BBC in an independent Scotland

[Scott]

It is reported today that Salmond wants to replace BBC Scotland with a
Scottish broadcaster IF Scotland votes for independence. Leaving
aside the politics, if this comes to pass will there be any practical
difficulty receiving BBC channels via Freesat? Are they beamed to
prevent viewers outside the UK receiving them? Could the footprint be
fine-tuned to prevent reception in Scotland?

If Salmond decides to jam these broadcasts (as in the cold war era)
would this require jamming from a satellite or could the jamming
equipment be at ground level :-)

[Mark Carver]

Scott wrote:
> It is reported today that Salmond wants to replace BBC Scotland with a
> Scottish broadcaster IF Scotland votes for independence. Leaving
> aside the politics, if this comes to pass will there be any practical
> difficulty receiving BBC channels via Freesat? Are they beamed to
> prevent viewers outside the UK receiving them? Could the footprint be
> fine-tuned to prevent reception in Scotland?

No, it can't. Future satellites might well have a tighter beam, to reduce the
signal in Scotland, but current 'UK' beams include the whole of the UK

> If Salmond decides to jam these broadcasts (as in the cold war era)
> would this require jamming from a satellite or could the jamming
> equipment be at ground level :-)

Jamming is non starter for satellite broadcasts. The only way is to disrupt
the uplink, by firing a jamming signal at the satellite, which would kill the
downlink signal everywhere.


--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

www.paras.org.uk

[Scott]

Is the satellite within range of Scotland or would this need to be
done from by a naval vessel at sea nearer the equator :-)

[Richard Tobin]

In article <a9s9ts...@mid.individual.net>,

Mark Carver <mark....@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>No, it can't. Future satellites might well have a tighter beam, to reduce the
>signal in Scotland,

And even that would be pointless. It's less than 50 miles from
Edinburgh to the border, and about 80 from Glasgow. A beam that gives
a good signal to all of England will still be reasonable for the major
centres of population in Scotland.

-- Richard

[the dog from that film you saw]

when you set up freesat it asks for your postcode - if you're daft
enough to put in a scottish one....

--
Gareth.
That fly.... Is your magic wand.

[Scott]

What is the purpose of the postcode? Is it to confirm eligibility or
just to predict user preferences? Anyway I'm sure my Glasgow postcode
is SW4 ...

[Scott]

On Sat, 25 Aug 2012 18:33:29 +0200, Martin <m...@address.invalid> wrote:

>On Sat, 25 Aug 2012 17:07:20 +0100, the dog from that film you saw
><d...@REMOVETHISbtinternet.com> wrote:
>

>... you get BBC Scotland as your prime channels. At least then the
>main BBC news isn't identical to the local news.

You mean the main BBC news is identical to the London news :-)

[Mark Carver]

Scott wrote:

> Is the satellite within range of Scotland or would this need to be
> done from by a naval vessel at sea nearer the equator :-)

More seriously, I don't know what the uplink footprint for a satellite is ?
Astra for instance uplinked to from London, Hampshire, Herts, and Luxmemburg.
Not sure if the uplink footprint is the same as the downlink ?

You may remember last year persons unknown zapped one of the transponders used
by Al Jazeera during the Egyptian uprising.

[the dog from that film you saw]

On 25/08/2012 17:31, Scott wrote:



>> when you set up freesat it asks for your postcode - if you're daft
>> enough to put in a scottish one....
>
> What is the purpose of the postcode? Is it to confirm eligibility or
> just to predict user preferences? Anyway I'm sure my Glasgow postcode
> is SW4 ...
>

so you can have your local flavour of bbc 1,2 and itv on 101,102,103
the rest lurk up in the 900s

[ne...@address.invalid]

He might very well want to start up a separate Scottish broadcaster.

But what possible motive could he have for jamming the BBC?

I would imagine that most of his supporters watch the popular BBC
programmes and he's hardly likely to offend them.

In any case they could simply watch any 'jammed' programmes on
iPlayer.

[Graham.]

I thought iPlayer didn't work from foreign countries, without
resorting to devious means. Will an independent Scotland be any less
foreign?

Serious question, I really don't know.


--
Graham.
%Profound_observation%

[Owain]

On Aug 25, 4:34 pm, Scott <newsgro...@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> It is reported today that Salmond wants to replace BBC Scotland with a
> Scottish broadcaster IF Scotland votes for independence.

There is no economic imperative for the BBC to restrict its
transmissions to non-Scotland rest-of-UK as long as it continues to
receive licence fee income.

However, if Mr S decides to abolish the licence fee, or appropriate it
to an SNPCB, the BBC might be less willing to provide free programming
north of the border.

Mr S also seems to assume the BBC will be happy to hand over its
premises and staff to an SNPBC instead of retaining them for its own
use or auctioning them to the highest bidder.

Owain

[R. Mark Clayton]

"Mark Carver" <mark....@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:a9sdc...@mid.individual.net...

> Scott wrote:
>
>> Is the satellite within range of Scotland or would this need to be
>> done from by a naval vessel at sea nearer the equator :-)

NO

Well I suppose if Scotland joined the space age and put up a satellite at
28E with higher output than the BBC on a tight beam and rely on FM capture.

