Mike "Michael" "Weasel" Russell
Chief Engineer Montgomery ScottThe unintentional hilarity of the Nats' "policy" papers continued with the one on broadcasting. This one is going to be a new classic. Not only does this give further evidence that the Nats do not understand, or compulsively lie about, the rules of commercial economics, but in this paper they seem to be trying to convince us that "independence" would somehow change the laws of physics. "Weasel" Russell thinks he can do something that even Scotty couldn't.
Are you sitting comfortably? Then let's begin.
The Nat broadcasting paper can be found here. The first parts are dull. There is bleating that "Scottish broadcasting has been marginalised within the UK framework." As usual, no evidence is given to support this.
The real hoots come in chapter 4, describing what Scottish broadcasting could be like in their "independent" Nirvana.
"4.9. The future of the BBC and the licence fee revenue raised within Scotland would be a major consideration in the move to an independent Scotland. It is envisaged that the existing assets, staff and expertise of BBC Scotland would be used as the basis of a Scottish national broadcaster, along with an appropriate share of the BBC’s other assets, including its commercial activities."
Oh, so "we" are grabbing the bits of the Beeb north of the border, then.
Stand by for the customary hilarity which accompanies these Nat "policy" papers.
"4.11. One obvious example of this is Ireland (which has a lower population than Scotland) where the RTE service supports two television channels, three radio stations and five performing groups through a mixture of a licence fee (which in 2008 was 160 euros per household) and advertising revenues. RTE’s total income in 2007 was 441m euros (245.7m euros from advertising revenue and 195.7m euros from licence fee revenue) Scotland’s estimated level of licence fee revenue in 2008-09 would be equivalent to 335m euros."
Now as anyone who's spent time in Ireland knows, RTE is - and let's be fair to it - fecking awful. (So, of course, is STV, before anyone accuses me of picking on our fellow Celts across the water.)
But the Nat vision of a possible future "SBC" is that if we continued to pay the same licence fee as now (£142.50 = €160), AND added some adverts (which of course irritates the viewer and reduces actual content time), then we could end up with something as, er, "good" as RTE.
What a marvellous prospect.
But would we still be able to catch the Beeb?
"Irish viewers can also, of course, access BBC channels from the UK and a range of channels on other platforms, just as Scottish viewers in an independent Scotland would do."
WEASEL ALERT! WEASEL ALERT!
This is the bit where the Nats attempt to con us with some well-chosen weasel words. Either that, or they've somehow discovered a way to change the laws of physics. Which do you think it is?
As anyone who knows anything about TV is aware, terrestrial TV broadcasts are in the UHF band. This means the broadcasts can only be received if you have, more or less, a line of sight to the transmitter. This is why we need so many repeater stations scattered across the country: here's a map.
Now, these transmitters aren't owned by the BBC or the state. They are owned by a private company, Arqiva.
They don't work for free. They use up quite a lot of power, they need to be maintained, repaired, upgraded and so on.
Broadcasters like the BBC have to pay Arqiva a fee to use the network. The level of this fee is regulated by Ofcom.
So let's look forward to "Weasel" Russell's hypothetical future in which "we" have taken over BBC Scotland and are using the licence revenue to run our own little RTE-a-like.
The BBC is no longer receiving any licence revenue from Scotland. Naturally, it stops paying Arqiva to use the transmitters in Scotland. So the Beeb goes off the air in Scotland. This applies to FM radio too, of course, since its VHF signals are pretty much line-of-sight too. We'd only be able to get Radio 1-4 on wheezy, crackly MW and LW.
Great.
But how can this be true? "Weasel" Russel has told us that we'd still be able to get the BBC, "just as" they do in Ireland!
Let's look at the weasel words, which are carefully chosen to fall just short of being a lie.
"Irish viewers can also, of course, access BBC channels from the UK..."
Note that it doesn't say "all Irish viewers". Instead, it's left for the alert reader to work out what's going on, which is that some Irish viewers can access the BBC.
Some of them do it via their cable or satellite packages, which of course they have to pay for.
It's also technically possible to get the Freesat package in Ireland, although I understand that, as it is not legally marketed there, this requires a bit of jiggery-pokery (i.e. running your satellite box with the card from your package provider removed.)
