[marbles316]

There's been a lot of discussion around how the economy of the remainder of the would or wouldn't be affected by a possible departure of Scotland, as well as questions around Passports, borders etc.

I was wondering what peoples thoughts were on the cultural/sporting/media/social impacts of this - from the perspective of the rest of the UK.

As someone living in london I'm thinking of:

Scottish football results coverage and Celtic (and previously Rangers) European matches. This gets mainstream coverage. Would this disappear if Scotland becomes a separate country?

UK-wide news websites such as BBC News; with its list of nations 'England, Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland'. Would Scotland be removed from this if they succeed from the UK; and would the BBC stop covering anything from Scotland unless it was of 'international significance' i.e. treat Scotland like France or Italy?

Scotland being included in culinary/travelogue documentaries - tv shows that cover the UK usually do not include the republic of ireland (separate country, do not pay license fee, separate advertising market for commercials etc). Would Scotland be forever excluded in such shows?

BBC Question time no longer being held in Scotland.

Removal of Scotland from maps showing the UK - Any diagram, rail map etc, county map etc. that needs to show the UK - presumably we would see England and Wales and possibly northern ireland as a cut away piece. (Currently if you travel on Scotrail they already only show Scotland on their rail maps anyway).

Education - When I was at school we'd learn about different parts of the UK. At primary school these would be heavily simplified and made 'fun' but certainly helped shap my early understanding of the land around me. The Loch Ness Monster - A real monster in my own country! Highland cows, mountains covered in snow, bagpipes etc. Would English (or Welsh and NI) schoolchildren no longer bother being taught about Scottish things, myths, cities, histories etc; and again Scotland be of minor concern and only of interest as a foreign state?

'Island Nation' Mindset - Growing up with my south-east view of the world, I remember thinking that 'Land's End' was truly the edge of the 'safe world' and a far away point. Likewise we'd always be taught that John O'Groats or certainly somewhere more vague like ' the very top of Scotland' was the northern most point of the UK. I remember having a real sense of living on an Island, where the borders of the state were the same as the edges of the island. Obviously Northern Ireland would be included too, but from any maps I remember seeing, I had a real sense that the UK was unique because it was an 'island' (even if this was slightly inaccurate), whereas European countries were lines drawn on a bigger landmass. With Scotland leaving the Uk, the island gets a line drawn on it and the island becomes like Hispaniola or Papua, with multiple sovereign states on the same landmass. We would no longer be a single state in charge of a single island.

Cultural Appropriation-
Growing up with a real sense of being British (born in England with Parents from Scotland, Ireland and Northern Ireland), I considered everyone from Shakespeare, to Seamus Heaney to Robert Burns as part of my cultural heritage - these people that had shaped the culture of the state I had been born in. Granted, culture is enriched by all authors, artists etc.; but there's something special about having such people as 'belonging' to YOUR country. e.g. I'm sure Dutch people are proud of having Van Gogh as a fellow countryman and his existence has helped shape and enrich Dutch culture in a different way to other states.

With Scotland removed from the UK we are effectively saying this body of work is now owned/represented by a foreign state; and any future works of any kind produced in Scotland are not now within the heritage if the UK. Art, writing and music from this state is its own body of work.


Leaving the economics aside; It just seems as if we are all diminished because of this potential separation.

[husted]

Britain will still exist. So will British, just like Scandinavian and Scandinavia exist even though it encompasses several different countries. Schools will teach about the British Isles, same as before.

What many Londoners fail to appreciate is how independent Scotland already is. Holyrood already manages most things. Main problem is that it only gets to decide how money is spent and not how it's raised.

Scottish football already has a separate league. Not much will change there. Separate legal system, education system etc, etc, etc

Question Time from Glasgow is already a bore for most Londoners. The politics is so different.

But we will continue to do things together as it suits Westminster and Holyrood. Cooperating on things like the Commonwealth, National Grid, defence and transport. Even the job of the BBC could continue to include Scotland if Holyrood coughs up and Westminster wish it. London will hold more cards as the bigger country, but actually most of these things are now discussed at the European level.

