Thats a fair cut of the losses

Fire the entire lot. Shut it down. Then sell it to the highest bidder and let it survive if it can in the free marketplace with NO governmental subsidy.

This mouthpiece of the English Empire ceased to be of any relevence long ago.

No Scot should pay the licence fee, as it seems clear from Question Time last week that the BBC is happy to tolerate racist abuse directed towards Scots.

When the BBC is not disseminating anti-Scottish propaganda, it is showing us live England football matches. and routinely misleading us about matters of huge everyday importance, from health though education to criminal justice.

Licence Fee? Not from me.

If the BBC is forced into the private sector it will have to compete with both ITV and the Sky network.

There isn't enough advertising money to go round to do that. Better then to keep paying the licence fee but to ensure the BBC provides the best value it can. That in my view doesn't include paying exorbitant amounts of money to the likes of Jonathan Ross or indeed Graham Norton. I would also suggest it lays off paying huge amounts for the rights to transmit things like football matches but starts to take an interest in some of the other sports.

TV has dumbed down over the past twenty years. It's time that trend was reversed. But if the BBC goes you can guarantee we will miss it.

I would not miss the BBC at all. Their live subtitles are rubbish, as are the free channels. I'm hard of hearing. How is it right that I have to pay a licence fee to own a telly that I use to watch DVD's (with subtitles) on? I saw a BBC newsprogramme, (not on my telly, I might add) and they had a story about the American stock market. Then they showed a clip of the latest Bourne movie, which had been released that day. I'm not sure if there was supposed to be some link, but it was passed off as part of the news story along the lines of the movie release having some kind of effect on the stock market!

It took a moment to sink in... the clip was like one of the trailers you might see at a cinema. The BBC already must be taking in advertising revenue. Or am I mistaken about this? Did I imagine it?

Perfect opportunity to get rid of bbc completely and build a Scottish network,owned an operated by Scotland for Scotland.A simple matter to keep out the dirtbirds such as american propaganda barns and their puppets.Scotland can now be clear of english and it's diseased culture.

BBC

Bye Bye Cash

Mark Thompson should realise that the overpriced stars created by the BBC can easily be replaced by the BBC - Jonathan Ross £6 million a year, Graham Norton £2.5 million and Jeremy Paxman a reported £1 million! The BBC as a public body should be limited to the Public Sector Pay rates most of its viewers have to live on.

But fat cat salaries hide the gross inefficiency of sending big name UK correspondents out to front pieces that could be covered by the resident correspondent as well as the senior management junkets. Tighter financial management shouldn't necessarily mean job cuts and an endless series of repeats.

The love affair with digital for digital's sake should end and BBC3 and especially BBC4 should have been prime areas for a radical shake up.

The best public broadcaster in the world is in danger of ending up as the poor relation to PBS with endless repeats and dross reality shows.

They lost 24, the Simpsons, didn't pick up Heroes till after Season 1 aired on Sky/Virgin Media and still haven't picked up Boston Legal?

Put the money behind quality journalism and quality programming and frankly I for one won't miss Jonathan Ross but I can certainly think of better things the BBC can spend £6 million pounds on.

Scrap the iniquitous television tax and make the EBC compete on the open market.

For those people that wish to retain the EBC, and to encourage them to pay £6 million a years to Jonathon Woss, then set it up as a subscripton service. Why should the rest of us be forced to pay for this primarily English broadcasting service?

Onya, Guga 11 !!!!

#9 Guga 11

I think the word that you constantly struggle to pronounce is; BRITISH as in British Government, British Broadcasting Corporation, etc. All the great British institutions that are a part of your everyday life and therefore should be retained.

#11 You may be "British" but I am not. Never have been, and never will be.. And before you come out with the usual garbage line, yes, I do have a "British" passport, but that is because the colonial power prevents me from having a Scottish passport.

If you want to wear your Butcher's Apron underpants, that's up to you, just don't wave them at me. And if you wish to support the EBC, you should be quite happy to do it on a subscription basis. Just don't expect me to subsidise your anglicised tastes.

Staggering salaries! 6 million! For what?

#13 For twying to host a chat type show, and twying to pwonounce things.

I agree with the first speaker.

I'm really fed up with the nats and their silly chatter. Does 'a man'sa man's for aw that' mean nothing to them [outside of an opportunity to wear a few Victorian age inventions, proclaim 'wha's like us, damn few, un they're aw deed'].

Its Time!Come on SNP .Ditch the licence,

This is great! BBC is sh1te and the BBC's old Boss Micheal Grade (?) squirming over more phone in scandals in ITV!

They have come undone! hahahahahahahahahahahaahaha thier programs are sh1te anyway

Decimated!

I think that 10% is just about right - providing of course that the correct cuts are applied and the likes of the 'Ross dross' are removed.

Yours etc

Angus Whitton

Considering only 3% is spent in Scotland anyway 10% is disproporotionate, even for the EBC.

We were told that Scotland would no longer receive a 3% insult and our 9% contribution would be reflected in our allocation of BBC's resources.It did not last very long did it?

I think that we should be hearing less about quality of programming,and far more about equality of regional budgets.

We are entitled to 9% irrespective of what cuts are needed.We are already under funded and consequently subsidising the South East where the lions share is invariably spent,and its time BBC Glasgow (which purports to be BBC Scotland) was given its fair share of the cake. It may be a smaller cake through necessity,but we should still have 9% of it.Any cut backs in Scotland are clearly OUT OF ORDER and a clear reversal of that meaningless promise of a few weeks ago.