They might find themselves at war with Luxembourg...

>
> More seriously, I don't know what the uplink footprint for a satellite is
> ?
> Astra for instance uplinked to from London, Hampshire, Herts, and
> Luxmemburg. Not sure if the uplink footprint is the same as the downlink ?

Even if it isn't they can use much bigger dishes and more power to uplink
and get around this problem.

>
> You may remember last year persons unknown zapped one of the transponders
> used by Al Jazeera during the Egyptian uprising.

And Iran jammed BBC World.

[Mal Travers]

On 25/08/2012 16:34, Scott wrote:

Could someone please jam Salmond?
Mal

[ne...@address.invalid]

On Sat, 25 Aug 2012 21:06:23 +0100, Graham. <m...@privacy.net.invalid>

The iPlayer block is due to licensing restrictions on (some of) the
programme material. In future BBC would simply have to include
Scotland in any relevant contract negotiationss. Since that area is
already included in existing contracts I don't see why it would be any
more difficult to retain it in the future.

The more difficult issue might be splitting up the terrestrial
transmitter network, depending on which if any of the other BBC
channels were to be allowed to continue in Scotland. That's only a
temporary issue of course, pending TSO.

But this is all academic as the OP has not explained why Salmond might
want to block BBC Scotland.

I can see far more serious issues for an independent Scotland than
this.

[Graham.]

Well quite, the biggest constitutianl crisis since... well, you tell
me.

The press seem very laid back about it all thus far.

--
Graham.
%Profound_observation%

[Mal Travers]

On 25/08/2012 16:34, Scott wrote:

http://zcint.co.uk/article/no-surprises-in-alex-salmonds-broadcasting-vision
Does he see it as a means of profiting from the license fee?
Mal

[Bill Wright]

R. Mark Clayton wrote:

> Well I suppose if Scotland joined the space age and put up a satellite at
> 28E with higher output than the BBC on a tight beam and rely on FM capture.

So the uplinks are FM? Really?

Bill

[Graham.]

On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 01:40:26 +0100, Bill Wright <bi...@invalid.com>
wrote:

Well narrow band frequency modulation and phase modulation were often
used interchangeably even though we knew there was a difference in
theory.
QPSK is a form of phase modulation, but whether it is prone to the
capture effect rather than just being swamped I have no idea.



--
Graham.
%Profound_observation%

[Paul Ratcliffe]

On Sat, 25 Aug 2012 21:19:18 +0100, R. Mark Clayton
<nospam...@btinternet.com> wrote:

> Well I suppose if Scotland joined the space age and put up a satellite at
> 28E with higher output than the BBC on a tight beam and rely on FM capture.

You are deluding yourself if you think it's FM. What you propose wouldn't
work anyway and the satellite operator would certainly have something to
say about hitting it with more than double normal power.

>> More seriously, I don't know what the uplink footprint for a satellite is
>> ?
>> Astra for instance uplinked to from London, Hampshire, Herts, and
>> Luxmemburg. Not sure if the uplink footprint is the same as the downlink ?

It's broadly similar, as one would expect.

> Even if it isn't they can use much bigger dishes and more power to uplink
> and get around this problem.

Within reason.

[Paul Ratcliffe]

On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 01:53:09 +0100, Graham <m...@privacy.net.invalid> wrote:

>>> Well I suppose if Scotland joined the space age and put up a satellite at
>>> 28E with higher output than the BBC on a tight beam and rely on FM capture.
>>
>>So the uplinks are FM? Really?
>

> Well narrow band frequency modulation and phase modulation were often
> used interchangeably even though we knew there was a difference in
> theory.
> QPSK is a form of phase modulation, but whether it is prone to the
> capture effect rather than just being swamped I have no idea.

The satellite uplinks we are talking about can hardly be thought of as
narrow band.

[PeterC]

Wouldn't tar be better?
--
Peter.
The gods will stay away
whilst religions hold sway

[Scott]

On Sat, 25 Aug 2012 20:19:51 +0100, the dog from that film you saw
<d...@REMOVETHISbtinternet.com> wrote:

>On 25/08/2012 17:31, Scott wrote:
>
>
>
>>> when you set up freesat it asks for your postcode - if you're daft
>>> enough to put in a scottish one....
>>
>> What is the purpose of the postcode? Is it to confirm eligibility or
>> just to predict user preferences? Anyway I'm sure my Glasgow postcode
>> is SW4 ...
>>
>
>
>so you can have your local flavour of bbc 1,2 and itv on 101,102,103
>the rest lurk up in the 900s

So you get all the channels and just need to know the right numbers? I
can to that!

[Scott]

Or exclude Scotland, depending on the funding arrangements for the
BBC.

>
>The more difficult issue might be splitting up the terrestrial
>transmitter network, depending on which if any of the other BBC
>channels were to be allowed to continue in Scotland. That's only a
>temporary issue of course, pending TSO.

Why is that difficult? We manage to exclude ITV1 and include STV
(North and Central) on both HD and SD without difficulty.

