What would Scottish independence really mean for the BBC?
The future of the BBC in an independent Scotland is a perfect paradigm for all the institutions of the UK, up to and including the pound and EU membership, writes Raymond Snoddy. But what would really happen to UK broadcasting if the Scots vote Yes?
It is 18 September 2014 and the unimaginable has happened. Against the run of the opinion polls the Scots have voted for independence and no-one is totally sure why it has happened.
A historic, visceral hatred of the Auld enemy bubbling to the surface perhaps? An emotional attachment to ideals of self-determination? A curmudgeonly reaction to what was seen as bullying when senior politicians in the UK and Europe warned of what they saw as the practical consequences of independence?
If there was reason at all behind the narrowest of victories, then it can only be that a majority of Scots believed that First Minister Alex Salmond’s talk of losing the pound, EU membership, UK pensions, head offices of major financial institutions and the BBC, was all bluff and bluster.
For now we’ll put aside small matters like an independent Scotland losing the pound and the “difficult, if not near impossible,” as EU President Barroso sees it, prospect of being granted EU membership.
We’ll know before too long whether the senior British and European political figures really were bluffing, or as seems much more likely, were deadly serious about the inevitable consequences of the “Yes” vote.
But what is absolutely clear is that the vote will have serious consequences for the future of the BBC and broadcasting in both Scotland and the continuing rump of the UK.
You can be sure that a secretive committee is at work somewhere in the bowels of the BBC on a position paper on the implications of a “Yes” vote for the Corporation.”
The future of the BBC in an independent Scotland is a perfect paradigm for all the institutions of the UK, up to and including the pound and EU membership.
The Scottish Nationalists want to be able to mix and match the bits of the UK they want to keep and those they don’t. Anyone who suggests that this might not be entirely possible is immediately denounced as a scaremonger.
On the BBC the Scottish Nationalists say no problem. We will have Pacific Quay, the BBC’s £188 million Scottish headquarters in Glasgow, and the 1,250 staff employed by BBC Scotland. The Scottish Broadcasting Corporation will be funded, they say, by the £320 million that the Scots pay annually through the licence fee, and will be a good customer in future for BBC programmes.
The BBC is wisely saying nothing about the issue, or how a break-up of the Corporation would be organised, on the grounds that such preparations might be seen as trying to influence the debate.
You can be sure that a secretive committee is at work somewhere in the bowels of the BBC on a position paper on the implications of a “Yes” vote for the Corporation.
Whatever its findings you can also be sure the future is going to be messy.
The BBC is convinced that the Scots get more out of the BBC than they presently contribute through the licence fee beyond the £180 million to £200 million a year in direct spending in Scotland – not least access to £2.5 billion in programme expenditure.
As Culture Secretary Maria Miller warned last week, a “Yes” vote for Scotland would mean a “No” vote for the BBC.
But what does such a statement mean? The Scottish Nationalists say an independent Scotland would establish the SBC in a joint venture with the BBC. What would happen if such a joint venture is not actually on offer?
The mess for everyone starts when you start addressing how you would actually separate the broadcasting systems of two independent nations.”
The Scottish Nationalists are assuming that Pacific Quay would just be handed over. Not necessarily. It’s one of three central broadcasting headquarters for the BBC alongside New Broadcasting House in London and Salford and must be owned by the BBC and ultimately all the licence payers of the UK.
A fair apportionment? How about the Scots getting 8.4 per cent of the value of Pacific Quay, the proportion of the UK population represented by the 5.3 million Scots?
The Scottish Nationalists have said that they would spend around £75 million on buying popular BBC programmes such as EastEnders.
Just at a ranging shot the Scottish proportion of the BBC programme expenditure is closer to £200 million. Clearly money is going to be tight because an independent Scotland will launch a new television channel and a radio station that will better reflect the interests of the Scottish people.
Fine, but it is not clear what, if any, export potential inward-looking Scottish programmes might have. And it might be more than a little optimistic to suggest that the SBC would continue to supply the BBC “with the same level of network programming, in return for access to the Corporation’s services in Scotland.”
Scottish National politicians have conceded that in addition to the licence fee, Scots might have to pay an additional subscription to access the broader range of BBC programmes through cable and satellite.
The mess for everyone starts when you start addressing how you would actually separate the broadcasting systems of two independent nations.
Transmitters are on hills and face all ways. There would be considerable leakage of terrestrial television across the border from the north of England into the border regions of Scotland and possibly into the West coast from Northern Ireland.
In the digital age signals can be scrambled but that involves expense and is the antithesis of free-to-air television.
As for Channel 4, the suggestion is that it might become a company part-owned by a Channel 4 Scotland with a shareholding matching Scotland’s population share. Perhaps, but there is no certainty that Channel 4 will be driven to change its ownership structure just to accommodate an independent Scotland.
Dare to put forward on Twitter the mild views in favour of maintaining the 300-year old union of an Ulsterman opposed to narrow nationalisms, rather than cultural diversity, and the inevitable happens. The Scottish National Twitter attack dogs are immediately on the scent.
They are not really Tartan Trolls but apart from being called a very, very silly scaremonger you will get denounced as patronising, an old-fashioned colonialist and, worst of all, a Cameron flunkie.
Oddly not a single supporter of the “No” campaign steps forward to the defence – or indeed steps forward at all.
As Yeats said in a different context: “The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.”
Perhaps the best way forward is to start appealing, even pleading, to the Scots to vote “Yes”. Then you can be sure they will do the opposite.