The answer would apparently be,as many have suggested remove the BBC completely.One thing for sure,their survival in Scotland depends upon popular support,and they don't have any justification for the licence fee here.They don't spend it here!

A big fuss about the 230 job losses in Scotland - which I would not wish on anyone but no-one seems to have noticed that the English job losses will be 2270.
Being British I'm concerned at all losses. I think that the BBC should be better regulated to get it back to the great institution it used to be.
We need one non-commercial body but they should not be political at all.

Nice stats, Scotsman.
1 in 10 job cuts in Scotland. Um, that means 9 out of 10 in England and Wales, right?
Is that what you meant? Probably a more positive headline in your eyes.

Canada did it over half a century ago. The CBC used to be funded by license fees. They have managed to survive, though they do not have the number of channels the BBC broadcasts.

I like Jonathan Ross .... but there's NO WAY he's worth that much! Neither is Wogan or Norton. Strip them of these high wages and if they think they can do better on other channels, then fine! Morecambe & Wise skipped between ITV and the Beeb for years ... and they WERE talented!

Same with the BBC staff and directors. Cut the big pay packet down to a reasonable size and you wouldn't have to have these lay-offs.

And of course, they'll hit Scottish output hardest. They'll have been told to do that because we have voted for an SNP government! London is intent on punishing us for that in as many ways as possible. And the other parties are complicit in that!

I can see the BBC becoming a pay-per-view company in time. This TV tax is unsustainable with all the cheats and repeats we're subjected to!

Anonym (5): "How is it right that I have to pay a licence fee to own a telly that I use to watch DVD's (with subtitles) on?"

If you watch your DVDs on a computer instead (and modern LCD widescreen monitors are excellent), then you can sell/donate/destroy your TV and cease paying the licence fee: so long as there is no TV-receiving equipment in your house, you're no longer eligible for the fee.

#25 Do you honestly believe there is some conspiracy to punish Scotland because of the SNP?

How paranoid are you?

What purpose would that serve save to further alienate Scots - surely if there was any active policy towards Scotland it would be a positive one to show the benefits of union?

Typical BBC though - we're going to cut 230 jobs, but actually create 130 jobs and those 80 that are lost will probably be kept on in a freelance context so no jobs will actually be lost - there never are.

23

BBC Scotland viewers contribute 9% of the BBC's income but receive only 3% of the funding in return.

What you are saying is that Scotland should accept equality of reduction when she has never had equality of expenditure to take it from!
No way is that justifiable.The South East and London in particular gets more than her fair share of expenditure,and is already subsidised form here.
BBC operates approx 50 local radio and regional radio stations in England and one in Scotland and its not even 24/7. Thats the difference !
BBC Scotland's TV budget is similarly an insult.

You want us to accept our fair share? We will but you need to increase Scotland's budget by 6% and take it from London,for only then can it be fair .

What is BBC Scotland's Total Budget?

How much of that is for Sport?

How much of the Sport Budget is spent on football?

How much of the Football Budget is spent covering matters regarding Rangers & Celtic?

How much is spent sending camera crews to Glasgow Airport every time Rangers or Celtic arrive/leave?

Can anybody remeber a single edition of Reporting Scotland that didn't contain some inconsequential claptrap rubbish about Rangers and/or Celtic?

Has any research ever been carried out to establish whether or not the level of interest in Football justifies the absurd amount of coverage thereof on TV and in the rest of the media.

With the advent of muti-channel digital TV would it be too much to ask that all football matters be removed from the main TV channels and put on a dedicated channel financed by subscription.

Privatise it and let it find it's own cash. Maybe then we'll see a drop in the number of overpaid prima-donnas and an improvement in the quality of programming.

Maybe a bit less cheating on viewers competitions and frigged 'news' video footage too but probably that's too much to ask from a company whose time has gone.

Why not break off the Scottish arm and have a SBC?

Lets face it most of the money is wasted at the BBC Employing people like Jonathon Ross (who I like) for £16 million (what a waste).

Im no Nationalist but we spend our time watching news articals and discussions about Health figures etc that are English.

On top of that they are happy to employ racists like Kelvin Mackenzie.

Honestly as Scots we do not get our moneys worth out of it.

It spends too much time like Westminster trying to be a World Power instead of serving the people that pay for it.

Paxman destroyed the BBC flunky on Wednesday night by simply asking :-

"How does the BBC have a bugetary crisis, when it's guaranteed £3 billion every year?"

Despite waffling and embarrassing squirming, the flunky had nae real answer!

Perhaps the cuts should fall solely upon the 'Fat Cat' executives.

4# Stratrgist

I think you are spot on particulary, about the likes of Jonathan Rross and Ggraham Norton both about as funny as each other, who think they are as funny as each other.

Get rid of those two who seem to be on every moment and you could save 200 jobs or more, my calculations are about as good as those two are funny, but it cannot be far short.

#29

Don't talk about the sport coverage.. I was trying to keep off that topic but seeing you started !!

Yes I agree.. wall to wall football truly annoys me when there are other good sports going on.

I'm involved in club motor racing at Knockhill and the only coverage it gets is what we pay for. All the drivers cough up for it to be videod and shown on Motors TV. It never gets reported on BBC Scotland nor indeed on STV.

I'm sure there are also other sports events where the feeling is the same.. Good local sport is worth watching.. I'm not particularly anti-football but I have to say I get fed up with the emphasis its given.