>
>But this is all academic as the OP has not explained why Salmond might
>want to block BBC Scotland.

But I did instead include the symbol :-) at the end of the paragraph.

>
>I can see far more serious issues for an independent Scotland than
>this.

So can I, but there is the concept of off topic and I did say 'leaving
aside the politics' for that reason.

[Scott]

Do they own Pacific Quay or is it leased like MediaCity UK?

[Jim Lesurf]

In article <6orh38hqssjbm3lri...@4ax.com>, Scott

<newsg...@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> It is reported today that Salmond wants to replace BBC Scotland with a
> Scottish broadcaster IF Scotland votes for independence.

You can perhaps clarify if that simply means 'BBC Scotland' (the station)
or the entire BBC broadcast distribution in Scotland. Quite a large
distinction since in practice the TV 'station' is a part-time minor part of
all the BBC output delivered into Scotland.

Also of interest to know where this is reported. Your posting is
the only place I've noticed it. But I tend not to see TV news, etc,
over a weekend.

> Leaving aside the politics, if this comes to pass will there be any
> practical difficulty receiving BBC channels via Freesat? Are they
> beamed to prevent viewers outside the UK receiving them? Could the
> footprint be fine-tuned to prevent reception in Scotland?

It seems unlikely. And shaving towards 'politics' I suspect he'd find it a
vote loser to try and remove all BBC distribution in Scotland. Given how
adept he is, I wonder if he would be so rash. So any such statement now may
be a ploy to gain political attention... but might backfire on him if
pushed too far.

I suspect most people wouldn't be too bothered if 'BBC Scotland' as a
station that puts some opt outs, etc, onto the 'BBC1' and 'BBC2' streams
was replaced by something 'independently Scottish' in terms of production
and ownership, etc.

But trying to remove *all* BBC TV and Radio would, I think, annoy far
more people than it would please. I don't doubt there are some people
who dislike the BBC and regard it as the 'English Broadcasting Corp.'
and want it replaced for political reasons. But I guess the votes
he'd gain from them are already in his pocket. Whereas he could
lose many 'undecided' votes if seen as the man who would take away all
the BBC stations.

> If Salmond decides to jam these broadcasts (as in the cold war era)
> would this require jamming from a satellite or could the jamming
> equipment be at ground level :-)

I suspect it would be illegal as it would mean jamming the uplink input or
putting a nearby satellite in as a jammer, which would be likely to upset
viewing below the line. And the use of broadcasting, etc, are set by
international agreements and law.

Oh well, at least it would mean we could stop bothering too much about 4G
upsetting BBCA from Angus on ch60-. :-)

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

[Brian Gaff]

I doubt they could do anything about it, but for all practical purposes,
they will have to continue with the same stations, maybe rebranded but the
market would be too small to be unique.
Brian

--
--
From the sofa of Brian Gaff -
bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Scott" <newsg...@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6orh38hqssjbm3lri...@4ax.com...

> It is reported today that Salmond wants to replace BBC Scotland with a

> Scottish broadcaster IF Scotland votes for independence. Leaving

> aside the politics, if this comes to pass will there be any practical
> difficulty receiving BBC channels via Freesat? Are they beamed to
> prevent viewers outside the UK receiving them? Could the footprint be
> fine-tuned to prevent reception in Scotland?
>

[Scott]

On Sat, 25 Aug 2012 17:24:37 +0100, Jim Lesurf <no...@audiomisc.co.uk>
wrote:

>In article <6orh38hqssjbm3lri...@4ax.com>, Scott
><newsg...@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>> It is reported today that Salmond wants to replace BBC Scotland with a
>> Scottish broadcaster IF Scotland votes for independence.
>
>You can perhaps clarify if that simply means 'BBC Scotland' (the station)
>or the entire BBC broadcast distribution in Scotland. Quite a large
>distinction since in practice the TV 'station' is a part-time minor part of
>all the BBC output delivered into Scotland.

I think Mr Salmond needs to clarify that.

>
>Also of interest to know where this is reported. Your posting is
>the only place I've noticed it. But I tend not to see TV news, etc,
>over a weekend.

Google not working today?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-19374818
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/aug/24/alex-salmond-replace-bbc-scotland?newsfeed=true
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/alex-salmond-id-break-up-1278367
http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/news/salmond-reveals-plans-to-break-up-bbc/5045701.article?referrer=RSS

[Alan White]

On Sat, 25 Aug 2012 17:24:37 +0100, Jim Lesurf <no...@audiomisc.co.uk>
wrote:

>Also of interest to know where this is reported. Your posting is
>the only place I've noticed it

It was in The Herald.

--
Alan White
Mozilla Firefox and Forte Agent.
By Loch Long, twenty-eight miles NW of Glasgow, Scotland.
Webcam and weather:- http://windycroft.co.uk/weather

[Richard Tobin]

In article <mssj38t9ba4vf6al9...@4ax.com>,

Martin <m...@address.invalid> wrote:

>>In any case they could simply watch any 'jammed' programmes on
>>iPlayer.

