BBC and Public Service Broadcasting

The next item of business is a debate on motion S7M-01962, in the name of Màiri McAllan, on the BBC and public service broadcasting in Scotland. There is no time in hand and any interventions must be absorbed within the speaker’s time. Members who wish to speak in the debate should press their request-to-speak buttons now.

16:16

I welcome the opportunity to open the debate on the future of the BBC and public service broadcasting in our country, which comes at a critical moment. The debate responds to the BBC’s proposals to close the BBC Scotland linear service and to end entirely “News at Seven”. However, it is also about so much more, because the recent proposals—which, let me be clear, the Government opposes in the strongest terms—are just the latest in a long line of blows to the Scottish media landscape in recent years.

When we talk about the closure of the BBC Scotland television channel and the end of “Reporting Scotland: News at Seven”, we are also debating the strength of cultural expression in Scotland and the existence of locally relevant journalism. We are debating jobs and investment in our broadcasting sector, and we are confronting serious issues about democratic accountability for decision making.

The Government’s contention is therefore that the position is untenable and, alongside our colleagues in the Welsh Government, we are calling for the devolution of broadcasting powers to this Parliament once and for all, so that people will be accountable to this Parliament for decisions that are made. I will be interested to hear what members say in the debate, but I cannot imagine why any member would refuse that opportunity for their constituents.

On that note, I will be glad to take Murdo Fraser’s intervention.

Mr Fraser is very well acquainted with the fiscal framework within which this devolved Parliament and our Government operate, so he will understand that with devolution come the freedom and opportunity to invest as we see fit. Right now, we have a scenario where I am having to invest what we can, but ultimately the powers over broadcasting rest with the United Kingdom Government, which is underinvesting.

I will take a brief intervention from Patrick Harvie.

The BBC charter renewal is an opportunity to consider those matters, and the Government has been raising questions about accountability and decentralisation out of London and into the nations. I will move on to reflect on the engagement that I have had so far with the secretary of state and some of the feedback from the Westminster committee, but it does not give me a great deal of confidence that that is the direction of travel.

I want to consider the chronology and how we have found ourselves at a point where closure of the channel is proposed. In 2019, the BBC Scotland channel launched. It replaced the BBC Two Scotland opt-out. “The Nine” was introduced at that time.

Five years later—in August 2024—Ofcom approved the BBC’s decision to halve peak-time news requirements for the BBC Scotland channel. That marked the end of the very short life of “The Nine”. At that point, “Reporting Scotland: News at Seven” replaced the ill-fated “The Nine”. However, as sure as night turns to day, here we are, just two years later, facing the end of that programme, too.

In September 2024, the BBC announced plans to reduce the number of editorial and production jobs in the nations and regions, including by up to 30 jobs in Scotland.

In 2025, there was the end of “River City” and the decision not to renew the lease on the Dumbarton studio, which had been home to that programme for many years. Last year, too, the BBC instigated changes to Radio Scotland’s late-night programming, which has caused consternation among its community of listeners and artists.

In April this year, the BBC announced that it would cut between 1,800 and 2,000 jobs, with an aim of saving £500 million in three years. The first phase of those savings includes plans to make savings in Scotland of more than £10 million—which I ask the Parliament to note is the highest figure of any of the nations.

In recent weeks, the BBC Scotland director has communicated to me the intention to close the BBC Scotland channel and end the “News at Seven”.

That is a sorry chronology of seven years of disinvestment, job losses and, I have to say, a degree of disregard for the BBC’s obligations to Scottish audiences.

There has been no greater manifestation of that than—

I am a bit concerned about time, Presiding Officer, but I will take a very quick intervention.

That was not the short intervention that I was hoping for. Nonetheless, I will make two points in response. First, not everybody has ready access to iPlayer, whether because of age, ability to navigate technology or connectivity. Secondly, there is a logic, in that good programming follows proper investment. If Stephen Kerr is quoting the figures on those who have watched the BBC Scotland channel, I simply say in response that, had more been invested in that channel, we might not have found ourselves in this position.

However, I want to say a little about the practical implications. In the summer, when the eyes of the world were on Glasgow for the Commonwealth games, the irony was that nobody in Scotland could turn on BBC One and watch the games. I thank BBC Alba, which broadcast them in Gaelic, but the BBC position was untenable.