There is a cospiracy to try to reintroduce Britishness particularly to where they tried to call North Britain. The "One Show" is for one nation under God and whom we defend and Trust and are dumbed down to. . I counted six " British" programmes in the last two weeks. Coast and its presenter is unashamedly Brit propaganda and very subtle; it managed to make me feel slightly ill at ease with my North Scotland roots. Remember the "bad boys" they interviewed"? It was so out of place with the other content. The irony is they cannot escape the qoutes which relate to !what is forever England" Good luck to England but I am Scottish so broadcast to me and my comfort zone!

This is a complete disgrace. we already receive poor value in Scotland for our licence fee. It sounds like the senior management and so called 'stars' who need the chop rather than the staff.

Last night a spokesperson was heard to say that cutting jobs, cutting new programs, increasing repeats, increasing license fees and spending it all on a nice shiny new office was to 'add value' to the service.

Take away the monopoly that's never been investigated by the MMC and make them work for it.

Make then commercial and that way programing has to be good to get viewers and advertisers.

Living off Eastenders and Only Fools and Horses (some irony there) is not acceptible.

What new programming that's not about buying/selling/decorating a house the normal person can not afford or the umpteen same crappy themes has there been in years?

The ones losing their jobs should be gratefull they've been forced into a life that might now have a meaning, although it won't be the ones that didn't do anything to hurt us I'd guess.

Where on earth has a 2 billion pounds shortfall suddenly come from?

3#
As was obvious to anyone who watched Question Time last week the numpty who was spouting the anti-scots rubbish was roundly booed by the audience from I think Cheltenham so I dont see your problem here. If the audience had applauded then you may have had a point.

With regards to showing England (and English) football matches, BBC Scotland can show what it wants, there is no compulsion to show them and therefore I do not understand they do not just show a film (or something else) instead - or why not some shinty or something? Or could it be that enough people in Scotland are watching these games to make it worth their while?

The BBC is totally London orientated - not even the south east. It's predominently run by and for people who live in the capital. When the decision was made to move to Manchester a lot of them went mental. Resources to the regions have never been sufficient for any on-going programming. That's why you get mainly ad hoc series. One thing that always fascinates me. Why do we need specialist weather forecasters nationally and in every region. These people get good salaries and all the other benefits, including I expect a clothing allowance. Getting rid of them and let the news readers give out the weather would save a packet. And why do we need two people sitting on a settee to read the news. Instead of cutting news and current affairs they should cut some of these overpaid, underworked "stars".

It does raise the issue of why Scots are paying the BBC's licence fee.

Very little production is being done in Scotland. BBC Scotland as a whole represents a tiny proportion of the BBC and for to suffer such cuts really puts it's whole future at stake.

There is no reason why Scots should now pay a TV licence for in effect what will now become a wholly English Broadcasting Corporation. Perhaps it's time that BBC Scotland became wholly independent itself.

'The cull at BBC Scotland, where a "tough and challenging" period lies ahead according to Ken MacQuarrie, the controller, will see around 150 to 160 people made redundant over the next five years.'
Excuse me for stating the obvious, but if BBC Scotland receive a budget from London (which by the way is less than what the Scottish Licence payer pumps into the BBC) and has always worked on a budget, therfore all salaries, production etc is paid from and if this budget has been increased with the view of inceasing production, why on earth should BBC Scotland now be thinking about redundancies??
If there are to be any redundancies in Scotland it should start with Ken MacQuarrie and his management for not standing up more to the idiots in London

The BBC are a complete farce,they get ther money for nothing,they dont have to work for it.
They spend it in all the wrong ways
THEY THINK THAT THEY ARE THE UNTOUCHABLES.
THE SOONER THEY ARE AXED THE BETTER.
BUT WHAT WILL ALL THE SPONGERS DO.
Umpteen people reading the news.one is sufficient.
Umpteen weather forecasters.
ROSS,WOGAN ETC DOING NOTHING FOR MEGA BUCKS.
Please close it down as it now appears to be an expensive PUPPET SHOW.

Mark Thompson stated in September at the opening of Pacifi Quays 'We're already committed to raising network deliveries from the nations to at least 17% of relevant output '
Sounds like that was a bit of an empty promise as how can you incease with cutting the staff down?

its hilarious to me that they are threatening strike. How difficult would it be for us all to switch the channel ? (if we even watch the BBC at all) I personal seem to quite happily ge weeks watching everything else on Sky but the BBC despite still being forced to subsidise it. The great fear of the BBC is that we will all wake up and refuse to pay our forced tax. The advent of live streaming internet, etc will eventually make it impossible to enforce the liscense fee anyway and the prospect of this has them crapping themselves. They try to instill fear with their heavy handed threats about tracking us all down and fining and jailing us, but the fact is if we all stopped paying there is nothing they could do about it. This 1950's idea that they are some noble state broadcaster providing a much need information service that cannot be obtained elsewhere is long dead. It is now and has been for ages a bloated, outdated home for lefties to stick their noses in the trough having graduated from Oxbridge and bought their homes in Islington. If I was offered the option to have the BBC blocked from my tv (which is possible) and not having to pay the liscense fee I would take it immediately as would millions of others. Why is this not offered ? Why are we being forced to support one network over dozens of others , and one that we dont even use ?

#35
You're right there definitely seems to be an effort on the part of the BBC to promote a British 'national' pride. The most recent (and clumsy) example I've seen is "The Nature of Britain". I lost count of the number of times Alan Titchmarsh told the viewers how "special" Britain was.

