Nae danger

A "Yes" vote in Scotland, whilst daft and not to be encouraged, would have the compensation of watching politicians, accountants and engineers trying to de-construct the BBC north of the border. Lord Birt is right - things would be different, but the technical, cultural and cash issues would create endless fun and games, and the outcome isn't clear.

Taking it in bits, firstly there's no reason that the Aggressive Wee Eck should have the right to sequester BBC buildings and equipment, for the nascent SBC. There's no reason the BBC should operate licence fee collection in Scotland on behalf of a Scottish Government and simply hand over all of the money, as if nothing had changed; after all, we're not even sure what currency conversion rate to use. There's no reason for Arqiva to charge SBC the same as the BBC for access to an expensive network of transmitters getting signals round all those Munros (with lovely names like Grandtully, Badachro and Fodderty).

Mr Salmond, when he's calmed, might like to think about the level of a licence fee for supporting SBC, and what it really might raise. Is the soap River City really going to justify its cost per viewer in SBC's first annual report ?  Some at the BBC will sigh with relief to finally see an orchestra off the books - and in a still over-supplied field, why should the BBC of Britain (no longer Great) spend as much on a foreign SBC Symphony Orchestra, for performances and commissions ?  Maybe the long-term ambition for SBC should be restricted to a sustaining service of SBBC Alba, with closed captions in English, for those refusing over time to learn Gaelic.

On the other hand, stopping Scottish viewers getting BBC channels "for free" is problematic. As with French viewers getting BBC tv in parts of the Channel, and around the Bay of Mont St Michel (thanks to Channel Island transmitters), there'll be parts of the border area that'll be able to tune in to some digital transmitters. On satellite, the BBC might ask Sky to encrypt for Scottish addresses, but Murdoch's unlikely to do that for free. I suspect it might grow the grey-to-black market in Sky cards. In Ireland, BBC services on Sky require you to purchase their cheapest "bundle". Any deal with Sky would be mirrored on Virgin. Freesat is really tricky - built entirely on the concept of free-to-air channels for a one-off purchase, and now in close to 2 million homes. It has only recently narrowed its footprint to the British Isles and the Irish Republic (with a promise to the Irish not to advertise there, where it would compete with Soarsat). I'm certain no new satellites are in its business plan, but the alternative, encrypting the whole thing sort of defeats the point, and raises costs.

BBC Worldwide has a deal with RTE in Ireland, which repeats shows like Eastenders and Miranda at odd hours, so that could be replicated with SBC.  Scotland could have BBC World for free, and maybe BBC Parliament, just to irritate them. (Maybe we can finally get betters camera positions in the House of Commons Chamber with the space left by 59 Scottish MPs). Tim Davie could set up a new BBC Worldwide channel for Scotland - BBC Wha Hae should be patronising enough - re-running Tattoos and Tales Of The Para Handy, Dr Finlay's Casebook and the White Heather Club. Priceless.

Talking of price, the real trouble in all this is how Murdoch's satellite service has distorted our sense of tv value. Some 55% of households now pay for some of their tv beyond the licence fee. The average spend is £580 pa and rising - as Virgin and Sky shadow each other, despite the confusing offers and bundles. To all of those users, £145.50 seems an imposition too far. Yet the stats show that the vast  bulk of viewing is to "free" channels - funded at 40p per day, or a slice of the hidden costs of your washing powder and car insurance.