Its just an administrative change, I doubt Londoners will notice.

[rjb101]

Your right. Londoners won't notice. And no doubt the Scots will be happy to the see the back of London centric TV news programs

[HillmanImp]

Originally Posted by rjb101

Your right. Londoners won't notice. And no doubt the Scots will be happy to the see the back of London centric TV news programs

I'm trying to think of Londoncentic news programs.

We get South East news after news at 10, but I don't think Scotland gets that.

Most of the news appears to be the Olympics and Middle East.

Can you give us some examples rather than just mouthing off.... people in London or elsewhere might want to know what you're talking about....

is it true or just more Nat nonsense

[husted]

I think the media is one of the things many things that wont change much. There's already a distinctly different press. Different news programs.

Not sure about the BBC though -Scotland might end up like Eire which gets the BBC without paying for it I think.

But I'm guessing that Westminister would rather the BBC continued to serve Scotland in return for a fee; as the BBC is not really the UK governments news propaganda organ like say Russia Today.

Although Scottish viewers may be barred from voting in Big Brother (like Eire).

[HillmanImp]

Originally Posted by husted

There's already a distinctly different press.

You have to be joking - The Daily Record and the Glasgow Herald - nothing special about them. Whats wrong with using Reuters:
http://uk.reuters.com/

or Twitter?

The News is no longer national orientated. I often read the Finnish English news sites or log on to CNN or for a laugh, Fox News. The London based Irish Post is also good:

http://www.irishpost.co.uk/

Drudge Report good during Iraq war for breaking news:
http://www.drudgereport.com/

[husted]

Originally Posted by HillmanImp

You have to be joking - The Daily Record and the Glasgow Herald - nothing special about them. Whats wrong with using Reuters:
http://uk.reuters.com/

or Twitter?

The News is no longer national orientated. I often read the Finnish English news sites or log on to CNN or for a laugh, Fox News.

I didn't say The Daily Record and the Herald were special.

I said Scotland has a

distinctly different press.

As well as the Record, Herald and Scotsman, there are distinctive Scottish prints of many of the UK nationals -Scottish Sun, Scottish Daily Mail etc

I'm not surprised you watch Fox News !, but Fox News isn't the Scottish press.

So the point is that the press in Scotland won't be affected much by independence.

[davidmcn]

Originally Posted by HillmanImp

You have to be joking - The Daily Record and the Glasgow Herald - nothing special about them...
The News is no longer national orientated.

The fact that they have a different agenda is what's 'special' about them - the London-based papers spend a lot of time discussing Westminster issues of little or no relevance to Scotland, and have little coverage of Scottish stories.

[Jellied Eel]

Originally Posted by husted

But we will continue to do things together as it suits Westminster and Holyrood. Cooperating on things like the Commonwealth, National Grid, defence and transport.

Some of those could create conflicts depending on policy stance. Commonwealth would be nothing to do with Scotland given it'd be opting out of it. National Grid could become challenging given Scotland generates power for the rest of the UK, but has it's own National Grid and own energy policy, which may make it uneconomic to export power to the rest of the UK, or reliant on the UK for power. Defence, well, Scotland doesn't seem to have a defence policy but may need one if it wishes to join NATO, the EU, or simply protect it's borders and economic interests. Transport's already mostly devolved and hopefully will be permitted cross-border.

Even the job of the BBC could continue to include Scotland if Holyrood coughs up and Westminster wish it. London will hold more cards as the bigger country, but actually most of these things are now discussed at the European level.

Holyrood probably won't cough up and the form of any 'SBC' would be up to Holyrood to determine, and fund. The BBC licence payers have already funded studios in Glasgow and there's already a BBC Scotland operating out of Pacific Quay. Novating that across to Holyrood would give Scotland 3 TV channels and 2 radio. 1250 staff TUPE across and Holyrood then just has to fund it, create it's own Ofcom & Communications Act and manage it all. People on the borders will still be able to get UK TV, people used to content on iPlayer will get ads telling you content is no longer available and offering you a subscription option. For the BBC's online brands, Scottish viewers will come to understand why all the white space is there because you'll get ads there to.