The 'wee scotlander' xenophobes and racists are out in force today. Can they never see beyond their tartan walled ghetto? The BBC is a world class British institution that is revered world-wide for the quality and truthfulness of its news coverage. It is staffed - across the board - by a wide cross section of all people found in these islands, with I might add a heavy quota of Scots. The 2,700 jobs to be cut south of the Border will include many Scots as well as English, Welsh, Geordies, Northern Irish - PEOPLE. The sharing out of the cuts is being done on a geographic quota - not on an ethnic quota, though you'd be hard-pressed to find an English, Welsh or Northern Irish face in the BBC Scotland staff - unlike the London based BBC which is dominated by British provincial staff: Scots like Andrew Marr, James Naughtie, Kirsty Wark, Hazel Irvine; John Simpson (Welsh), etc.

What the Natzi's can't grasp is that the rest of Britain does not regard accent or ethnicity as the primary quality required to get a job. They think that talent, effort and ability are more important than the accent you were born with, or what part of Britain you hail from.

The racist bigots with tartan blinkers should grow up, travel more and get an education,

#47 And if you travelled more, you'd find that this is one of a handful of countries in the world where people are forced to pay a license fee to subsidise the alleged "national broadcaster", even if you never watch it.

If you want to keep the EBC, then you should be happy to pay a subscription service for it. Why should the resty of us have to subsidise your anglicised tastes?

The cuts south of the border,how many of them will be re advertised?
I am sick of the BBC output in Scotland ,I will not miss them.
However,I expect STV to stand up to the mark and deliver that which the BBC does not,unbiased reporting.
Come on STV leap on the death throes of Auntie

anything to avoid adverts is fine by me. The BBC is great, the licence fee is fine, well worth it.

Shivago8

I agree entirely with you, and others that the twins Jonahan Ross and his side kick Graham Norton are two of the most unfunniest pair on the planet

The millions paid to the non comics is a disgrace and if there is a reason the BBC owes money its paying these disgraceful sums to the untalented pair

I believe there is a clique at the BBC you have one of the group saying they are funny, and we are then bombarded with them in every other show never mind the protest from the licence payers

I would agee these figures being paid if it was for being unfunny then i think they would deserve every penny and more.

What I aslo dislike is that they then begin to think they are funny and every word they mutter deserves a laugh or clap.

Every award show, who are the comperes, these two

Sooner the BBC stop paying these huge fees for nonentities and stop completing with the ITVs etc it might get back to how it was, something different than the rest.

Terry Wogan is ten times wittier than the other two put together , does not get the same fees but still paid too much

Liz (39)

Re. England games on BBC Scotland "could it be that enough people in Scotland are watching these games to make it worth their while?"

I will let you know as I have sent a letter of complaint to the BBC asking the same question. They previously stated that to me in the past as a reason for transmission and I want to know exactly the viewing figures e.g. when we played Ukraine and they showed the England game how many watched that in Scotland.

My major gripe with the BBC (apart from news reporting on English matters) is that they managed to secure the England national team contract at however many millions whilst the equivalent Scottish contract was deemed too much even though the cost would have been far less. Put simply, this situation is unforgivable and would not be tolerated in reverse. I mean, can you imagine the reaction if a crucial England qualifier was being played but the BBC showed the Scotland game?

If the BBC is to survive, it would do very well to remember that it is there to serve all the nations of the United Kingdom; not just England.

I am in agreement with the comments about the overpayment of people like Wogan, Ross, Norton, and I would include Evans an Forsyth, all of whom are either not as talented as they would have us believe or were once but are living on past glory and have run their course. Their fees are market driven and they would of course get more from commercial channels, but the B.B.C. Could make the bulk of it's savings in getting rid of these so called stars and paper pushers called "top" executives. The coule of thousand redundancies will more than be compensated for in natural wastage over the period if they stop filling redundant posts.
Those however who cite sky as a good example should consider how much subscribers pay for the priveledge of watching a commercial channel carrying much more advertising than ITV is allowed to, and owned by a greedy, controlling family.
I would agree with the setting up of a SBC which could be financed seperately and differently and
be of greater relevance to it's audience.
It should also be remembered that as various platforms develop and integrate the way the audience receives product will drastically alter, we
are not far from total audience service on demand
broadcasting and narrow casting, but it's anybody's guess how the funding providers and broadcasters will respond to that.
Nation shall speak unto Nation (unless the nation is the Scots)

47.

Words fail me. So if Scots complain about the service they receive from their national broadcaster they are xenophobic or "natzi".

You are an absolute disgrace.

#52
But we are in a world where TV rights are not simply down to whether the BBC wants to show them or not.

As I understand it the BBC only had the rights to show Home England games (not them all) so you are incorrect there, by the same token they were only able to show Away Scotland games, the simple reality is that it could not afford all the games for both teams. Something called Sky Sports got in the way - the recent match for England against Russia was on Sky and from what I was lead to believe the Georgia Scotland game was broadcast to the whole UK - so your last point about their being uproar if such a thing were to happen has been proved incorrect, a cruicial England Qualifier was not shown on the BBC and a Scotland one was shown instead.

Yes I agree it is unfortunate that the BBC cannot show all the UK football teams games but now we have so much competition in the form of Sky and Setanta that aint going to happen.