>Not without using a proxy server if the BBC treats Scotland as an
>alien country like they do with the rest of the non UK world.

How is the BBC going to know which of my ISP's ip addresses are in
Scotland? Or are you assuming that there will no longer be
ISPs covering the whole of Britain?

-- Richard

[charles]

In article <csoj385f2h6omoa45...@4ax.com>,

brightside S9 <address@replyto_is_not.invalid> wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Aug 2012 20:56:57 +0100, ne...@address.invalid wrote:

> >On Sat, 25 Aug 2012 16:34:42 +0100, Scott

> ><newsg...@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >>It is reported today that Salmond wants to replace BBC Scotland with a

> >>Scottish broadcaster IF Scotland votes for independence. Leaving
> >>aside the politics, if this comes to pass will there be any practical
> >>difficulty receiving BBC channels via Freesat? Are they beamed to
> >>prevent viewers outside the UK receiving them? Could the footprint be
> >>fine-tuned to prevent reception in Scotland?
> >>
> >>If Salmond decides to jam these broadcasts (as in the cold war era)
> >>would this require jamming from a satellite or could the jamming
> >>equipment be at ground level :-)
> >

> >He might very well want to start up a separate Scottish broadcaster.
> >
> >But what possible motive could he have for jamming the BBC?

> Because he knows what is good and best for the citizens of his model
> state of the future, where nobody will be trusted to make their own
> choices, (and clocks strike thirteen).
> >

In the stage directions for the Ionescu play "The Bald Primadonna", there
is one which reads: 'the clock strikes thirteen and a half'.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

[Richard Tobin]

In article <t81k38hchmlpr78vu...@4ax.com>,

Martin <m...@address.invalid> wrote:

>>How is the BBC going to know which of my ISP's ip addresses are in
>>Scotland? Or are you assuming that there will no longer be
>>ISPs covering the whole of Britain?

>I'm assuming Scotland will get a set of IP addresses that identify the
>country as elsewhere.

Countries don't get a set of IP addresses. IP addresses are allocated
to ISPs. Would a currently UK-wide ISP have to start allocating
different addresses to users in Scotland?

-- Richard

[JohnT]

"Jim Lesurf" <no...@audiomisc.co.uk> wrote in message
news:52c4dbf...@audiomisc.co.uk...

> In article <6orh38hqssjbm3lri...@4ax.com>, Scott
> <newsg...@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>> It is reported today that Salmond wants to replace BBC Scotland with a
>> Scottish broadcaster IF Scotland votes for independence.
>
> You can perhaps clarify if that simply means 'BBC Scotland' (the station)
> or the entire BBC broadcast distribution in Scotland. Quite a large
> distinction since in practice the TV 'station' is a part-time minor part
> of
> all the BBC output delivered into Scotland.
>
> Also of interest to know where this is reported. Your posting is
> the only place I've noticed it. But I tend not to see TV news, etc,
> over a weekend.

Google could have found this for you in about 0.001 milliseconds:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5jAQ19HoOP0rpbk0n3q8Q0NYawD4g?docId=N0178651345831251751A

--
JohnT

[Paul Ratcliffe]

On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 11:34:16 +0000 (UTC), Richard Tobin
<ric...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

>>>How is the BBC going to know which of my ISP's ip addresses are in
>>>Scotland? Or are you assuming that there will no longer be
>>>ISPs covering the whole of Britain?
>
>>I'm assuming Scotland will get a set of IP addresses that identify the
>>country as elsewhere.
>
> Countries don't get a set of IP addresses. IP addresses are allocated
> to ISPs. Would a currently UK-wide ISP have to start allocating
> different addresses to users in Scotland?

You're all missing the point...
There won't *BE* UK-wide ISPs if Bonkers-mad Salmond gets his way.
You will have to have Scottish ISPs. Then they would get their own
address ranges and could be blacklisted like anyone else.

Actually, I'm quite looking forward to all those loonies up there
going off on their own. They would soon learn that the grass
ain't greener on the other side.

Roll on putting the wall back up, and checkpoints on all the cross
border routes to keep the Jocks out of England without a legitimate
reason.

Salmond will probably only want pure-bred Scottish people next.

[ne...@address.invalid]

On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 12:22:11 GMT, Paul Ratcliffe

>Actually, I'm quite looking forward to all those loonies up there
>going off on their own. They would soon learn that the grass
>ain't greener on the other side.
>
>Roll on putting the wall back up, and checkpoints on all the cross
>border routes to keep the Jocks out of England without a legitimate
>reason.
>

More practically, we could tell him to create his own currency (or
join the Euro). It will float free from the Pound. The Bank of England
will have no dealings with the Scottish government or currency.
Scottish citizens will need their own passports and their own
embassies around the world.

Independence should be all or nothing. No picking what to abandon or
keep.

>Salmond will probably only want pure-bred Scottish people next.

are there any?

[Ian Jackson]

In message <slrnk3k57i...@news.pr.network>, Paul Ratcliffe
<ab...@orac12.clara34.co56.uk78> writes

>

>
>Roll on putting the wall back up, and checkpoints on all the cross
>border routes to keep the Jocks out of England without a legitimate
>reason.
>

Please be aware that all of Hadrian's Wall is well and truly in England
- at least 60 miles south at the furthest point.