I have also put on the record a number of times my dissatisfaction with the significant disparity in funding between Welsh language broadcasting and Gaelic language broadcasting—a gulf of £95 million. I do not begrudge a single penny that is invested in Welsh broadcasting, but I cannot defend that significant gulf, and we cannot allow it to continue.

My final point to make in the time that I have left is that this is about cultural expression, jobs and investment, but it is also about democratic accountability. I have written on several occasions to the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport about my concerns, but I have not received a reply. In the perverse constitutional set-up of the UK, we have a London Government minister who is in charge of broadcasting in Scotland who will not reply to correspondence from the culture secretary in Scotland, and, although I do not doubt that the members of the Westminster committee are doing their job for their constituents, none of them represents a Scottish constituency or Scottish interests. I note my time, Presiding Officer. We therefore have a significant gap in funding and in accountability.

In moving the motion, I ask members across the chamber to back the devolution of broadcasting so that members in this Parliament can hold the BBC and others to account for the decisions that they make, and so that people in Scotland can turn on their radios and televisions and see their lives authentically reflected back at them.

I move,

That the Parliament opposes the BBC's proposal to close the linear BBC Scotland channel and to discontinue Reporting Scotland: News at Seven; expresses concern that proposed changes could reduce access to Scottish news and public broadcasting, particularly for audiences who rely on traditional television services, and could impact jobs and investment in Scotland; highlights the contribution of broadcasting to Scotland's economy through investment in skilled jobs, the screen sector and the creative industries workforce; notes the importance of fair and sustainable support for Gaelic media and the continuing disparity in funding between Gaelic-language and Welsh-language broadcasting; believes that licence fee revenues raised in Scotland should be reinvested in full in Scotland; recognises the opportunity presented by the ongoing BBC Charter Review to deliver greater accountability, representation and investment for Scotland; believes that BBC television and radio must authentically reflect the lives of people in Scotland, and calls on the UK Government to devolve responsibility for broadcasting to the Scottish Parliament.

16:25

Will Murdo Fraser take an intervention?

I gently challenge the position that the Government is looking to take control of the media. That is not what I said. All I am seeking is to have the powers over broadcasting in a way that is similar to the way that we operate all other devolved powers and for those powers to be similar to those that the Secretary of State for Digital Culture, Media and Sport currently holds—the same secretary of state who will not write back to Scotland’s culture secretary.

[Made a request to intervene.]

I will try my best, Deputy Presiding Officer.

The BBC has been the backdrop to many of our lives, and we all have our own relationship with it and have parts that we value most. However, for many in Scotland, that relationship has become increasingly complicated. With the BBC’s charter up for renewal, we are at a critical juncture, so the Parliament must consider what the future of public service broadcasting should look like in Scotland.

The issue of trust is central to that conversation. We need trust that Scotland’s stories will be told by and for Scotland; we need trust that public service broadcasting is valued as a public good, with citizens at its heart, not just consumers; and we need trust that our public service broadcasters understand that Scotland is a nation, not a region of the UK. When only 88 per cent of what is raised in Scotland through the licence fee is invested back into Scotland, that erodes trust. When a decision is made to move BBC Scotland’s linear channel online, despite Scotland having a larger digital connectivity gap and, proportionally, more older people, that erodes trust. When our public sector broadcaster cannot place Aberdeen accurately on a map while discussing the carving up of our energy resources, that erodes trust.

If the current devolution settlement, in which broadcasting powers are reserved, cannot deliver for the people of Scotland, Westminster should move aside and devolve those powers to the Scottish Parliament. We need a broadcaster that invests fairly and transparently in Scotland and that is ambitious for Scotland and our world-class arts and culture sector, which I want to focus on.

The BBC must recognise its privileged position in Scotland’s cultural and musical ecosystem. Scotland has never lacked creative talent or stories to tell, but we need sustained and meaningful opportunities to communicate them. The criticism of recent changes to BBC Radio Scotland’s late-night music programming has been well documented, but those changes point to something far wider than individual programming choices. Analysis by the Scottish Music Industry Association showed that, in the first two weeks following the implementation of the changes, new music plays went down by 69 per cent and the amount of overall Scottish music played went down by 26 per cent. Such opportunities are essential for musicians early in their careers as they try to build visibility and momentum; for many Scottish artists, first plays by knowledgeable and trusted presenters have often been key to their breakthrough.