Percentage of cuts north of the border seems fair, but here in the Grampian area, we already feel regional coverage on all TV channels is already being cut back, so we'd be concerned that this will cut back more. Scotland covers a large area, and news of something in Aberdeenshire or Moray is of interest to us, but maybe not to those in Glasgow and Edinburgh, whereas we don't really need to know everything going on in the Central Belt.

Did anyone notice Jeremy Paxman being forced to "declare an interest" when discussing this issue on Newsnight, because he'd spoken out about it in the past? That will set a very useful precedent the next time the subject of proportional representation (or basically ANYTHING to do with Scotland) comes up on the programme - "I'm afraid I have to declare an interest, yet again (big sigh), because I'm a self-confessed Neanderthal on these matters..."

no mention is made here of the fact that the bbc are now going to be carrying adverts on its website. these adverts will only be seen by visitors to the site abroad but it is the thin end of the wedge. Privatise the lot of it i say and scrap the licence fee.

Join the fight for a free press in scotland write on your banknotes that the press in scotland is lying to the scottish people.

Forcing the BBC into the private sector is an absurd idea. Sky and ITV are appalling channels. Also, I loathe adverts.

If any of you have lived abroad you'll know the value of the BBC.

Is their a cafe where deluded Nats sit and contribute their tripe? If so, can we round them up and have them shipped off to South Ossetia to fight the good fight there?

While I loathe the Nats I must say it is hard to contemplate supporting England in the World Cup tomorrow. If they win we'll have it repeated over and over again and they are never magnanimous in victory. But can I really support SA? Generally the only race more arrogant than the English. Tough times for a Scotland rugby fan. Let's just hope if England do win that Scotland qualify for Euro 2008. Surely that is only fair Big Man?

60) Is there anything you don't loathe? And what relevance does the Rugby have to broadcasting in
the general sense it is being discussed here. Nationalists are entitled to their opinion and Scotland
in or out of the union should have it's own national
PS broadcaster both Radio And T.V. But as broadcasting is in a continual state of flux that will
have to happen eventually anyway.

Liz,

The point is that in a competitive bidding process, in direct competition with Sky/Setanta, the BBC made absolutely sure that it secured the English home games contract by throwing money at it. The Scottish contract value was much much less yet the same effort was not put into securing it.

I absolutely refute your defence of the BBC. You state that "the simple reality is that it could not afford all the games for both teams." Oh, so that means that Scotland automatically loses out? Logically, if money was tight it would have been the Scottish contract which was secured. The reality, whether you like it or not, is that their priority was for the English contract. For an organisation that is suppoed to reprsent the 4 nations of the UK that is a very very dangerous approach to take. This is reflected in the flood of complaints which were received by BBC Scotland on this matter.

In summary, the fact is that ALL England home games are shown throughout the UK on BBC1; that ONE, repeat ONE, Scottish game has been shown throughout the UK (on BBC2) is irrelevant.

Why does BBC Scotland show England football games? No doubt because they get surprisingly large audiences. Any live quality football does well in the ratings in Scotland whether it is of Scottish interest or not. Often comparative ratings for tournaments where England has qualified but we have not are higher in Scotland than down south. It's a win-win situation as it entertains the football fans and gives those who love nothing better than harbouring a grievance something to moan about and sadly we have never been short of the latter type. In fact they seem to be on the increase

The vilest, most obscene gravy train ever devised in modern UK history, is that off the BBC. The Licence Fee brain wave became the most simple, effortless method ever created with the solitary purpose off raising taxes by fooling the general public into believing it belonged too them; yes; it is yours; and with expertly contrived brainwashing, we have come too gullibly and readily to accept. The BBC has over many years has been a useful cheap and essential slave off the Establishment and its upper crust, to be ruthlessly and extensively used when required for their own protection.
They control us with overt and covert bias, deceit, deliberate lies and the necessary concealment off state crime when its demanded. How many citizens, hand on heart; really believe what news pours out off the journalists from the BBC? Not one of the obscenely over-paid executive and staff off this publicly financed gravy train - too my knowledge - are not elected; they are chosen but, by whom?
Is it not a fact, that some higly paid Americans were hired from the US at an exceedingly high cost and are somehow involved within the structure off the BBC? The obscene amounts off licence payers money paid out to certain individuals hired by Mr Thomson and his cohorts are an absolute disgrace and scandulous in any so-called modern society. There should be an immediate demand from the public for an ending too rackeeteering tax raising licence fee.

#62
But you are (deliberatly) missing my point. At the end of the day the BBC does not have an unlimited budget and cannot compete realistically with the commercial channels - especially Sky.
Yes, of course the Scotland games will be cheaper to show than English ones but that does not mean that they are affordable.

The fact that the England games are shown up here is a whole other debate, I can only put it down to lazyness on behalf of BBC Scotland, why do they not show something else? As I think I mentioned further up this thread, there is nothing to stop them showing a film or other sporting event.

You were suggesting previously that there the situation would not be tolerated in England if a Scottish match was shown instead of a cruicial England qualifier - well this is exactly what happened just the other day and there was no uproar or comment. The English chips on shoulders are not quite so big as some here in Scotland so they can live with such things without somehow feeling victimised and looking for someone to complain too.

63,

When there are only 5 channels (the majoirty of the population do not have Sky or Freeview) and the game is on, then it doesnt leave much choice does it?

