I must confess I'm always a dubious about publications like this, so skipped to the bit I do know something about in order to judge its quality, but my fears were confirmed.Mikie711 wrote: Something else for you to get your teeth into wee blue book
Let me explain. (and to be clear this just my own understanding and views)
It says Scotland owns 8% of the BBC - well, for over a decade now, the BBC has leased all of it buildings and equipment with the goal of putting more money towards programme making. Without income from the licence fee, the BBC would be instantly bankrupt - so the 8% claimed to be owned by Scotland, in reality, is the liability for 8% of staff salaries. And I doubt an independent Scotland would be keen to continue to pay those let alone the cost of redundancies a YES vote might cause. I could go on and say the broadcasting rights are owned by the programme makers who are independent production companies these days (most programmes are made with a view to international sales and the BBC only pays for the UK rights and this may not represent the full cost of the production). The sums quoted in the white paper have been plucked from the regional budget (news etc.) and represent the about a third of what is actually spent in Scotland making programmes, so to replicate BBC Scotland and buy in all the programmes (as suggested) would be at least in the order of 3-4 times the sums being suggested. Don't get me wrong, broadcasting would survive in Scotland, and some may take the view that it would be for the better, but it would be very different to what is suggested.
But my point is that is that modus operandi of those putting these publications together needs to be challenged. If we don't, we risk being mislead about the more important issues than broadcasting.