Equally, the threat to cut coverage of the world pipe band championships is extremely concerning, especially because I am lucky enough to have the 2023 world champions—Boghall and Bathgate Caledonia pipe band—in my constituency, but more generally because that would seriously diminish grass-roots piping and undermine Scotland’s international cultural standing in that area. Can we imagine who would broadcast the championships if Scotland did not?

This morning, the Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee heard that we stand at a critical juncture for the wider media landscape, with existential challenges lying ahead. Never before have we needed public sector broadcasting as much as we do now—for community cohesion; for democratic participation; to build digital literacy among all age groups; for our emergency resilience response, as David Green mentioned; and as a counterbalance in a post-truth world. We have a responsibility here to make the case for that, but we want to be equal partners and not bystanders confined to witnessing a managed decline.

We need a broadcaster that is ambitious for Scotland, accountable to Scotland and invested in Scotland’s future. That is the challenge, and the opportunity, before us and is one that I hope the BBC can rise to.

16:55

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate. When we talk about cuts to regional broadcasting, we are not talking simply about fewer programmes and journalists or a centralised news output; we are talking about the real-life impact on people and communities and how they shape our views.

For more than 60 years, Aberdeen was the heart of broadcasting in the north of Scotland. Generations grew up watching Grampian Television, but Grampian did more than report the news. It cemented Aberdeen and the north-east on the map, and it took the big stories and showed what they meant locally.

In the 1960s, while the fight for equal pay was a national issue, Grampian captured women taking that fight to the streets outside our Beach ballroom.

In the 1970s, when North Sea oil began to transform Aberdeen and Scotland’s economy and energy became a defining national issue, just as it remains today, Grampian captured what that transformation meant to workers, their families and our communities, whose lives were changed overnight.

In the 1980s, national broadcasters reported Aberdeen’s footballing triumphs, but Grampian captured what the Dons did best, beating Real Madrid and Bayern Munich and cementing our place as Europe’s premier outfit—I reflected heavily on that as Hibs slotted their fourth goal past us on Saturday.

In great seriousness, when the Piper Alpha tragedy struck, Grampian understood the devastation of a city in mourning and the impact that that would have for generations.

There is a world of difference between getting a mention on the 6 o’clock news and feeling connected to a broadcaster that understands your city. National news reports the story; regional news brings it home. Local journalists have connected us to the people and places that define the north-east.

The BBC also has a proud history of championing the north-east, having broadcast from Aberdeen for more than a century. I am incredibly fortunate to have the historic BBC Beechgrove studio in my constituency. It is a landmark with deep roots in the city that it has served so well.

Who is protecting that footprint and the journalists who bring stories to life? For decades, we have watched the weakening of the north-east broadcasting presence. First, there was the loss of Grampian TV, and then we had the ending of the STV North news programme. Now, rather than filling the gap in trusted regional coverage, the BBC has, sadly, followed a similar path. Without dedicated regional journalism, cities like mine risk being pushed further and further down the running order.

I would argue that that is why we need a regulator. Ofcom exists to protect public service broadcasting, to uphold licence commitments and to ensure that audiences across the country are properly served. However, when STV proposed axing its news provision in the north, Ofcom approved those changes without a second thought and despite overwhelming opposition from viewers. At a time when broadcasting needs protecting more than ever, Ofcom has enabled its erosion.

This is about more than the decline of local journalism. In an age of disinformation, when fake news poisons informed debate, trusted local reporting has never been more important. Without it, we risk losing the voices and accountability that strengthen our democracy. As MSPs, we have a duty to fight for our constituents and to defend those pillars of trust but, ultimately, it is Ofcom’s responsibility to uphold the standards that we have rightly come to expect in Scotland. That must mean protecting regional journalism, not presiding over its decline.

16:59

I had hoped that today’s debate would offer Parliament an opportunity to come together to send out a clear message that we are united in our opposition to the cuts and in standing up for those who will be most affected. I am talking about older people, those on low incomes and those who are digitally excluded. As always, hope sometimes does not work out. However, I would still encourage colleagues to see the cuts for what they really are: another step in the gradual erosion of Scotland’s broadcasting landscape.

We have already witnessed the hollowing out of Scottish services at STV, and it cannot seriously be suggested that STV could simply step in and fill the gap. According to the most recent research, STV broadcasts the main UK-wide network from London for 90 per cent of the day.