A glance at the map above also shows that, for reasons of geography and physics, people in the north and east of the Republic can effectively pirate the spillover signal from transmitters in Northern Ireland and possibly Wales. This region, of course, includes the bulk of the Irish population!
Another glance at the map shows that the same isn't the case for Scotland. There is this rather large lump of rock called the "Southern Uplands" between Scotland's central belt and the transmitters in northern England. No-one in Edinburgh or Glasgow or points in between is going to be picking up the BBC signal for free. (And of course they won't be doing it in Aberdeen, Dundee, Stirling or Inverness either.)
So the truthful and correct version of the weasel sentence should go like this:
"Some Irish viewers, in the north and east of the country, can also, of course, access BBC channels from the UK. In an independent Scotland, a few Scottish viewers in Dumfries & Galloway would be able to do likewise. The rest of us would have to fork out for cable or a satellite dish, just as they do in the west and south of Ireland."
Of course, it would be possible to prevent the loss of the BBC signal by continuing to pay them the Scottish licence revenues. But hang on, we're using this to fund the crappy RTE-alike thing we're trying to create out of BBC Scotland.
Oh.
Er.
Um.
I just love these Nat "policy" papers. Time after time, whether it's foreign representation, EU membership, or broadcasting, all they achieve is to show convincingly that the net effect of "independence" would be that we would have to pay more and get less.
Unless, of course, the Nats have found a way to change the laws of physics.
But as we all know, even Scotty couldn't do that.
[PS: as is apparent from the comment thread, a sharp-eyed (but dull-witted) interlocutor noticed that the map above is for analogue coverage.
This was deliberate.
Digital coverage is actually slightly worse.]
Are you sitting comfortably? Then let's begin.
The Nat broadcasting paper can be found here. The first parts are dull. There is bleating that "Scottish broadcasting has been marginalised within the UK framework." As usual, no evidence is given to support this.
The real hoots come in chapter 4, describing what Scottish broadcasting could be like in their "independent" Nirvana.
"4.9. The future of the BBC and the licence fee revenue raised within Scotland would be a major consideration in the move to an independent Scotland. It is envisaged that the existing assets, staff and expertise of BBC Scotland would be used as the basis of a Scottish national broadcaster, along with an appropriate share of the BBC’s other assets, including its commercial activities."
Oh, so "we" are grabbing the bits of the Beeb north of the border, then.
Stand by for the customary hilarity which accompanies these Nat "policy" papers.
"4.11. One obvious example of this is Ireland (which has a lower population than Scotland) where the RTE service supports two television channels, three radio stations and five performing groups through a mixture of a licence fee (which in 2008 was 160 euros per household) and advertising revenues. RTE’s total income in 2007 was 441m euros (245.7m euros from advertising revenue and 195.7m euros from licence fee revenue) Scotland’s estimated level of licence fee revenue in 2008-09 would be equivalent to 335m euros."
Now as anyone who's spent time in Ireland knows, RTE is - and let's be fair to it - fecking awful. (So, of course, is STV, before anyone accuses me of picking on our fellow Celts across the water.)
But the Nat vision of a possible future "SBC" is that if we continued to pay the same licence fee as now (£142.50 = €160), AND added some adverts (which of course irritates the viewer and reduces actual content time), then we could end up with something as, er, "good" as RTE.
What a marvellous prospect.
But would we still be able to catch the Beeb?
"Irish viewers can also, of course, access BBC channels from the UK and a range of channels on other platforms, just as Scottish viewers in an independent Scotland would do."
WEASEL ALERT! WEASEL ALERT!
This is the bit where the Nats attempt to con us with some well-chosen weasel words. Either that, or they've somehow discovered a way to change the laws of physics. Which do you think it is?
As anyone who knows anything about TV is aware, terrestrial TV broadcasts are in the UHF band. This means the broadcasts can only be received if you have, more or less, a line of sight to the transmitter. This is why we need so many repeater stations scattered across the country: here's a map.
Now, these transmitters aren't owned by the BBC or the state. They are owned by a private company, Arqiva.
They don't work for free. They use up quite a lot of power, they need to be maintained, repaired, upgraded and so on.
Broadcasters like the BBC have to pay Arqiva a fee to use the network. The level of this fee is regulated by Ofcom.
