothing wrong with going for the optimal deal rather than the black of white visions of a future that is being sold to us. If it’s the BBC that is worrying you about voting Yes, just head to any European country and gaze in wonder at the healthy cross-fertilisation of TV networks across the many, many borders on the Continent.
I have to say, to address the other aspect of David’s article, the flurry of flag waving that has been going on since several weeks ago, I am similarly confounded by the suggestion that all these gold medals will mean Scots will rush to vote No to independence. Now, I happen to think that a flood of No votes will indeed be one unhappy direct result of the Olympics, but I’m as happy for Mo Farah and Vicky Pendleton winning their medals as I am for the US’ Ryan Lochte and Aussie Sally Pearson.
Even though Scottish successes for Chris Hoy etc did give me that patriotic rush of delight at the time; at the end of the day, they won their success through working their backsides off in their own time and on their own dime. It’s got naff all to do with me and naff all to do with Scotland’s constitutional setup, though people are of course free to vote for whatever reason tickles their fancy.
So, unionists are seemingly already backslapping themselves on a job well done but their current high standing may well be built on shifting sands. There is nothing tangible behind an Olympic feel good spirit (other than a £24bn price tag) and there is no reason why Scotland should necessarily feel any attachment to London institutions, irrespective of how popular they may be outwith our current borders.
#1 by Greig on August 30, 2012 - 3:47 pm
Tbilisi – where in 2005 they chose to name the road from the airport to the city centre ‘President George W. Bush Street’.
#2 by Commenter on August 30, 2012 - 4:12 pm
I’ve never lived in Ireland but Alex Massie had a good article recently in which he claimed that RTE manages to outclass BBC Scotland. Couple this with the fact that the Beeb is available in Ireland and I am sanguine about the Dread Horror of Jock Telly.
#3 by Ken on August 30, 2012 - 4:43 pm
“I can’t say I’ve ever watched RTE, but a Scottish equivalent in place of the BBC would surely be a poorer result.”
At least you’re upfront and honest about your ignorance.
“I’ve never been to/seen/heard/read/watched/learned X, but I’m sure it’s crap.”
#4 by Jeff on August 30, 2012 - 4:53 pm
I see your point, but I don’t need to see Ireland’s 10,000m runner in action to know that Mo Farah would beat him.
Incidentally, the RTE schedules for this evening are:
RTE1
6pm – News
6:30pm – Reeling in the years
7pm – Helicopter Search and Rescue
7:30pm – Eastenders
8pm – Fair City
8:30pm – Super Gardens
RTE2
6pm – The Simpsons
6:30pm – Home and Away
7pm – The Big Bang Theory
7:30pm – Mission Beach USA
8pm – Don’t Trust the B**** in Apartment 23
8:30pm – Championship Matters
Shoot me now.
#5 by Ken on August 30, 2012 - 5:02 pm
“I see your point, but I don’t need to see Ireland’s 10,000m runner in action to know that Mo Farah would beat him.”
…eh. Ok? Not entirely sure what Mo Farah has got to do with RTE /BBC Scotland here Jeff.
Incidentally, BBC Scotland schedules for tonight are:
BBC 1 Scotland
18:00 BBC News at Six
18:30 Reporting Scotland
19:00 The One Show
19:30 EastEnders
20:00 Waterloo Road
BBC 2 Scotland
18:00 Eggheads
18:30 Celebrity MasterChef
19:00 Athletics 2012, Diamond League
21:00 Volcano Live
So…..yeh. Much better.
#6 by Jeff on August 30, 2012 - 5:07 pm
Eggheads is utter baloney in a jar, I’ll give you that but I still think BBC has a distinctly more quality edge to it there (not that I ever watch any TV practically ever these days, and yes that was my turn to be self-satisfied). Volcano Live sounds awesome, you’ve got to admit that (if that does what it says on the tin I’m there)
Anyway, six minutes in every hour of RTE is ads. That, if it was even needed, has to be the deal-breaker.
#7 by Ken on August 30, 2012 - 5:23 pm
I’m not defending the programmes individually. I probably might not watch some on either broadcaster. I’m saying they’re obviously different for different cultures, and yet you feel fit to belittle the programming without seeing it. It’s an odd one.
6pm – News
6:30pm – Reeling in the years – showcases the political and cultural stories and the soundtrack of Ireland from specific years.
7pm – Helicopter Search and Rescue – follows the Irish Coast Guard.