That is part of a much wider problem. Scotland remains poorly served when compared with other nations of comparable size. In fact, Scotland is one of the worst-represented nations across the whole of Europe, with European Union-wide media studies classifying Scotland’s autonomy as moderate to low, which means that we rely heavily on the UK-wide network infrastructure. By comparison, Catalonia and the Basque Country score highly, which means that they operate fully independent, multichannel regional public networks.

The Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee’s report “Scottish Broadcasting”, which was published earlier this year, noted that, a quarter of a century after devolution, there were still significant concerns over

“persistent systemic shortcomings”

in news coverage, which led to an

“erosion of trust”

and a

“growing suspicion in the mainstream media”.

The committee also raised concerns about the

“depth of the coverage of the Scottish Parliament’s proceedings with the Director-General”,

noting that there was

“little interest from BBC Scotland in covering the work”

of the Parliament. Indeed, if we look specifically at this morning’s media coverage of this debate, it tells its own story. The National led with calls for the devolution of broadcasting, Holyrood led with

“BBC being hollowed out by cuts”,

and even the right-wing favourite, the Scottish Daily Express, led with

“SNP bid to gain control of BBC Scotland is ‘straight from the Goebbels playbook’”.

However, the BBC was, I am sad to say, silent.

We need to fight not only for a reversal of these cuts but for more relevant content that reflects the realities of today’s Scotland and, ultimately, for the power over broadcasting to be devolved. That must also mean proper investment in Scottish broadcasting, fair funding for Gaelic media and a commitment to reinvesting in Scotland the licence fee revenue that is raised here.

The forthcoming BBC royal charter review provides an opportunity to address the long-standing inequalities, but Scotland must have a meaningful say in shaping its broadcasting future because, while England is set to lose “Blankety Blank”, Scotland is set to lose a flagship news programme. Presiding Officer, that is simply blank.

17:02

I am beginning to think that broadcasting in Scotland has become a recurring theme during my time in the Scottish Parliament. Well—that, Paisley, St Mirren, and Stacey and the rest of my family.

A long time ago, in session 4, in a room in the bowels of this building, I questioned the BBC management as a member of the Education and Culture Committee. More than a decade later, I found myself asking the same questions in the last public session of the CEEAC Committee. At this rate, I might get a satisfactory answer before I retire. Luckily, I am not planning on doing that any time soon.

The fundamental question remains: who is Scottish broadcasting there to serve? I believe in the BBC and in public broadcasting, but supporting the BBC does not mean accepting every decision that its management makes. Closing the BBC Scotland channel and scrapping “Reporting Scotland: News at Seven” is the wrong decision.

I was interested in the comments of broadcaster and former Channel 4 executive Stuart Cosgrove, who described the BBC Scotland channel as a “huge missed opportunity”. I agree. He argued that Scotland should have had an ambitious channel that offered drama, comedy, arts, documentaries and programming that we would all queue up to watch. Instead, scheduling decisions and a lack of ambition restricted what could have become a better channel. The BBC had an opportunity to create something genuinely special for Scotland, but rather than fulfilling that ambition, it now proposes to walk away from it. In the end, it was a poorly executed undertaking.

What is happening here cannot be separated from what is happening in commercial broadcasting. During the CEEAC Committee’s inquiry in the previous session of Parliament, I was deeply critical of Ofcom’s handling of the STV North changes. At one point, I asked what the point of Ofcom was. What is the point of a regulator that never seems to want to regulate? I kept asking who was standing up for the viewers. I sometimes wonder whether Ofcom sees itself as a regulator or as simply a facilitator of whatever broadcasters want to do next. A regulator should not simply manage the decline of public service broadcasting—it should protect the public’s interests. I remain unconvinced that Ofcom is doing enough.

I also warned about Comcast, the American media giant that owns Sky, and the possibility of further consolidation through the purchase of ITV. In the future, it could bid for STV. What would be left of Scottish broadcasting then? Would decisions still be made in Glasgow, or would Scottish journalism become another line on a corporate spreadsheet thousands of miles away?

I am not predicting a takeover; I am warning about the consequences if we fail to look at this and act now. When commercial broadcasters face pressure from shareholders and international corporations, we need stronger, not weaker, public service broadcasting. Let us not forget that ITV and STV still have a public broadcasting element to their business. That is precisely why the BBC proposals concern me.

During my time on the Education and Culture Committee, I questioned BBC management about staffing and pressures on journalism. More than a decade later, we are still discussing cuts and centralisation in the context of the future of Scottish journalism.