[husted]

Originally Posted by Jellied Eel

Some of those could create conflicts depending on policy stance. Commonwealth would be nothing to do with Scotland given it'd be opting out of it. National Grid could become challenging given Scotland generates power for the rest of the UK, but has it's own National Grid and own energy policy, which may make it uneconomic to export power to the rest of the UK, or reliant on the UK for power. Defence, well, Scotland doesn't seem to have a defence policy but may need one if it wishes to join NATO, the EU, or simply protect it's borders and economic interests. Transport's already mostly devolved and hopefully will be permitted cross-border.



Holyrood probably won't cough up and the form of any 'SBC' would be up to Holyrood to determine, and fund. The BBC licence payers have already funded studios in Glasgow and there's already a BBC Scotland operating out of Pacific Quay. Novating that across to Holyrood would give Scotland 3 TV channels and 2 radio. 1250 staff TUPE across and Holyrood then just has to fund it, create it's own Ofcom & Communications Act and manage it all. People on the borders will still be able to get UK TV, people used to content on iPlayer will get ads telling you content is no longer available and offering you a subscription option. For the BBC's online brands, Scottish viewers will come to understand why all the white space is there because you'll get ads there to.

-Scotland isnt opting out of Commonwealth. They want to keep the Queen.
-It's commonplace for European countries to load balance electricity. It wont be 'uneconomic'- its just a question of paying the going rate between private companies. And Scotland already has a separate electricity policy.
-Scotland has the nuclear subs. There must be cooperation on defence at least until after they can be rebased. Scotland must be in NATO.
- You may be right about the bbc. But iplayer blocking isn't difficult to get round, so beeb should try to sell access.

Dont want to enlarge on this as we are have had many similar threads and am trying to stick to OP but generally it makes sense to cooperate and that should happen (EU, NATO blah, blah, blah)

[HillmanImp]

Originally Posted by davidmcn

The fact that they have a different agenda is what's 'special' about them - the London-based papers spend a lot of time discussing Westminster issues of little or no relevance to Scotland, and have little coverage of Scottish stories.

my reply was deleted........Looks like you can't call the SNP rude names.

Taking the rudness out. I did a really good reply, listing all the national newspapers (from the sun to the independent) and not a single one had a story about "westminster issues" . The front page was Mars Rover nearing destination, sex scandals, murders, syria.

The TOP selling papers in Scotland are, sadly, not broadsheets. They are (1) Sun, (2) Sunday Mail and (3) Daily Record.

Yep Murdoch and Tory party gossip sheet are the two biggest sellers in Scotland - it probably tells you something about the average SNP voter....

Also mirroring its national performance is the Daily Star (Sunday), claiming the greatest year on year growth both in percentage terms (up 66.89%) and by physical sales (plus 41,146) as it outperforms its rivals to keep a hold on those News of the World gains it made last year.

All figures sourced from ABC

[davidmcn]

Originally Posted by HillmanImp

Taking the rudness out. I did a really good reply, listing all the national newspapers (from the sun to the independent) and not a single one had a story about "westminster issues"

Well of course they don't at the moment, given that everyone in Westminster is on holiday.

The TOP selling papers in Scotland are, sadly, not broadsheets. They are (1) Sun, (2) Sunday Mail and (3) Daily Record.

Yep Murdoch and Tory party gossip sheet are the two biggest sellers in Scotland

Tory party? The Sun supports the SNP in Scotland. The Daily Record and Sunday Mail support Labour.

[HillmanImp]

Originally Posted by davidmcn

Well of course they don't at the moment, given that everyone in Westminster is on holiday.



Tory party? The Sun supports the SNP in Scotland. The Daily Record and Sunday Mail support Labour.

Wikipedia states Daily Mail and Daily Mail Lite (Metro) added together are the third biggest selling daily paper in Scotland

Daily Record 1st (Big in Glasgow in particular)

Sun 2nd (all over scotland)

Daily Mail/Metro 3rd (big cities and commuters)...