7:30pm – Eastenders – UK tv show
8pm – Fair City – Irish type of Eastenders
8:30pm – Super Gardens – A gardening show.
RTE2
6pm – The Simpsons – Top rated US tv show
6:30pm – Home and Away – Long running Aussie soap opera
7pm – The Big Bang Theory – Another top rated US show
7:30pm – Mission Beach USA – Documentary about young Irish teenagers being trained as Lifeguards in the US
8pm – Don’t Trust the B**** in Apartment 23 – Another top rated US tv show
8:30pm – Championship Matters – Irish GAA show in the mold of MoTD (especially as the All Ireland Final is only a few weeks away)
Volcano Live sounds boring as hell after the first… 3-5 mins. But that’s just my opinion – as it is for the entire programme list on both sides. But I don’t make judgement calls on another broadcaster’s overall quality without actually watching some of their content, particularly their content targeted for the home audience.
6 mins of ads per 60 mins!? Scandalous. I believe it’s already a minimum of 7 mins per 60 mins on Channel 4. And they do some damn good programming.
That’s all I wanted to say.
#8 by CW on August 30, 2012 - 5:45 pm
The point is, we’d still be able to watch the BBC if we wanted, but we wouldn’t have to have insulting rubbish like Reporting Scotland and River City funneled through a big sluice into the living rooms and psyches of every Scot, making their country look amateurish and parochial. I cannot possibly see how we could do any worse than that on our own.
Also, if somebody feels a rush of emotion about the London Stock Exchange then a) they’re acting a bit strange and b) their politics are probably a bit suspect in the eyes of most Scots voters, particularly at this juncture in the west’s economic history.
Also, as an aside, Brian Wilson is a very capable man, but he’s hideously partisan and if he had his way we wouldn’t even have a Scottish Parliament.
#9 by Jeff on August 30, 2012 - 5:52 pm
Being partisan doesn’t invalidate one’s arguments. It was (and still is) a fine article.
#10 by CW on August 30, 2012 - 6:20 pm
It’s a nice piece of rhetoric which happily neglects to mention the immense struggles that Tom Johnston went through to maintain Scottish control over the hydro project. And doesn’t point out that Johnson’s prior effectiveness as Scottish Secretary came from the fact that he demanded near complete autonomy in Scotland before agreeing to take the job offered by Churchill. And doesn’t mention the fact that if Brian gets his way and we vote no, the big SNP bargaining chip that Willie Ross wielded so effectively underneath his poisonous rhetoric to gain financial leverage to push forward things like the Highlands and Islands Development Board will quickly disappear. And also neglects to mention the fact that the minimum wage was very quickly rendered irrelevant due to it not at all keeping up with inflation (speaking as a minimum wage worker). And neglects to mention that the autonomous Scottish comprehensive education system is a damned fine achievement that wouldn’t exist if we didn’t continue to believe in its value as a distinctively Scottish system in the fact of periodic threats.
#11 by CW on August 30, 2012 - 6:28 pm
And also, just as another aside, I might as well point out that Scotland’s housing stock remains a mess. This might have something to do with slums being replaced far too frequently by equally poor quality housing, and the better housing that was built being sold off by the right-to-buy-legislation Brian lauds. This was not addressed by Labour once they got back into office, so dependent were they on the housing bubble to maintain their economic boom. We all know about how Labour at Holyrood ignored this issue completely.
#12 by Iain Menzies on August 30, 2012 - 6:38 pm
I guess the point is that its hard to see ourselves (we brits that is even if your a nat) as otehrs see us. Yeah we have problems….but we really do have it pretty good here relative to much of the rest of the world….and have done for a couple of hundred years.
As for there still being a britian. Well right now im in a good mood and feeling helpful so can i suggest to all you nats out there that you stop saying that we will still be british. It just makes you sound stupid. and i do mean stupid.
It may be the United Kingdom that is at risk…..tho that is debatable, since its the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland thats at risk if you want to be picky, so what your really trying to go is creat the United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Not much Britain in that.
Will we still be in the British isles, well yes we will….but do you really think that people are talking about an island when they say britain. COs if you do thats willful stupidity.
Or to put it another way, how many irishmen would call themselves british?
With independence we will still be british…..just as we are European….just as we are earthlings.
#13 by Iain Menzies on August 30, 2012 - 6:39 pm
Oh and on the TV front….if you can get wee eck to swing it so that we can get HBO here then i might be convinced to vote yes.
#14 by CW on August 30, 2012 - 7:06 pm
Give us HBO and I’m definitely voting yes.