Oh yes sorry I am just one of those Scots with a "grievance" arent I? I mean, its just frightful to voice an opinion isnt it? I should really just be quiet and watch all the England home games or, indeed, their FA cup games which are deemed to be if such interest. What was it we had earlier this year - Huddersfield, Yeovil Town?

BBC Wales produced Doctor Who. What has BBC Scotland produced that anyone can be bothered watching?

Liz,

How on earth am I missing the point? If, say, there is a limited budget and the England contract cost £50 million; the Scottish contract £5 million, why is it that the Scottish contract is excluded? There may be a limited budget but you seem to think that it is therefore automatic that the Scottish option is dropped. And if anyone in Scotland complains they have a chip on their shoulder?

As I said, the Scotland game ahown the other day was a ONE OFF event. If ALL Scotland home games were shown in place of England's games I guarantee that the "English chips on shoulders" would be out in force.

some people above have been mentioning that the bbc does not run adverts, what about all the mind numbingly over used trailers and self promotional blurbs that are shoved in between every pair of programmes. These vary a great deal less than the adverts and become vastly more tedious as a result.

Like others have said above the bbc should be subscription only. If it were subscription only then we could find out how it is really rated by the viewing public

#67,

River City!

#68 but the point is that the BBC are not showing all the England games either. They are showing some of the Scotland and some of the England ones.

You seem to have got it into your head that the BBC have shown all the England games and could not be ars*d to show all the Scotland ones.

The rest of the games are all on Sky and the more things that get shown on Sky the more irrelevent the BBC is becoming - but without the BBC there really would be no Scottish output (apart from sport).

I simply refuse to pay the one hundred and thirty eight pounds a year tax to watch the biggest load of drivel known to mankind.

Yet even after several letters to the TV licencing people they still threaten me with court action if i fail to pay my licence, red letters with very threatening tones warning me that watching a tv without a licence is a crime.

Its only when my partner and I finally phoned them round for a visit that the letters eventually stopped over a year since we first told them we dont own a tv and we never want to, for some strange reason they just could not grasp this concept, we got remarks like eh! what do you mean, what do you do at nights?.

For f*ck sake is the whole of the British Isles so brain dead that they no longer comprehend plain simple English. WE DO NOT OWN A TELLYVISION AND HAVE NO INTENTION OF BUYING ONE, just so we have to pay the BBC £138 quid a year Im sorry that does not represent good value for money.

BBC more like ENGLISH tv sorry nice try but there is one tax im happy not to pay.

total rip of the whole of the BBC can go to the wall as far as im concerned, to hell with the lot of them.

Liz,

No, if you read my comments you will see I am referring to England home games.

These job cuts must of been known at the time of the big announcement of more money being spent in Scotland, and now surely allows them to reduce the sum while they are doing the same through out the whole of the UK, the cheating BBC*st*rds.

If Ross resigns it covers the entire cost of the Scottish salaries.

This is roughly the TV tax of everyone in Dundee to go into his salary.

Its always entertaining when some publicly funded entity tries to compete in a market and realises it unable to as they are funded irrespective of market demands. BBC entertainment at its best.

Sell it off, or let it compete in the real world.

I wonder what Ross would be worth elsewhere?

... Jonathan Ross £6 million a year, comic Graham Norton £2.5 million and Jeremy Paxman £1 million ...

Who are these "stars"? I've never even heard of them. And what do they do that is worth between £1 million and £6 million a year? At that rate I expect they're all very, very, very good at whatever it is they do.

65

How can Scotland games which cost less not be affordable, whilst England games costing more are ?That is arithmetically impossible!
Every time a Scotland game is excluded that money is then available to fund the England game .the same is true for Northern Ireland and Wales coverage. This is as clear and an unambiguous case of bias and subsidy as you will ever see, and the BBC have even admitted their guilt !
They announced it would stop a couple of weeks ago. Its still born!
I can only put it down to laziness you say ? What part of we pay 9% of the BBC's income and receive 3% of the expenditure do you not understand ?

BBC Scotland don't get enough money Thats why we cant spend it!

74

THANK YOU ANDREW!

At last someone who does not have their head lodged half way up their licence fee!

We are being taken for mugs here!Waken up people!

I think it is jolly decent of the BBC to spread the job cuts so evenly - 91% in England etc 9% in Scotland.

Not too much hint of bias there ehh?

Hold on a minute - They only spend 3% of their money in Scotland.

I could give a more meaning full comparison, if I knew how many were employed inside and outwith Scotland.

But suffice to say:

The Union dividend - You know that it adds up !

In a world where almost every business is looking for ways to make cuts and save overheads, why is it that all TV see the need to have two or more people reading the news.

In the age of Hi Tech I am sure this job could be done by a single operator just like a bus driver has to do.

We, who pay the obscene wages demanded by the likes of Ross and Co have the answer in our own hands, Switch Off in mass whenever he or his like come on. Viewing numbers is the name of the game, no viewers no game, no pay.

I have just watched the Scottish news and after reading a few lines off a sheet of paper the newscaster passes us on to another staff member to read the next line or two and so in goes on.

Is Natasha whats her name worth over £1 million to read off an idiot board. I have no worries about most of these overpaid "legends" losing their jobs

Please tell me that BBC World will not be part of the cuts. Thanks to KCTS, a PBS station here in Seattle, I am able to watch unbiased news on the BBC World and being relatively close to the border can also watch CBC Vancouver. Both of these outlets offer a saner and truer account of world affairs. In this country the television news makers whether ABC,NBC or CBS believe that if it does not concern the US then we don't have to know about it and thus are responsible for supplying the blinders that are attached to the heads of most Americans who actually believe that we are the greatest nation on earth and live in the only land of the free. Of course we also have FOX and other nutcrackers which are not worth mentioning. Please, please keep BBC World.

