Hmm, the MSM is taking a bit of a battering on this blog at the moment. This is the fourth post in a row having a pop at some aspect of the media. I guess this is common for bloggers, but I promise to go on to something different for my next post!

Anyway, in the past I have written in favour of the idea of a Scottish Six. Despite the fact that I wrote that post over two years ago now, my views haven’t changed much.

I keep on meaning to analyse a week’s worth of the 6 O’Clock News to measure just how much of it is actually relevant to Scotland any more. I haven’t properly measured it, mostly because I’m not always in at 6 o’clock, but my guess would be that it is less relevant to Scotland than many people south of the border realise.

That is because I think that more matters are devolved than some people realise. A common perception about the Scottish Parliament is that it is a glorified council (see, for instance, what Nosemonkey wrote here — though I don’t mean to single him out, as a lot of people do it).

That is probably not the perception of most Scots. When people say ‘Parliament’, you know they are talking about the Scottish Parliament. The other place is Westminster. When Jamie Stone gave a talk to the people taking my politics course last year, he claimed that around 80% of legislation that affects our day-to-day lives is made in the Scottish Parliament (I’m not certain about that 80% figure, but it was something like that. Anybody have any firm figures?).

To put it into perspective, think about every time the 6 O’Clock News covers stories about health, education, transport or justice. They are four of the biggest issues around, and they are all devolved. Often, you might go through half of the bulletin without learning about any news that is actually relevant to Scottish viewers.

That is not to say that Scottish viewers shouldn’t learn about health and education policies being pursued in England. You could argue that these debates all have relevance to the way we are governed from Westminster, in terms of the general political climate. Am I right in thinking that most of the major Commons revolts against the Blair government have been to do with devolved issues?

But the issues themselves are, at best, of tangential relevance to Scots. I would be in favour of a Scottish Six, merely in recognition of this fact more than anything else. Ploughing along with the current situation, where Scottish viewers have to sit through several irrelevant news stories every week, is a bit nonsensical.

But

Richard Havers has written this post about the idea of the Scottish Six, and why he thinks it wouldn’t work.

He is right. It seems pretty obvious that Reporting Scotland has enough bother filling half an hour as things stand. All too often they turn to sport after about ten minutes of the bulletin. You can probably expect around half of Reporting Scotland to be filled with boring boring football. At least, that’s what it feels like.

Mind you, a Scottish Six would also cover international affairs. You would hope that it would broadcast salient reports from the London-based 6 O’Clock News for minimal cost, and also that it would be able to use London-based BBC correspondents just as Radio Scotland is able to.

But I still reckon a Scottish Six would only be able to fill around forty-five minutes tops of the hour-long slot. And it would not be as good quality as the London-based 6 O’Clock News (even though the 6 O’Clock News is the worst BBC bulletin going if you ask me — far too tabloidy).

It’s a tough choice, as there are advantages and disadvantages of both options. As such, it is perhaps not surprising that the safe, conservative option of preserving the status quo is chosen. On balance, I am just about in favour of the Scottish Six — but I probably wouldn’t watch it.