#15 by Commenter on August 31, 2012 - 12:07 pm
the point is that its hard to see ourselves (we brits that is even if your a nat) as otehrs see us.
Hate to break it to you: basically others see us as ‘English’. English people see themselves as English, and non-Brits see us as English/British (same thing more or less). I am generalising ever so slightly but nonetheless…
Some of us Scots have our own, slightly self-deluding worldview of course – it makes us feel better about the situation in which we find ourselves.
To be honest, I don’t watch much terrestrial telly at all these days, but I do agree that some English telly is high quality, and the BBC is an admirable institution in many ways. At the same time, they do crank out a lot of drivel. I am sure we would be able to crank out comparable drivel, albeit with slightly lower production values. I cannot stomach the idea that what we have is somehow the best we can manage.
#16 by Allan on August 30, 2012 - 7:35 pm
Firstly, the reason that us Scot’s are on course to vote “No” in 2014 is nothing to do with the (so far) rubbish “Better Together” campaign, but partly to do with people’s ambivilance with what the question is and mostly to do with “Yes Scotland” not exactly setting the heather on fire. Be honest, “Yes Scotland” needs to generate momentum – which it so far hasn’t.
Secondly, surely the BBC Scotland/RTE comparison is largely redundant due to the talent residing at BBC Scotland is clearly not as good as the talent that came from BBC Scotland and is now employed elsewhere, not to mention Scots working for the BBC who have never worked for BBC Scotland. Part of “the Union dividend” i suppose…
That’s not to say that there is no issue with BBC Scotland and how is run – for example BBC Scotland make the BAFTA award winning “Waterloo Road”, while BBC Wales have been making “Doctor Who” since it’s resurection, while making it’s various spin off shows like “Torchwood”.
#17 by Doug Daniel on August 31, 2012 - 1:36 pm
As the run up to any election has surely shown us numerous times in the past, it’s not who builds momentum two years in advance who wins, it’s the folk who build momentum going into the vote.
Personally, I’ll wait until we actually know how many questions are on the ballot paper before worrying how much momentum the Yes Scotland campaign has or hasn’t built up!
#18 by Chris on August 31, 2012 - 1:49 pm
Hardly the basis for fundamental constitutional change, is it?
#19 by Indy on September 1, 2012 - 1:42 pm
Why not? The world is in a state of constant change and flux. All this stuff about considering indepedence from the point of view of how it will change things for 100s of years to come is baloney. We should consider it simply in terms of how it will affect our lives and our children’s lives in the here and now. Leave the future to take care of itself because we can’t control or decide it anyway.
#20 by Allan on September 1, 2012 - 10:15 pm
Actually, more often than not who has a long term poll lead going into an election, wins. Thatch & Blair held poll leads up to their election wins (Thatch less so than Blair, but she held poll leads in the months before she called her election’s in 1983 & 1987 and was also had poll leads going into the 1979 election). Cameron’s lead dwindled as May 2010 approached but grew after the Rochdale incident.
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.
#21 by Passing Welshman on August 31, 2012 - 1:43 am
Just wanted to point out that like in Scotland, the Welsh NHS is independent of the hands of Andrew Lansley, instead being taken care of by the Welsh Government who have ruled out the privatization-based reforms being put through in England!
#22 by BaffieBox on August 31, 2012 - 2:02 pm
I dont really buy into the whole BBC is great mantra. Don’t get me wrong, there is no doubting that it is a massive beast with a huge reach and spans multiple platforms like no other, but that does not necessarily make it efficient or money well spent. IMO, with every passing day, the BBC seems more interested in quantity rather than quality.
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.
#23 by Doug Daniel on August 31, 2012 - 2:13 pm
When it comes to TV, I often think that I would be sad to see the end of the BBC in Scotland, but then I think about what it is I actually 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).
#24 by Iain Menzies on August 31, 2012 - 5:14 pm
I am disgusted…DISGUSTED I SAY….that you can talk about scottish TV and not mention Taggart!
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.
#25 by Jeff on September 2, 2012 - 12:39 pm
I find it hard to believe that Channel 4 would stop being British-wide even after independence.
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.
#26 by Indy on August 31, 2012 - 7:56 pm
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.
#27 by David Smillie on September 1, 2012 - 10:33 am
I would expect STV to continue and to serve the Borders in addition to its current coverage.
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.
#28 by Chris on September 1, 2012 - 3:09 pm
Type your comment here
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.