So let's look forward to "Weasel" Russell's hypothetical future in which "we" have taken over BBC Scotland and are using the licence revenue to run our own little RTE-a-like.
The BBC is no longer receiving any licence revenue from Scotland. Naturally, it stops paying Arqiva to use the transmitters in Scotland. So the Beeb goes off the air in Scotland. This applies to FM radio too, of course, since its VHF signals are pretty much line-of-sight too. We'd only be able to get Radio 1-4 on wheezy, crackly MW and LW.
Great.
But how can this be true? "Weasel" Russel has told us that we'd still be able to get the BBC, "just as" they do in Ireland!
Let's look at the weasel words, which are carefully chosen to fall just short of being a lie.
"Irish viewers can also, of course, access BBC channels from the UK..."
Note that it doesn't say "all Irish viewers". Instead, it's left for the alert reader to work out what's going on, which is that some Irish viewers can access the BBC.
Some of them do it via their cable or satellite packages, which of course they have to pay for.
It's also technically possible to get the Freesat package in Ireland, although I understand that, as it is not legally marketed there, this requires a bit of jiggery-pokery (i.e. running your satellite box with the card from your package provider removed.)
A glance at the map above also shows that, for reasons of geography and physics, people in the north and east of the Republic can effectively pirate the spillover signal from transmitters in Northern Ireland and possibly Wales. This region, of course, includes the bulk of the Irish population!
Another glance at the map shows that the same isn't the case for Scotland. There is this rather large lump of rock called the "Southern Uplands" between Scotland's central belt and the transmitters in northern England. No-one in Edinburgh or Glasgow or points in between is going to be picking up the BBC signal for free. (And of course they won't be doing it in Aberdeen, Dundee, Stirling or Inverness either.)
So the truthful and correct version of the weasel sentence should go like this:
"Some Irish viewers, in the north and east of the country, can also, of course, access BBC channels from the UK. In an independent Scotland, a few Scottish viewers in Dumfries & Galloway would be able to do likewise. The rest of us would have to fork out for cable or a satellite dish, just as they do in the west and south of Ireland."
Of course, it would be possible to prevent the loss of the BBC signal by continuing to pay them the Scottish licence revenues. But hang on, we're using this to fund the crappy RTE-alike thing we're trying to create out of BBC Scotland.
Oh.
Er.
Um.
I just love these Nat "policy" papers. Time after time, whether it's foreign representation, EU membership, or broadcasting, all they achieve is to show convincingly that the net effect of "independence" would be that we would have to pay more and get less.
Unless, of course, the Nats have found a way to change the laws of physics.
But as we all know, even Scotty couldn't do that.
[PS: as is apparent from the comment thread, a sharp-eyed (but dull-witted) interlocutor noticed that the map above is for analogue coverage.
This was deliberate.
Digital coverage is actually slightly worse.]
32 comments:
I'm back in your face like I've never been away
I'm back in your face and it's where I'm gonna stay
Like a runaway Mack, like a Union Jack
I'm back in your face and don't it feel so good
I'm back in your face and just like I knew that it would
Like a runaway Mack, like a Union Jack
Sheer Heart Attack and a Jumpin' Jack Flash
Like a Leader of the Pack
And as a matter of fact I'm back
ha ha ha ha
What an entrance, I knew you had it in you.
oh but hold on a minute Smee, your graph is for analogue coverage and you don't quite explain how ITV and Channel 4 get's it's signal to everyone in Scotland and bizarrely you seem to be forgetting that TV is likely to be delivered through a variety of means in the next few years.
Haven't you heard of iplayer?
Oh dear, just when you thought you were in front, you trip over you own shoelace and your trousers fall down.
Really Smee, some mothers do av em.
Let me introduce to the new fangled youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9USvi173GE
Is this you......frank?
"oh but hold on a minute Smee, your graph is for analogue coverage"
Muttley drops Frankie Howerd-style into the trapdoor deliberately left open for him.
Digital coverage is actually slightly less than analogue coverage.
That's why there's been a bit of fuss about the digital switchover, see? Some people have needed to get new, better aerials.
"you don't quite explain how ITV and Channel 4 get's it's signal to everyone in Scotland"
They use Arqiva's network too. Why is this relevant? In case you hadn't noticed, they're funded by adverts, not the licence fee. They will be happy to broadcast wherever they can get the ad revenue to cover their costs and show a profit.