76

What do they do?
Good question. Its certainly not anything which could even begin to justify their salaries !

One of the reasons you have not heard of them in Canada is they are not good enough to be internationally in demand.The other reason is the Canadians are not stupid enough to want to watch .

81

I'm fairly confident that the BBC's coverage world wide will continue.We have no objection to that of course. The BBC actually broadcasts on line world wide anyway.so you should be able to listen and watch anywhere anytime to a service primarily from London,but the regional and local BBC stations in England are also on line,and from an international viewpoint I agree the Worlds oldest broadcaster is certainly far better than most. You can probably listen into Scotland's solitary station BBC Radio Scotland but its only a part time station of course.
Not bad for a country who gave birth to more scientists per head than any other.We have 0.75 BBC radio stations !You get MORE BBC than we do !

#81

LOL ... One of my sons is in Seattle and he says the same thing.. He also uses the BBC online service a lot and says a lot of his US friends actually prefer that to the US news websites.

For the small fee that the beeb charges, the quality of television is tremendous. I guess you need to live in other nations like Aus, NZ, SA and some others to realise just how awesome the BBC is by comparison to other corporation channels around the world.

BBC learning zone is one of the most interesting documetary channels available. The radio stations are also fantastic, and no advertising. In some other nations, you pay a corporation licence, get much worse viewing than the BBC and more adverts than you can possibly imagine.

The BBC is great, it really is. Job loss is never good, but thats life. The wheel turns, sometimes in your favour, sometimes not. Life goes on though, regardless.

Television Centre is a gross building with lots of empty space which someone in a taxi tried to demolish several years ago. There are several buildings in Wood Lane, all of which are ugly examples of avantgarde institutional architecture. Large high ceilinged reception halls, characterless similar looking corridors. Just shows that good television doesn't come out of concrete piles. There must be some spare warehouses somewhere that could store these people and their banal activities.

Sorry, should have said 'someone used a taxi to demolish' and 'all of which are examples of ugly avantgarde...'. The buildings all to do with the BBC.

kipling where are all the unionistas.

Karin, you may not know but every time the BBC makes people redundant, they are all offloaded onto other sectors of journalism. Because they pay so much to the union(s), these latter apparatchiks ensure the red carpet is laid down for them, brushing aside everyone else. Read Union election statements and very frequently you will see the boast "I work(ed) for the BBC", as if this should ensure votes. I understood that when you're a BBC employee the institution's history and legacy is drummed into you, so what will now trot out into other sectors of the media are a bunch of arrogant props. I was also informed that short-term contracts are very popular in television, the result of which is that all the editorial staff tend to toady to the [senior editor?] in the fear that their contracts won't be renewed. Hence partly the reason for the reduction of quality over the years since Thatcher as very few have the courage to criticise for fear of never getting another 'creative' job. I note that those defending the corporation have tried to make a case for its independence by stating that it had stood up to the government over the Iraq war. When????? I was watching the shoe box elsewhere during that time and the notion that the BBC obviously (or even subtly) countered the ludicrous WMD justifications of the government is a laugh. The only WMD that has ever threatened this country in recent years was a numberplate on a London taxi. An overheard comment from a senior political editor and my personal experience of a news training editor has made quite clear the bias towards the current colour of government. So all should put out of their minds the idea of 'independent' broadcasting from the BBC instantly!

On reflection... I'm being very kind in suggesting that people whose programs seem to consist of numerous unrelated shots stuck together to form a sort of jumping kangaroo hole should be housed in a warehouse to continue producing & recycling their

Girlfriend and Strategist,

My, my, my, you two must have been on a really LONG vacation, in a place totally devoid of ANY outside information, to have missed the very PUBLIC HUMILIATION of the BBC.

The Beeb is SO BIASED and that bias had become SO BLATANT, that the entire hierarchy of the Beeb had to publicly admit the severe LEFT BIAS of the Beeb!!!!

Heads rolled, internal memos admitting just how biased was/is the BEEB were sent throughout the organization, and finally, after having been 'outed', the Powers at the BBC came forth and admitted that what they write, produce, and offer on a nightly basis was HORRIFICALLY BIASED to the LEFT!!!

You can believe what you want, but you CANNOT deny what is in the public record, nor can you deny that the BEEB finally admitted just how rancorous is its reporting!!!!

I read the Guardian (another Rad Left bunch of whack jobs), the Times (London, New York, Seattle, and Washington), I read MoveOn.org, I read Salon, I read the WSJ (Wall Street Journal), I watch Fox News (contrary to your assertion Girlfriend, I've seen more BALANCE on FNC than ANY other news network, because they put on people from the Left even more than they put on people from the Right; NONE of the other news networks do that to any degree of fairness), ABC, NBC, CNN, and the Beeb, just so I can get a cross section of what is being reported and how it is being reported.

I dearly love to read/listen to Social Progressives, the loon folks on the Left: the lot of you are always spouting loudly about 'tolerance of others' opinions,' 'diversity of opinion,' and 'open mindedness,' but you lot almost never PRACTICE what you keep preaching to others.

The PC Crowd, which is what you are, are just as intolerant as a bunch of Brown Shirts from the 30's!!!!