>

--
Ian

[Richard Tobin]

In article <slrnk3k57i...@news.pr.network>,

Paul Ratcliffe <abus...@orac.clara.co.uk> wrote:

>You're all missing the point...
>There won't *BE* UK-wide ISPs if Bonkers-mad Salmond gets his way.

Really? How will that work? Does it apply only to ISPs, or businesses
in general?

-- Richard

[Owain]

On Aug 26, 3:56 pm, (Richard Tobin) wrote:
> >You're all missing the point...
> >There won't *BE* UK-wide ISPs if Bonkers-mad Salmond gets his way.
> Really?  How will that work?  Does it apply only to ISPs, or businesses
> in general?

If an independent Scotland puts in a heavy regulatory burden then
businesses will decide the game simply isn't worth the candle and will
withdraw from Scotland.

A requirement for a universal pricing and service obligation model
regardless of whether the ISP is serving a customer in Drumgelloch or
Durness would put many ISPs off. Once the private sector has withdrawn
from the market there's no reason [1] why internet access shouldn't be
a nationalised or nationally franchised industry like the railways for
example.

Owain

[1] There are lots of reasons, actually, but unlikely to appeal to Mr
Salmond.

[ne...@address.invalid]

I would also expert an independent Scotland to have its own 'universal
delivery' postal service. The remote deliveries will cost it an arm
and a leg.

[Paul Ratcliffe]

On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 15:53:35 +0100, Ian Jackson
<ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>>Roll on putting the wall back up, and checkpoints on all the cross
>>border routes to keep the Jocks out of England without a legitimate
>>reason.
>>
> Please be aware that all of Hadrian's Wall is well and truly in England
> - at least 60 miles south at the furthest point.

Yeah I know, but a new one could be built. The building industry
apparently needs a bit of stimulation. We could get the Jocks to
build it and pay them in cheap English booze. Have to make sure we
send them back over the wall though when they're sozzled, but that's
hardly going to be a challenge is it?

[Paul Ratcliffe]

On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 14:56:58 +0000 (UTC), Richard Tobin
<ric...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

>>You're all missing the point...
>>There won't *BE* UK-wide ISPs if Bonkers-mad Salmond gets his way.
>
> Really? How will that work? Does it apply only to ISPs, or businesses
> in general?

Everything. Anything that is UK-wide now will have to have a Scottish
variant shaved off the side of it.
Otherwise the whole plan is a mess of inconsistency. Oh, err....

[Paul Ratcliffe]

On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 15:31:07 +0100, ne...@address.invalid
<ne...@address.invalid> wrote:

> More practically, we could tell him to create his own currency (or
> join the Euro). It will float free from the Pound. The Bank of England
> will have no dealings with the Scottish government or currency.
> Scottish citizens will need their own passports and their own
> embassies around the world.
>
> Independence should be all or nothing. No picking what to abandon or
> keep.

Abso-bleedin-lutely.

>>Salmond will probably only want pure-bred Scottish people next.
>
> are there any?

I wouldn't know.

[Paul Ratcliffe]

On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 20:37:06 +0100, ne...@address.invalid
<ne...@address.invalid> wrote:

>>If an independent Scotland puts in a heavy regulatory burden then
>>businesses will decide the game simply isn't worth the candle and will
>>withdraw from Scotland.

Excellent. Leaves more room in the market for pure Scottish
businesses to operate.

> I would also expert an independent Scotland to have its own 'universal
> delivery' postal service. The remote deliveries will cost it an arm
> and a leg.

It'll save the English loads of dosh then. The more that's said
about this, the more I like it. Who needs a referendum, let's just go
for it now.

[Owain]

On Aug 26, 9:46 pm, Martin wrote:
> >Roll on putting the wall back up, and checkpoints on all the cross
> >border routes to keep the Jocks out of England without a legitimate
> >reason.

> Will this be after the UK leaves the EU?

Who says that Scotland will be a member of the EU, Schengen, or the
Common Travel Area?

Owain

[Mal Travers]

Can he help himself to the existing assets of the BBC?
Mal

[Mal Travers]

This pure bred Scot don't live there no more and wont be going back.
I just wish that they had voted for independence years ago. How would
they have survived their banks going bust? Would pure bred Brown and
Darling have bailed them out?
Mal.