"TV is likely to be delivered through a variety of means in the next few years."
"Means" which require different, more complicated kit than a simple free-to-air terrestrial broadcast, and may well also require paying a fee.
Not much use to Mrs McMiggins who can barely operate her TV remote.
"Independence" - pay more, get less.
Oh yes - lots of stuff on transmitter coverage at:
http://www.wolfbane.com/articles/tvr.htm
You know Smee, it's great to see you engaging with the National Conversation like this.
I'm so proud of you.
"Digital coverage is actually slightly less than analogue coverage."
Yes at the moment but it could be expanded to surpass it quite easily.
"They use Arqiva's network too."
Oh I see, so arquiva aren't wholly dependent on the BBC's revenue as you suggest then?
"they're funded by adverts, not the licence fee."
Not quite, Channel 4 does receive some public funds for specific initiatives, it is after all a wholly publically y owned trust.
"more complicated kit than a simple free-to-air terrestrial broadcast, and may well also require paying a fee."
Is that gibbledy gook for a pc?
Microsoft, Apple and now Google are proposing TV through your phone-line in an "on-demand' world that doesn't require much else additional kit than might be bought for your digital reception.
"Independence" - pay more, get less"
Quite the opposite it would seem, get substantially more choice by the looks of it.
Clever SNP
Lots of coma inducing techie stuff here.
But I think you are doing what it is that you usually do - looking for barriers between Scotland and independence.
If the BBC is broken up and the Scottish part is transferred to the new Scottish Govt then the techie bits will get sorted out as part of that process.
That is what happens when organisations are transferred from one ''owner'' to another.
There is no reason to assume non co-operation from the BBC, after all they will also have obligations to the staff who transfer to the Scottish version.
They are not going to make life difficult, which is what you appear to assume.
The thing is Smee, everyone is connected by phone, it's the best way to reach the market.
Do keep up.
Observer
"If the BBC is broken up and the Scottish part is transferred to the new Scottish Govt then the techie bits will get sorted out as part of that process."
It's not "techie" bits; it's money.
If the BBC is not receiving licence revenue from Scotland, it will not broadcast in Scotland.
Period.
Because it costs it money to do so.
If "independent" Scotland is still paying its licence revenue to the BBC, then there will be no "SBC".
As usual Muttley has missed the point entirely so doesn't merit a reply.
OK I get you now.
Well the BBC is not going to want to lose revenue I think it will try and make some sort of a deal.
I will actually read the policy paper and get back to you.
But I have to say Mike Russell, who I knew in his previous life before he was an MSP, is a ferociously clever man, quite scary really and I don't scare easy, so I will be very surprised if he has got it wrong.
Laters.
Talking of performing miracles, did you see this story in today's Sunday Times, SM?
"Well the BBC is not going to want to lose revenue I think it will try and make some sort of a deal."
Equally, the BBC is not going to want to incur costs if there is no corresponding revenue.
I.e. no Scottish licence revenue = no Scottish transmission fees = no Scottish broadcasts.
I can't see how to make it clearer.
"But I have to say Mike Russell, who I knew in his previous life before he was an MSP, is a ferociously clever man"
Really? So am I.
The problem is, "clever" people who can't be bothered to comprehend and understand the basic facts are a danger to themselves and us.
"ferociously clever"
Down smee, down
ha ha ha ha
Such a naughty quadruped
I wonder how Smee will react when he reads the poll on Scottish opinions on the proposed Scottish Broadcasting Commission?
What are you burbling on about?
You can get the BBC practically anywhere rhese days, in Europe at least.
In terms of the existing assets, staff and expertise of BBC Scotland - we have already paid for these with our license fee. Why should we lose them?
Your approach to this is rather like your approach to defence.
It is based on the assumption that all public assets in Scotland have been paid for by the UK and therefore belong to the UK, without recognising that since Scotland is part of the UK we have actually paid for them.
I think we should be prepared to be flexible however. The BBC can take back all the assets it owns in Scotland provided it refunds us all our license fees for the past decade.
Indy
"You can get the BBC practically anywhere rhese days, in Europe at least."
Oh, you can get BBC World as part of a cable or satellite package just about anywhere.