Scotland has the talent, but there needs to be a commitment to invest in it. The licence fee revenues that are raised in Scotland should be invested here. That is why I support devolving responsibility for broadcasting to this Parliament. That is the only way that Scotland’s voice will be heard.

The BBC is not simply another media company. Scottish broadcasting is not simply another commercial market. It is part of who we are. It tells our stories, records our history, celebrates our achievements and asks the difficult questions when things go wrong.

Our communities have extraordinary stories to tell. The people who we represent matter. Their stories matter. They deserve more than to be treated as figures on a balance sheet. We should hear their stories of hardship, humour, courage and hope. We should never have to ask permission for Scotland’s voice to be heard. Our people deserve to be seen, our stories deserve to be told and Scotland’s voice deserves to be heard. Scotland is not a region to be managed, a market to be exploited or a cost to be cut. Scotland is a nation with a story to tell.

17:07

I thank all my SNP colleagues, because it has been heartening to see so many SNP colleagues wanting to speak in the debate.

George Adam mentioned the words “broadcasting”, “Scotland” and “Scottish broadcasting”, so I will quickly mention a company called Broadcasting Scotland, which has recently moved into my constituency and created some jobs there. It operates on a shoestring, unlike the BBC, and it is doing a great job.

I was on BBC Scotland’s “Debate Night” programme a couple of weeks ago, and the most perceptive question was from a person who asked whose interest it is in for the BBC to fail or decline. It is worth asking ourselves that question, because in some of the scandals—Russell Brand was mentioned—we should look at the other companies immediately going in against the BBC. There are many very powerful vested interests that want to see the BBC decline. However, I do not—I genuinely want the BBC to prosper.

If we are going to avoid accepting, as so many voices have done in the debate, that what is happening is inevitable and that it could not be better in any alternative world, we must ask some questions of the BBC. The first question would be about trust and relevance. I do not know how many news bulletins the BBC has broadcast on the saga of the ships that were late and vastly over budget—there were bulletins every day of the week at certain points, and there were dedicated documentaries on the issue, as there should be. There should be scrutiny of what Governments do. So, where is the documentary on the Ajax tanks scandal, which involves proportionately more Scottish taxpayers’ money than those ferries? Where is the documentary on the complete collapse of Capita’s recruitment in the armed forces, which directly affects Scotland? We were told that we would have 12,000 service personnel, but we never got close to that. What has BBC Scotland’s approach been on that? What about the replacement communications system for the emergency services? That system is massively over budget. Scotland has been waiting for it for years, yet there has been no inquiry and no attempt to look at those issues.

I mention those issues because one of the witnesses before the Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee this morning talked about something called the Scottish unified audience. That is what a Scottish news programme could have created. That is what was envisaged, to some extent, with the Scottish six—perhaps, as we have ditched “The Nine”, we will ditch “The Seven” and end up with “The Six”, if we have any luck.

The point is that there could be a Scotland-based programme that would talk about all the issues that affected Scotland, including those at a UK level and at an international level as well. If BBC Scotland had that, the chance of rebuilding relevance and trust would be much greater. However, BBC Scotland has put itself into the position whereby it accepts the status quo. It wants to be mindful of its position and not move out of its position. If you do not believe that, look at the BBC website. If you try to get Scottish football results on the BBC website, you will be clicking forever before you get to them, but you will get the other results with no problem at all. That is about Scotland knowing its place, and that is where BBC Scotland has failed.

I will not go over the other points that have been made by many members. However, on the point that only 88 per cent of the licence payers’ money comes back to Scotland, as compared to 110 per cent in Wales—good luck to Wales, because it is doing a great job in getting that—the missing amount is roughly equivalent to the savings that the BBC is now making by cutting these programmes. Of course, that is only about the first £200 million—there is £500 million in savings to be had from the BBC, so what else is going to be cut in Scotland?

The idea that we should just manage the decline, accept that it is inevitable and say that we cannot change it, which is what the motion proposed by the cabinet secretary seeks to do, is a counsel of despair. We must have more ambition, and the BBC must have more ambition than that in Scotland. Far too often, when it comes to saying what should be cut in Scotland, it is just accepted. However, it is not inevitable and it should not necessarily have to happen. What is going to be cut when the BBC comes back for the other £300 million in savings? The recommendations of the committee that I sat on, along with George Adam, Stephen Kerr and others, in the last parliamentary session have not been heeded.