[Mal Travers]

On 26/08/2012 14:29, brightside S9 wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 13:45:14 +0100, Tim Streater
> <timst...@greenbee.net> wrote:
>
>> In article <1bout8vnyw5nz$.1sri21ev...@40tude.net>,
>> PeterC <giraffe...@homecall.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 25 Aug 2012 21:22:17 +0100, Mal Travers wrote:

>>>
>>>> On 25/08/2012 16:34, Scott wrote:
>>>>> It is reported today that Salmond wants to replace BBC Scotland with a

>>>>> Scottish broadcaster IF Scotland votes for independence. Leaving
>>>>> aside the politics, if this comes to pass will there be any practical
>>>>> difficulty receiving BBC channels via Freesat? Are they beamed to
>>>>> prevent viewers outside the UK receiving them? Could the footprint be
>>>>> fine-tuned to prevent reception in Scotland?
>>>>>
>>>>> If Salmond decides to jam these broadcasts (as in the cold war era)
>>>>> would this require jamming from a satellite or could the jamming
>>>>> equipment be at ground level :-)
>>>>>

>>>> Could someone please jam Salmond?
>>>> Mal
>>>
>>> Wouldn't tar be better?
>>
>> Oh, it was that sort of jam was it? I was assuming that he meant "under
>> the wheels of a 44-tonner".
>
>
> Here's a little background info an Alex
> See http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Alex_Salmond
>

I've always thought it strange that he married his now 75 year old wife
who was his boss in the Scottish Office when he was 27 and she was 44.
They were standing next to me one day at the races. He turned to her
saying, Stay there, I have something to do. He goes and speaks to some
people and then disappears with them into the hospitality room.
Mal

[Peter Duncanson]

On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 23:23:04 +0100, Tim Streater
<timst...@greenbee.net> wrote:

>In article <slrnk3l59p...@news.pr.network>,

> Paul Ratcliffe <ab...@orac12.clara34.co56.uk78> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 15:31:07 +0100, ne...@address.invalid
>> <ne...@address.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> > More practically, we could tell him to create his own currency (or
>> > join the Euro). It will float free from the Pound. The Bank of England
>> > will have no dealings with the Scottish government or currency.
>> > Scottish citizens will need their own passports and their own
>> > embassies around the world.
>> >
>> > Independence should be all or nothing. No picking what to abandon or
>> > keep.
>>
>> Abso-bleedin-lutely.
>

>And if an independent Scotland wants to remain (or more properly,
>*join*) the EU, it will also *have* to adopt the Euro.

I very much doubt whether an independent Scotland would be able to join
the EU.

It was one of the fundamental priciples of the creation of the European
Communities that became the EU that existing borders would be left where
they were/are and harmonisation of laws and unification would reduce the
significance of the borders.

There are many borders between EU countries that are "disputed". If
Scotland were able to leave the UK, erect a new border and join the EU
it would open a can of words.



--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

[Roderick Stewart]

In article <slrnk3k57i...@news.pr.network>, Paul Ratcliffe

wrote:

> Roll on putting the wall back up, and checkpoints on all the cross
> border routes to keep the Jocks out of England without a legitimate
> reason.

If we were black, that would be racist.

Rod.
--

[R. Mark Clayton]

"Bill Wright" <bi...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:k1br9r$1l8$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
> R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>
>> Well I suppose if Scotland joined the space age and put up a satellite at
>> 28E with higher output than the BBC on a tight beam and rely on FM
>> capture.
>
> So the uplinks are FM? Really?

I meant the downlinks, but at 28E there have not been any FM ones for
several years.

>
> Bill

PS Anyone want a Strong 1500MkII analog receiver?

[Peter Duncanson]

On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 09:08:05 +0200, Martin <m...@address.invalid> wrote:

>On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 00:46:16 +0100, Peter Duncanson
><ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 23:23:04 +0100, Tim Streater
>><timst...@greenbee.net> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <slrnk3l59p...@news.pr.network>,
>>> Paul Ratcliffe <ab...@orac12.clara34.co56.uk78> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 15:31:07 +0100, ne...@address.invalid
>>>> <ne...@address.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > More practically, we could tell him to create his own currency (or
>>>> > join the Euro). It will float free from the Pound. The Bank of England
>>>> > will have no dealings with the Scottish government or currency.
>>>> > Scottish citizens will need their own passports and their own
>>>> > embassies around the world.
>>>> >
>>>> > Independence should be all or nothing. No picking what to abandon or
>>>> > keep.
>>>>
>>>> Abso-bleedin-lutely.
>>>
>>>And if an independent Scotland wants to remain (or more properly,
>>>*join*) the EU, it will also *have* to adopt the Euro.
>>
>>I very much doubt whether an independent Scotland would be able to join
>>the EU.
>

>but countries that were part of the former republic of Yugoslavia can
>and eventually will.

Yugoslavia split when outside the EU.

Allowing the rearrangement of the EUs internal borders would be a
different matter.

[Graham.]

On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 12:22:11 GMT, Paul Ratcliffe
<ab...@orac12.clara34.co56.uk78> wrote:

>On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 11:34:16 +0000 (UTC), Richard Tobin
><ric...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>>>How is the BBC going to know which of my ISP's ip addresses are in
>>>>Scotland? Or are you assuming that there will no longer be
>>>>ISPs covering the whole of Britain?
>>
>>>I'm assuming Scotland will get a set of IP addresses that identify the
>>>country as elsewhere.
>>
>> Countries don't get a set of IP addresses. IP addresses are allocated
>> to ISPs. Would a currently UK-wide ISP have to start allocating
>> different addresses to users in Scotland?
>
>You're all missing the point...
>There won't *BE* UK-wide ISPs if Bonkers-mad Salmond gets his way.
>You will have to have Scottish ISPs. Then they would get their own
>address ranges and could be blacklisted like anyone else.
>
>Actually, I'm quite looking forward to all those loonies up there
>going off on their own. They would soon learn that the grass
>ain't greener on the other side.
>

>Roll on putting the wall back up, and checkpoints on all the cross
>border routes to keep the Jocks out of England without a legitimate
>reason.
>

>Salmond will probably only want pure-bred Scottish people next.