The point is that you cannot get the BBC's complete package of terrestrial, free-to-air TV and FM radio broadcasts "practically anywhere". You can only receive those if you are in range of the transmitters which the BBC is paying to use.
"In terms of the existing assets, staff and expertise of BBC Scotland - we have already paid for these with our license fee. Why should we lose them?"
Who suggested that?
The point I am making is that if we have turned BBC Scotland into some sort of "SBC" and are using all the licence revenue in Scotland to fund that, then the "real" BBC will not be paying to use the transmitters in a country from which it receives no revenue.
Result - no terrestrial BBC broadcasts in Scotland, except for those in Dumfries & Galloway able to pick up cross-border spill.
''It is clear that viewers in Scotland will wish to retain access to the broadcasting services that they value and would not wish to suffer a reduction in choice or quality of programming......We are therefore clear that a Scottish Government would aim to *enhance* the broadcasting services available to people in Scotland by establishing new Scottish broadcasting institutions *while retaining the availability* of the main UK broadcasters......Greater autonomy in broadcasting policy would give Scotland an opportunity to set priorities which are specially attuned to the viewers in Scotland''
You are right it is boring, mainly because it is not actually proposing anything that radical.
They are not going to switch off Eastenders at the border.
I imagine programmes will be broadcast much the same as they are now, only as a result of some kind of deal which will be in both the BBC's and the Scottish Government's interests to work out, same with the other broadcasters.
You are just looking for worst case scenarios again.
Incidentally Smee I don't know if you are aware that MR has a background in broadcasting that is where I encountered him.
He tends to know what he is talking about in my experience.
Observer
"They are not going to switch off Eastenders at the border."
Who do you mean by "they"? It wouldn't be up to any Scottish Govt, it would be up to the BBC.
(Personally I'd be quite happy to have 'stenders banished from our airwaves, but that's just me.)
"I imagine programmes will be broadcast much the same as they are now, only as a result of some kind of deal "
Well, let's imagine away.
According to the paper, the BBC gets €335m from Scotland in licence revenue. In return, we get the full set of free-to-air, terrestrial TV and FM radio services.
The BBC has to pay cash to Arqiva for those services to be broadcast in Scotland, remember.
Presumably we can agree that if an "independent" Scotland kept all its licence revenue to itself to fund its own "SBC" and paid nothing to the BBC, then the BBC would not provide any services.
OK?
But if it costs Ireland €441m to run RTE, then it would cost Scotland at least €335m to run "SBC".
Leaving nothing left over to pay the BBC for continuing to provide any of its services north of the border.
Anything there you disagree with?
Stick with the Union. Pay more and get less.
That's what Scotland's done, and what do we get on the BEEB?
- No more Saturday night Sportscene
- No more Scottish National Football games
- Only 4% of total BBC programmes are Scottish-produced
- Hardly any change to the BEEB's news output after Scottish and Welsh devolution - until recently, education, health, justice issues, etc.. meant 'English' unless prefixed with 'Scottish' or 'Welsh'. In fact we are still a 'region' in the eyes of the BBC
No need to be an independent nation to have a proper TV network. We should have one now. Just watch TV from any state in the US and you'll find out.
PS After your first post, I didn't realise you were such an introvert.
Smee I reckon you've got the wrong end of the stick on this one.
The SBC is not going to keep all of it's licence revenue to itself to fund it's own programming, it - as the policy paper makes clear - is going to continue to transmit programmes from the UK network. The delivery of that product will be part of whatever deal is worked out between the UK BC and the SBC.
I imagine it could work the other way around as well.
So as the SBC will have some form of buying in machinism to show those programmes that it continues to want from the UK network, then your point obout the delivery of the programmes is invalid.
However, the determination as to what to show and when to show it will be made in Scotland and will reflect Scottish priorities.
I don't think it's that complicated really and physics are not involved.
“Smee I reckon you've got the wrong end of the stick on this one. “
No, I've got the right end of the stick and I can see it's covered in shit, while Russell is trying to pretend it's not a stick at all but something else – an umbrella, maybe?
“The SBC is not going to keep all of it's licence revenue to itself to fund it's own programming, it - as the policy paper makes clear - is going to continue to transmit programmes from the UK network. “
No, the paper does not make any such thing clear. Oh, it says that:
“viewers in Scotland will wish to retain access to the broadcasting services that they value”
and
“a Scottish Government would aim to enhance the broadcasting services available to people in Scotland by establishing new Scottish broadcasting institutions while retaining the availability of the main UK broadcasters”
WEASEL ALERT!