On the Sunday papers , again the Daily Mail is third:
Sunday Mail
Sunday Post
Mail on Sunday

All are declining apart from the Star....

Gut feeling is printed papers are going into history.

If you look at Finland's news its all "dark" apart from what is written about the place in the British press:

http://yle.fi/uutiset/news/

(see article from independent)...

or for the future of the NHS:
http://yle.fi/uutiset/finns_losing_f...system/6238639

[thoughtcriminal]

Originally Posted by HillmanImp

Wikipedia states Daily Mail and Daily Mail Lite (Metro) added together are the third biggest selling daily paper in Scotland

Daily Record 1st (Big in Glasgow in particular)

Sun 2nd (all over scotland)

Daily Mail/Metro 3rd (big cities and commuters)...

On the Sunday papers , again the Daily Mail is third:
Sunday Mail
Sunday Post
Mail on Sunday

All are declining apart from the Star....

Gut feeling is printed papers are going into history.

If you look at Finland's news its all "dark" apart from what is written about the place in the British press:

http://yle.fi/uutiset/news/

(see article from independent)...

or for the future of the NHS:
http://yle.fi/uutiset/finns_losing_f...system/6238639

Well the Metro can't really be called a big seller, given that it's free. Widely read, yes, because it's on the buses and the trains. I used to pick it up myself when I used the train daily, but I wouldn't pay money for it.

The Record sells mainly on the back of it's sport. I'd like to see the circulation figures, but I'd bet that the Rangers situation has given their circulation figures quite a boost over the last year. It's part of the Trinity Mirror Group, so not Scottish owned for many years. And yes, it's a Labour paper.

It's no secret that newspapers are generally in decline everywhere. The massive decline in property and recruitment advertising has been a big blow for them.

It's rather nice to see the Sunday Post hanging in there. I don't buy it, but I like to know it and the Broons and Oor Wullie are there (which is a bad way to think when I don't help it).

Your deleted post listed front page stories from several papers. But what was more relevant to the point was that the Scottish papers were running completely different stories. All the main papers were leading on Scottish athletes Olympic successes. Secondary stories were also Scottish. The Scottish press is distinctive because it carries stories that would never be touched on in the 'national' press or at best might get a couple of column inches near the back of the news section.

A tiny and rather trivial example of London-centric media. Minor, but it stuck on my head. I had the Steve Wright show on one day (for my sins) and he was doing his usual round up of snippets of small news and events stories. One was that 'such and such' fish and chip shop in Scotland had won the fish and chip shop of the year award that day at an event in London - he followed with an aside of 'not sure what that has to do with us'. He wouldn't have said that had it been a chippie in Grimsby.

That tiny, silly example is the tiny tip of what we hear from London media. Media that is supposed to serve the entire island. 'Not sure what that has to do with us'.

[HillmanImp]

Originally Posted by thoughtcriminal

Well the Metro can't really be called a big seller, given that it's free. Widely read, yes, because it's on the buses and the trains. I used to pick it up myself when I used the train daily, but I wouldn't pay money for it.

The Record sells mainly on the back of it's sport. I'd like to see the circulation figures, but I'd bet that the Rangers situation has given their circulation figures quite a boost over the last year. It's part of the Trinity Mirror Group, so not Scottish owned for many years. And yes, it's a Labour paper.

It's no secret that newspapers are generally in decline everywhere. The massive decline in property and recruitment advertising has been a big blow for them.

It's rather nice to see the Sunday Post hanging in there. I don't buy it, but I like to know it and the Broons and Oor Wullie are there (which is a bad way to think when I don't help it).

Your deleted post listed front page stories from several papers. But what was more relevant to the point was that the Scottish papers were running completely different stories. All the main papers were leading on Scottish athletes Olympic successes. Secondary stories were also Scottish. The Scottish press is distinctive because it carries stories that would never be touched on in the 'national' press or at best might get a couple of column inches near the back of the news section.

A tiny and rather trivial example of London-centric media. Minor, but it stuck on my head. I had the Steve Wright show on one day (for my sins) and he was doing his usual round up of snippets of small news and events stories. One was that 'such and such' fish and chip shop in Scotland had won the fish and chip shop of the year award that day at an event in London - he followed with an aside of 'not sure what that has to do with us'. He wouldn't have said that had it been a chippie in Grimsby.