Tiscali was issuing me with Swedish IP addresses at one point. Whois
confirmed this and if you put google.com into your browser it
redirected to google.se
The main problem was finding a smtp server that would accept outgoing
mail, I never did, and it was the only time, out of desperation, that
I used my own open relay.

The best their helpdesk could do was suggest that I must have chosen
Swedish instead of English as the language option when installing the
driver for the USB modem.

It lasted about a week, then one morning it had resumed issuing me
with UK addresses.



--
Graham.
%Profound_observation%

[Roderick Stewart]

In article <qakm38ldrofl8lf8s...@4ax.com>, Martin wrote:
> >> Roll on putting the wall back up, and checkpoints on all the cross
> >> border routes to keep the Jocks out of England without a legitimate
> >> reason.
> >
> >If we were black, that would be racist.
>

> He did say "without a legitimate reason". :-)

Considering the circumstances in which it would be "legitimate" to refer
to people in a particular category by a derogatory term and suggest
excluding them, it does seem to depend on what the category is. If the
category is "black" or "homosexual", or "disabled" or "female", to give
a few examples, there are laws that forbid it, but if you're Scottish it
seems to be perfectly OK.

Rod.
--

[ne...@address.invalid]

Well, someone has to post this link I suppose:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vh-wEXvdW8

I was hoping Boris would insist on it being included in the the
Olympics opening ceremony. Bit of a slip-up that.

[Paul Ratcliffe]

On Mon, 27 Aug 2012 12:17:54 +0100, R. Mark Clayton
<nospam...@btinternet.com> wrote:

>>> Well I suppose if Scotland joined the space age and put up a satellite at
>>> 28E with higher output than the BBC on a tight beam and rely on FM
>>> capture.
>>
>> So the uplinks are FM? Really?
>
> I meant the downlinks, but at 28E there have not been any FM ones for
> several years.

The satellite sends back what you send to it, in modulation terms, so
you are just showing up your own ignorance even more.

[Bill Wright]

Well in my view we should do everything we can to keep the Pakistanis
and all the other Stans and Muslims out of the country unless they have
a legitimate reason for coming. Is that racist?

Bill

[Bill Wright]

Martin wrote:

> He did say "without a legitimate reason". :-)

That doesn't make any difference. You can't say anything about black
people. Anything you do say will be by definition racist, because you
identified a racial group without simultaneously identifying all other
racial groups, so that's racial discrimination. After all, you could go
on to say anything. Since no-one can know what you might be going on to
say the risk can't be taken and you must be silenced immediately.

Bill

[Bill Wright]

R. Mark Clayton wrote:

> PS Anyone want a Strong 1500MkII analog receiver?
>

Bugger off. I've already built a retaining wall with analogue receivers.

Bill

[Bill Wright]

It's OK if you're old.
TV comics will make racist jokes about the Irish and the Welsh and the
French, but never about Africans.

Bill

[Roderick Stewart]

I wonder if the fact that some some types of people are in "protected
categories" about which it is considered offensive to joke, and some aren't
should be regarded as another form of inequality itself? Shouldn't we all be
equal? Why are there no horrified Daily Mail comments about
whitemiddleclassmaleism for example?

Rod.
--

[Bill Wright]

Roderick Stewart wrote:

> I wonder if the fact that some some types of people are in "protected
> categories" about which it is considered offensive to joke, and some aren't
> should be regarded as another form of inequality itself?

It's because the PC nutters have decided on certain things to harp on about.

Bill

[Roderick Stewart]

It's not just the PC nutters. Some categories of people are *legally* protected
against certain types of criticism or humorous treatment, and some aren't.
People actually end up in court because of things that they've said about other
people in one of these protected categories, when they could have got away with
saying what they like about anybody else. So we might blame it on the legal
nutters, assuming of course that we're allowed to call them nutters.

Rod.
--

[R. Mark Clayton]

"Paul Ratcliffe" <ab...@orac12.clara34.co56.uk78> wrote in message
news:slrnk3n76q...@news.pr.network...

Well most broadcast ones do, but nothing in the rules says the Scottish one
must - it could just send a test card, or just occasional spikes to create
errors in the received signal from Astra.

[R. Mark Clayton]

"Bill Wright" <bi...@invalid.com> wrote in message

news:k1ghjs$gdd$2...@speranza.aioe.org...

How about a videocrypt decoder then? Or D2-MAC or ...

[Mark Carver]

I've lost track, whose satellite, and doing what exactly ?!

--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

www.paras.org.uk

[Bill Wright]

I have a summer house made from videocrypt decoders. The roof is tiled
with BSB squariels. The furniture is made from analogue TV sets. The
internal walls are made from the elements of 405-line aerials, woven
into basketwork panels. The wallpaper is Hullabaloo and Custard leaflets.