I also echo the comments that have been made about Ofcom. We heard from Ofcom this morning. It has no role whatsoever. It is not eager to exercise any kind of role. Eventually, it conceded that its interest was in making sure that audiences were served—

And then, at every point when Ofcom was asked to serve that audience, it said, “That’s not for us—it’s for somebody else.” Ofcom is a creature of the UK Government and it is failing—as will the BBC unless it changes.

Will the member give way?

I am not doing this to use up all his time, I promise you, Presiding Officer.

Earlier this afternoon, Stephen Kerr used the word “penitence”. Is he at all penitent about his party’s lamentable record on the BBC, from offloading the cost of licences for over-75s to settlements that were stitched up behind closed doors? Does he accept that Scotland is now paying for those choices?

I am grateful to members who have reflected on the debate and recognised the significant impact of the cuts. Those are not stand-alone changes; they exist in the context of years of downward trajectory, as I put it. Others have put it differently.

I will make a point about the technical aspects of the debate. It had to be a short debate, so that other parliamentary business could be timetabled. I should be very glad to come back to the chamber and continue debating the point with members, because it matters to the Government and to parties across the chamber.

Members have reflected concern for staff and journalists. I echo that. I was pleased to hear a reflection of the need for authentic programming and locally relevant news.

I am grateful to those members who spoke to the disparity in funding between Gaelic and Welsh language broadcasting. Katherine Sangster noted that her UK Government colleagues were open to discussion on those matters. That is great news, but I have to say that it is news to me, because, as I said in my opening remarks, my letters to Lisa Nandy of 29 June and 13 October have gone unanswered. I wrote to her again this morning.

I am disappointed that some members—perhaps Labour members in particular—could not support the call for devolution. I am slightly bewildered by the question mark over why it might be needed. It should be obvious to members who sit in the Scottish Parliament how important it is that powers over the things that affect people’s lives in Scotland rest with the Scottish Parliament. I cannot quite imagine how one might explain to a constituent who was raising those matters with an MSP that we should not rather have a Scottish minister to hold to account, or a Scottish parliamentary committee that understood the needs of our communities and could hold to account ministers, the BBC and regulators.

Those calls for devolution are not just the view of the Scottish Government. I was able to discuss the issue with my counterpart, the Welsh Cabinet Minister for Culture and Sport, last week, when we discussed our shared view on the out-of-date, antiquated reservation of broadcasting to Westminster. She and I will continue to co-ordinate with each other to make the case for devolution.

The Tories and Reform seem fairly relaxed about the changes, while other members were keen to highlight some of the risks. I can see risks. One of those is the risk of digital exclusion, which Q Manivannan talked about, as did David Green, who spoke about the rural angle. Reform and the Tories also seemed quite relaxed about the ongoing erosion of public service broadcasting that people trust, and the movement of that discussion to online platforms, which, as we know, are increasingly broad and chronically difficult to regulate. We are in the age of disinformation and misinformation, and we have to ask ourselves who benefits from these discussions happening more online than on a trusted service. Perhaps the answer to that question reveals why Reform is relaxed about the issue.

Devolution is not a panacea, but we are in a situation in which members of this Parliament are disempowered to do a great deal about the decisions that are taken by the BBC, Ofcom or UK ministers. Every single member of this Parliament should be concerned about that.

I will not take another intervention.

I close with emphasis on two points that were raised. George Adam said earlier:

“I believe in the BBC and in public service broadcasting, but supporting the BBC does not mean supporting every decision”.

Like Patrick Harvie and Pauline McNeill, who echoed George Adam’s comments, I share that view—I think that the BBC needs to do better.

I want to say a word about Keith Brown’s contribution and his reflections on programme commissioning. I should dearly love to turn on the BBC and see more programming on Scotland’s energy potential, our cultural offer and our history. How many more times do we need to consider the development of Scotland through the prism of the Tudors? I should like to see the use of a lot more Scottish content.

I believe very strongly that cultural understanding is an absolutely critical part of our future success as a nation and in the positive contribution that we can make in the world. Broadcasting and the media are so central to the cultural confidence that we must grow as we move towards independence. I cannot see why those among us who do not support independence would not rather that the powers over those matters were with this Parliament, so I would ask them to join us in expecting and seeking the very best for Scotland, for our culture, for our news, for our view of ourselves and for our place in the world.