That tiny, silly example is the tiny tip of what we hear from London media. Media that is supposed to serve the entire island. 'Not sure what that has to do with us'.

LOL - Yes, but you fail to realise that everyone also gets LOCAL papers - I also get Evening Standard (London centric news) and the Surrey Advertiser. I'm sure the Yorkshire Post and Machester Echo etc have similiar following . .... But they are all down - well apart from really local like Surrey Advertiser:

http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/

(main news Australian Olympic athletes damages shop front in Egam)

When I read the Galsgow Herald at my in-laws place or Daily record I get a sense its just another regional paper getting its feeds from Reuters like everyone else - probably even the Finnish papers.

[thoughtcriminal]

Originally Posted by HillmanImp

LOL - Yes, but you fail to realise that everyone also gets LOCAL papers - I also get Evening Standard (London centric news) and the Surrey Advertiser. I'm sure the Yorkshire Post and Machester Echo etc have similiar following . .... But they are all down - well apart from really local like Surrey Advertiser:

http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/

(main news Australian Olympic athletes damages shop front in Egam)

When I read the Galsgow Herald at my in-laws place or Daily record I get a sense its just another regional paper getting its feeds from Reuters like everyone else - probably even the Finnish papers.

I don't 'fail to realise' anything. I worked in local newspapers for 18 years.

Lots of local papers around. Your in-laws possibly also get the Paisley Daily Express. That's their local paper.

Papers which have a parliament, devolved health and education and a full football league and so forth to cover aren't local papers. You fail to grasp that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are not just 'regions' equivalent to English counties.

[bunk_medal]

Things like creating a Scottish equivalent of the BBC are just pointless. There's no benefit to doing it for anyone. Take the Olympics for example: the Scottish equivalent would inevitably just rely on the BBC for its coverage because ploughing vast sums of money into doing their own coverage (for no good reason) is just a waste of resources. In effect the coverage would still be the same, but if anything it would be worse for Scottish viewers because there'd be no formal commitment to cover Scottish athletes.

[HillmanImp]

Originally Posted by thoughtcriminal

I don't 'fail to realise' anything. I worked in local newspapers for 18 years.

Lots of local papers around. Your in-laws possibly also get the Paisley Daily Express. That's their local paper.

Papers which have a parliament, devolved health and education and a full football league and so forth to cover aren't local papers. You fail to grasp that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are not just 'regions' equivalent to English counties.

I would put Scotland more on par with London or Merseyside or Yorkshire conurbations but without the nationalism.

About 25% of the entire premership comes from the old Lancashire area.

I think what ruins Scotland for me is the SNP and luckily, so far, the SNP do not dominate the media - Thank God!

[Jellied Eel]

Originally Posted by bunk_medal

Things like creating a Scottish equivalent of the BBC are just pointless. There's no benefit to doing it for anyone.

Sure there are. You'd be a state with it's own state broadcaster. You'd be able to have your own news channels, current affairs, drama, soaps etc all focusing on that unique Scottish identity and cultural interests. It would benefit the 1250+ people currently currently employed by Bbc Scotland because they'd keep their jobs. It'd benefit Scottish political types because they could appear on your TVs, and through your radios. And it's simple to do given UK licence payers have funded the studios and staff you need in Scotland already. All Scotland needs to do is take that over and keep it running.

Take the Olympics for example: the Scottish equivalent would inevitably just rely on the BBC for its coverage because ploughing vast sums of money into doing their own coverage (for no good reason) is just a waste of resources.

Well, Scotland would have to buy broadcast rigts if it wanted to produce it's own shows. It'd then be able to employ Scottish sports personalities and develop it's own celebraties to provide commentary and colour.

In effect the coverage would still be the same, but if anything it would be worse for Scottish viewers because there'd be no formal commitment to cover Scottish athletes.

