SNP Referendum Nonsense
- Thread starter Schlong&Stable
- Start date
BBC scotland has 10% of the viewing population but doesn't get anywhere close to 10% of the funding. (Last time I checked it was less than 7%)
What should happen is BBC should be advert driven in Scotland to make up any shortfall. People in Scotland will still be able to get the UK channels via Freeview and satellite same as Rep Ireland viewers can.
It's a trivial point.
Also new nations would have quite a bit of support from international bodies.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 14,315
- Location
- Peoples Republic of Histonia, Cambridge
I agree you can't trust him. But that's the type of person Scotland's entry will depend on.
The argument isn't that the Spanish government wouldn't let the Scots in, the argument is that they wouldn't let them in by the "back door" rather than the more onerous route of a new entry with all the difficulties and compromises that would entail. Spain could easily say no to ammending the treaty, especially as it is currently in their national interests to do so.
BBC scotland has 10% of the viewing population but doesn't get anywhere close to 10% of the funding. (Last time I checked it was less than 7%)
What should happen is BBC should be advert driven in Scotland to make up any shortfall. People in Scotland will still be able to get the UK channels via Freeview and satellite same as Rep Ireland viewers can.
It's a trivial point.
Also new nations would have quite a bit of support from international bodies.
How much funding does BBC England get...
No offense, but I think that's a naive view point - this is politics after all. Spain has it's own agenda with regard to it's own issues with independence, letting Scotland into the EU via an easy route would set a precedence they don't particularly want. It's a balancing act though so maybe an agreement can be made, but then again all it takes is one veto....
BBC scotland has 10% of the viewing population but doesn't get anywhere close to 10% of the funding. (Last time I checked it was less than 7%)
What should happen is BBC should be advert driven in Scotland to make up any shortfall. People in Scotland will still be able to get the UK channels via Freeview and satellite same as Rep Ireland viewers can.
It's a trivial point.
Also new nations would have quite a bit of support from international bodies.
But you're making the typical false assumption of the "we don't get our fair share campaign".
You're assuming that because only about 7% of the funding is spent directly on Scottish content that's it.
It's not, as a lot of the most popular content in Scotland is from other regions...(and very little of the Scottish specific content has any value outside of Scotland)
Let alone the behind the scenes things that have their true cost for a region hidden because it's used generally across the organisation and thus the money comes from the central pot (even if it's used locally).
If it's such a trivial point then why is it brought up at all, and why is it so hard for the white paper to realise that there would be rights issues*.
This is a great example of how the "yes campaign" aren't thinking things through.
It's not up to the BBC to decide what they can let people outside the BBC's viewing area see - it's up to the rights holders, and they tend to like to sell those rights separately by country, or get additional payments.
IIRC in the case of the republic of Ireland there is some form of agreement that has been negotiated with the content providers and some payments.
The same sort of faulty arguments are all over the place with the Scottish independence campaign, as it's usually really quite hard to see how much is spent in any one region out of funding that might be from a general purpose pot, rather than specifically earmarked.
For example the current Diplomatic missions and Embassies we have in various countries will all be funded by Westminister, and Scots will get full use of them, but the cost is never seen as a "Scottish cost" in the accounting the SNP etc like to use.
Likewise I suspect the cost of search and rescue in the waters around Scotland won't be from a pot specifically earmarked as "Scottish", but as a part of the S&R budget generally.
The same is true of all sorts of things (another example is things like the cost of the DVLA etc).
*Rights issues that could mean that apart from regions where they receive from an English transmitter, once they go independent they could lose freeview versions of current UK channels - I suspect that all the current contracts will be for the UK, and that from a legal point of view could be quite tricky if Scotland became independent and no longer part of the UK (if a legal document in a rights case refers to the UK, parts of the UK that break off are likely to no longer be covered - and even if they are it could take years of court cases to sort out all the thousands of contract.)...
hah, UK should veto Scotland joining EU, payback for being whiners
Just my humble opinion....
The grass is not greener on the other side, there are only 5mill odd Scots, doesn't even really count as a country in my book, and never will perform like one.
Scotland has assets and a small population - it's possible for it to be a little country by itself. It could balance its books. It's a moot point though, because nobody is after that. This "independence" isn't really independence.
Scotland is not already in the EU. The UK is already in the EU. If Scotland leaves the UK, then Scotland is not part of the UK.
Scotland might well be allowed into the EU, but why do you think every country in the EU would allow Scotland to dictate its own terms for entry? Why is Scotland, by itself, so extremely useful to the EU that it can dictate its own terms for joining and everyone else will agree to them despite the problems it will cause and the potential for dividing the EU? If Scotland dictates its own terms, why not (for example) Moldova? Or any of the existing members?
There is, I've told you where to find it. The other thread, the media. You're a big enough boy, I'm sure you'll manage.
I'm not sitting throwing quotes and articles back and forth when it's already been done.
This is tedious.
You can't be forced to join ERMII, and thus neither can you be forced to join the Euro. Exemplified by current members refusing to do so, indefinitely. The EU isn't going to start casting off its own citizens.
Scotland as a part of the UK will negotiate its membership from within the EU, having already met all entrance criteria.
Was Newcastle even a recognised sovereign nation with it's own royalty, legal system, and monetary system and parliament?
All of which are form the basis for a nation.
Here's some rolleyes
Newcastle by itself wasn't, but Northumbria was.
York would be a better example, but there are plenty of examples that could be used.
Your rolleyes are making you look a bit silly.
It's all over the debate frankly?
And Scotland outside of the UK will not be part of the UK. So it won't be within the EU, because it's the UK that's within the EU.
Are you after independence or aren't you?
You do realise that there are a couple of years between a Yes vote and Independence itself?
Scotland until that time will remain apart of the UK. An EU member.
And will negotiate independent membership within.
It's not too hard.
The UK is a unitary state. Of course Scotland is in the EU just as England Wales and NI is.
No it isn't. You might see it because you so strongly want it to exist so you can use it as a strawman to disguise the lack of consistency and reliability in your argument, but it's not there. It's in your mind, not all over the debate.
Nobody, absolutely nobody, has said that the sort of semi-independent Scotland that you're calling for would be treated as an international pariah state. You made it up.
It's not too true.
You obviously don't realise that independence is independence. Scotland could negotiate all it likes, but that doesn't automatically mean that every country in the EU must allow Scotland to dictate its own terms for joining the EU and force them on the EU.