Incidentally, does anyone want a couple of dozen Channel Five diplexers
(ch37:rest of band)?

Bill

[Mark Carver]

Bill Wright wrote:

> Incidentally, does anyone want a couple of dozen Channel Five diplexers
> (ch37:rest of band)?

I've a handful of Ch 35 notch filters ?

[Paul Ratcliffe]

On Tue, 28 Aug 2012 19:40:06 +0100, R. Mark Clayton

<nospam...@btinternet.com> wrote:

>>>>> Well I suppose if Scotland joined the space age and put up a satellite
>>>>> at
>>>>> 28E with higher output than the BBC on a tight beam and rely on FM
>>>>> capture.
>>>>
>>>> So the uplinks are FM? Really?
>>>
>>> I meant the downlinks, but at 28E there have not been any FM ones for
>>> several years.
>>
>> The satellite sends back what you send to it, in modulation terms, so
>> you are just showing up your own ignorance even more.
>
> Well most broadcast ones do, but nothing in the rules says the Scottish one
> must - it could just send a test card, or just occasional spikes to create
> errors in the received signal from Astra.

You don't seem to understand what a satellite transponder is and how it
works. It's pointless carrying this any further.

[Bill Wright]

Mark Carver wrote:
> Bill Wright wrote:
>
>> Incidentally, does anyone want a couple of dozen Channel Five
>> diplexers (ch37:rest of band)?
>
> I've a handful of Ch 35 notch filters ?
>

I've got about a dozen ch37 ones and a few ch35 ones. They were actually
very good filters. Very good accurate deep notch. Seem to think the ch37
ones were black and the ch35 ones fawn.

In my van is a tobacco tin containing 300/75 ohm baluns from the days
when some tellys (Scandinavian ones) were 300ohm, and some FM tuners
(Jap/USA) were 300ohm.

Bill

[Mark Carver]

Bill Wright wrote:
> Mark Carver wrote:
>> Bill Wright wrote:
>>
>>> Incidentally, does anyone want a couple of dozen Channel Five
>>> diplexers (ch37:rest of band)?
>>
>> I've a handful of Ch 35 notch filters ?
>>
> I've got about a dozen ch37 ones and a few ch35 ones. They were actually
> very good filters. Very good accurate deep notch. Seem to think the ch37
> ones were black and the ch35 ones fawn.

My Ch35 ones are black. Never used one in anger (yet)

[Ian Jackson]

In message <aa6u4j...@mid.individual.net>, Mark Carver
<mark....@invalid.invalid> writes

>Bill Wright wrote:
>> Mark Carver wrote:
>>> Bill Wright wrote:
>>>
>>>> Incidentally, does anyone want a couple of dozen Channel Five
>>>>diplexers (ch37:rest of band)?
>>>
>>> I've a handful of Ch 35 notch filters ?
>>>
>> I've got about a dozen ch37 ones and a few ch35 ones. They were
>>actually very good filters. Very good accurate deep notch. Seem to
>>think the ch37 ones were black and the ch35 ones fawn.
>
>My Ch35 ones are black. Never used one in anger (yet)
>

Once upon a time, around the Heathrow Airport area, they would have been
useful in getting rid of the radar interference.
--
Ian

[Bill Wright]

damdu...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

> On Wed, 29 Aug 2012 04:37:10 +0100, Bill Wright <bi...@invalid.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> In my van is a tobacco tin containing 300/75 ohm baluns from the days
>> when some tellys (Scandinavian ones) were 300ohm, and some FM tuners
>> (Jap/USA) were 300ohm.
>>
>> Bill
>

> Long way to drive to do a job,not surprising you still have them.
>
> G.Harman
International trade means that goods originating in one country are
often used in another.

Bill

[Grimly Curmudgeon]

On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 12:22:11 GMT, Paul Ratcliffe

<ab...@orac12.clara34.co56.uk78> wrote:

>Roll on putting the wall back up, and checkpoints on all the cross
>border routes to keep the Jocks out of England without a legitimate
>reason.

Too late for me; I've had your women and your money.

[Grimly Curmudgeon]

On Sun, 26 Aug 2012 14:20:27 +0100, brightside S9
<address@replyto_is_not.invalid> wrote:

>I don't think that will stop him doing a territory annexation
>southwards up to Hadrian's Wall. He'll probably claim that the
>southern boundary of Caledonia was marked out by the Romans some teens
>of centuries ago.

That's going to fuck him up, then.
Antonine's Wall pre-dated Hadrian's Wall by many years.
Look it up.

[Richard Tobin]

In article <me3448h4mieqa8hb4...@4ax.com>,

Grimly Curmudgeon <gri...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Antonine's Wall pre-dated Hadrian's Wall by many years.

Huh? Antoninus was Hadrian's successor and adopted son.

-- Richard

[R. Mark Clayton]

"Grimly Curmudgeon" <gri...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:me3448h4mieqa8hb4...@4ax.com...

I don't think it did.