When someone raises point of view which are contrary to those of the Left, you lot start screaming 'bigotry,' 'racism' 'anti-x" (fill 'x' in with your favorite gr

Girlfriend and Strategist Cont.,

How is this pertinent to the article?

It's validly pertinent, because the Beeb, like much of the rest of the media in GB and on the Continent, LIE THROUGH THEIR TEETH about geo-political issues.

A good example is the current threat from Iran and the Ruling Council of Mullahs goal of creating Nuclear Weapons. Coupled with the FACT (there I go again, citing FACTS) that during the last several YEARS, various Iranian governmental officials, including the HEAD of the RCM, have REPEATEDLY called for the DESTRUCTION of Israel and/or the EXTERMINATION of all Jews!!!

One UN member nation publically calling for the destruction of another UN member state nation, hmmmm, isn't that AGAINST the UN Protocols of Membership?

Wonder why no one has bothered to address that fact in the UN, or more to the point, why the Beeb has NOT brought it up in repeated newscasts, since the Iranians REPEATEDLY keep threatening Israel with extermination over and over again?

Fair reporting from the Beeb?

C'mon, will ya? How about you people put down the Bongs, swear off the Weed, and take off the rose colored glasses for a spell, hmmm?

It's the 1930's all over again, and Great Britain (including Scotland) is being run a bunch of neo-Neville Chamberlains.

Worse of course, is that the British Electorate KEEP voting in that bunch of Neville Chamberlains!!!

You lot on the Left never believed that dear old Adolf really meant what he said about the Jews, the Rhineland, France, Danzig, etc., and NOW you don't believe Iran when it says nearly the same thing: Israel must be destroyed, the Jews must die, Western Europe MUST convert to Islam, and that they only want nuclear power (what the 3rd or 4th most productive oil producer in the world) for PEACEFUL 'Energy Needs'?

The last time you splendid folks on the left refused to believe a national leader talking this way, we ended up with about 60 MILLION corpse

Neanderthal75 I certainly did not detect any leftist or commie remarks in the interaction between Girlfriend and Strategist but I certainly detect a bias in your point of view. You are really a chatterer without substance and show a lowbrow paranoia which is typical of FOX-breeders or maybe you are really Bill O'Riley.
To Girlfriend and Strategist, this is my only and last comment and I suggest that you ignore Neanerthal75 and let him wallow in the muck in his own pigpen.

1 in 10 doesn't seem that bad considering only 5 million people live in Scotland or is this just another English bashing thing again. I suggest anyone that has a problem with this just refusing to pay for a BBC TV Licence like me. I've gone 18yrs without paying the little nazi's and they can't touch me because I don't communicate with them

"Cassius Claymore, Edinburgh / 12:58am 19 Oct 2007 No Scot should pay the licence fee, as it seems clear from Question Time last week that the BBC is happy to tolerate racist abuse directed towards Scots"

While I agree with you about not paying the BBC TV Licence fee why have you played the race card ? Incase you didn't know the Scots and the English are the same race!

Hello 'Florenz',

You are indeed a rather fine example of a Frisco Bigot; preaching tolerance, open mindedness, and diversity, JUST SO LONG, as everyone AGREES with you and your positions.

The fact that you can't stand FNC is merely symptomatic of a very CLOSED MIND, willing only to delve into well known biases, prejudices, and hatreds, which abound in the People's Republic of Frisco.

What can one say about political lemmings who so fear the natural biological order of the world, that they will go to ANY lengths, just to avoid dealing with their own deeply entrenched personal terrors? The poor gerbils no doubt, shall only get a rest, when personal behaviour and outrage from PETA reach new lows; lows from which so many will never recover.

My post stands on the FACTS, a concept which you Rad Leftists cannot abide: objective standards, which fly in the face of the severely SELF-DEBILITATING personal choices, which enact a self imposed population control, much like the brown rodents headed for that great body of water, in search of 'paradise.'

You and your peers live in a world of internalized terror, scratching and clawing at yourselves, others around you, and most stridently against ANYTHING that FACTUALLY repudiates the objective fallacy of your personally repugnant rejection of biology, darwinian evolution, medical standards, and just plain common sense.

Thus, I actually chuckle at your bigoted use of the term 'breeder', in that you have proven once again, that you and your peers have so self-limited your thoughts, your horizons, your ability to understand, and your concepts of worth/quality/desirability, to the point of being perpetually in a cesspool of an intellectual Abyss.

Nothing new from the Bigots in the Bay, just more hilarity to watch and chuckle about, noting the ever growing narrow-mindedness from those doing the BEST imitation I've ever seen, of Brown Shirts attempting an intellectual catharsis-with clubs in

the earmarked member of the bbc is very embracing .,,,,,,,,,are the ancint scottish quango fail to cater for the member .,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, perhaps the macbeth have less to report or as jonathan charles ruin out of brag ,..............
what is these than

prhaps the bulletin antenna and its filial tis gtweaker as beaten by prime

I dont know why anyone is surprised by this. When BBC Scotland dropped Anne Mackenzie from Newnight Scotland in the summer they and she said openly that the decision was forced by lack of money and there was worse to come in the way of cutbacks. The writings been on the wall for months - if they were starting to drop their top talent then, they must have known their backs were up against the wall. Its a shame, but maybe if the Beeb used their money more wisely rather than for example, pouring it into a OTT building like Pacific Quay they might have been able to save more jobs and protect the quality of programming.

From Corporation tax
To Corporation tucks