Note the weasel words: “wish” and “aim”.
How is this miracle going to be achieved?
They tell us that running RTE costs €441m, while Scottish BBC licence revenue is only €335m.
The inescapable conclusion from that is that setting up an “SBC” which was even cheaper and crappier than RTE (God help us) would consume all the licence revenue, with nothing left over to pay the BBC to continue to broadcast in Scotland.
That's simple arithmetic. If the Beeb is not getting any revenue from Scotland, it will not pay for free-to-air, terrestrial broadcasts here.
Furthermore, the paper is not talking about buying in the odd BBC programme.
It claims we will be
“retaining the availability of the main UK broadcasters”
and be able to
“access BBC channels from the UK”
“just as”
they do in Ireland.
NB “broadcasters” and “channels”, not “programmes”.
How? If we're not paying the Beeb its full licence-fee whack to broadcast here, why would it do so?
The only logical conclusion is that the situation would indeed be “just as” it is in Ireland. Scots would be able to access the BBC if, and only if:
a) they had cable or a satellite dish
b) they lived somewhere where they would be able to catch cross-border spill signal. Which would amount to a few people in coastal Dumfries & Galloway.
Sorry, as with every other “policy” paper so far, the numbers don't add up and they're trying to sell a con by using a few weasel words.
There is no inescapable conclusion that the SBC would be like the RTE. That's just your conclusion, anyone reading the paper which you have so helpfully posted will be able to escape reaching that conclusion with ease.
The key is in the third statement of the chapter summary which opens chapter four.
''A key challenge, *in establishing new operational arrangements* for broadcasting in Scotland would be to retain the best elements of the existing UK broadcasting system while allowing for a greater level of programming which reflects Scottish life''.
You just seem to be fixated with the Irish model and are convinced that is exactly what is going to happen here.
The evidence in the paper that you provided suggests otherwise.
Why did they cite RTE as an example?
If total Scottish BBC licence revenue is less than RTE's budget, how could there be a meaningful "SBC" and still be money left over to pay for continued BBC broadcasts in Scotland?
Magic?
Wishful thinking?
Delusion?
Smee you suggested that the SNP wanted to grab the bits of the Beeb north of the border.
Well, why shouldn't we? We have paid for them.
As for how much of the Lomdom based BBC we would get on freeview - well I agree that depends on how much we pay for. Nowhere does the paper say that 100% of the license fee will be spent in Scotland. We could still buy into Eastenders, Strictly, Dr Who, Spooks etc. The stuff people actually like. It could all be worked out quite easily especially since Scotland currently contributes significantly more in license fees than we get back in spending.
Who knows we might even get to bring back Take the High Road. Way-hay!
Smee, you seem to be shrinking into obscurity.
Au contraire, Muttley.
My media profile is higher than ever.
Over at the Hootsmon, the foul-mouthed homophobic anti-Semite Cybernat "Spanners" is convinced that half the other posters are actually me.
Saves me a lot of effort.
"foul-mouthed homophobic anti-Semite"
My goodness, It's much easier just calling him 'rufus'
Aren't you a bit old to be trawling the scotsman?
I hate to tell you, but BBC is quite willing to sell their programming and not any too particular to whom. They would certainly be willing to sell it to the Scots and considering the MISERABLE value Scots currently get for their license fees, it certainly wouldn't be a worse deal. Dump most of the junk that everyone hates any way and buy the few good bits.
Simples. (Except for the scaremongers and really who else would keep us entertained with all the shouting an moaning)
Missing the point just like Observer, JT.
The paper doesn't talk about buying individual programmes, it says we will continue to have full access to BBC "channels", "just as" the Irish do.
Which is either totally mistaken or a lie.
I've done some sums on how much it would cost to get access to subsets of the BBC channels - later.
How much net revenue will the SBC have , after deducting the value of free TV licenses to the retired?
I seem to remember 25% of Scotlands TV licenses are issued to the over 59/65 age group.
Earning money online never been this easy and transparent. You would find great tips on how to make that dream amount every month. So go ahead and click here for more details and open floodgates to your online income. All the best.
Post a Comment