Depends how much any 'SBC' spent on coverage, but Scots viewers may end up with a choice of a 'Scolympics', or watching the Bbc 'international' feeds.. If those can be received after Scottish transmitters are handed over to Scotland.

[thms]

Originally Posted by bunk_medal

Things like creating a Scottish equivalent of the BBC are just pointless. There's no benefit to doing it for anyone. Take the Olympics for example: the Scottish equivalent would inevitably just rely on the BBC for its coverage because ploughing vast sums of money into doing their own coverage (for no good reason) is just a waste of resources. In effect the coverage would still be the same, but if anything it would be worse for Scottish viewers because there'd be no formal commitment to cover Scottish athletes.

how much does the bbc spend on sport in scotland compared with the rest of the uk?

[Davser]

Originally Posted by HillmanImp

I'm trying to think of Londoncentic news programs.

We get South East news after news at 10, but I don't think Scotland gets that.

Most of the news appears to be the Olympics and Middle East.

Can you give us some examples rather than just mouthing off.... people in London or elsewhere might want to know what you're talking about....

is it true or just more Nat nonsense

It's very true, many an occasion when something, say a multiple death on the road, happens in England it is considered national news yet when it happens in Scotland no mention on the main news programme.

The fact that the BBC spends approx 4% of its budget in Scotland says it all.

http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/bin...ihil_annex.pdf

BBC Scotland (Television and Radio), received core funding for that year of £87.5 million, core funding being its allocation for the production of television and radio programmes for its Scottish audience. This BBC Scotland core funding equated to only 3.7 % of the BBC’s entire programme making budget.

That Scotland with 8.6% of the UK population should receive only 3.7 % of the BBC’s programme making expenditure for Scottish programming only allows BBC Scotland to provide something akin to a skeleton media service for its Scottish audience.

[Davser]

Originally Posted by bunk_medal

Things like creating a Scottish equivalent of the BBC are just pointless. There's no benefit to doing it for anyone. Take the Olympics for example: the Scottish equivalent would inevitably just rely on the BBC for its coverage because ploughing vast sums of money into doing their own coverage (for no good reason) is just a waste of resources. In effect the coverage would still be the same, but if anything it would be worse for Scottish viewers because there'd be no formal commitment to cover Scottish athletes.

You'll tend to find that in every Olympics a main domestic broadcaster from the host nation will provide all the coverage and pass their feed to other nations to broadcast.

So it will be a Brazilian broadcaster providing the pictures in Rio 2016.

[HillmanImp]

Originally Posted by Davser

It's very true, many an occasion when something, say a multiple death on the road, happens in England it is considered national news yet when it happens in Scotland no mention on the main news programme.

There have been quite a few deaths on the roads and even murders in surrey over the years. I don't think I can remember the last time one of these hit the national news.

Tell me honestly, were you watching the national news in Scotland and you heard this story:
http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/s/21...th_ash_murder_

I can tell you it was not on the news down here.

You're making it up as you go along.

[Davser]

Originally Posted by HillmanImp

There have been quite a few deaths on the roads and even murders in surrey over the years. I don't think I can remember the last time one of these hit the national news.

Tell me honestly, were you watching the national news in Scotland and you heard this story:
http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/s/21...th_ash_murder_

I can tell you it was not on the news down here.

You're making it up as you go along.

Why are you linking to a murder story when I was mentioning multiple road traffic deaths?

You would have been as well linking to a sesame street story.

Anyway, as someone who actually watches the news you will hear plenty about motorway crashes in England on the main news but barely anything about an A9 pile up.

Same with house fires, if it happens in London its national news if it happens in Scotland barely a murmur.

You must be utterly ignorant of how the UK media works if you think it is any different.

[Davser]

Even the BBC themselves acknowledge it is a problem.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...WN-report.html

The criticisms come in the Trust's impartiality report into the BBC's news and current affairs coverage of government across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Research showed that 37 per cent of people think BBC reports are often not relevant to where they live.

Analysing four weeks of BBC news and current affairs last year, Cardiff University researchers found that 19 per cent of stories involving or relating to devolution were vague and confusing.

Of 136 stories about health and education, all 136 dealt with England alone.