Broadcasting remains a reserved UK-wide matter under Westminster despite devolution in other areas. London hosts the BBC headquarters and shapes much of UK television, radio and screen content. Recent academic studies explore how devolving powers could improve local media provision in the nations but might affect the centralised model.
London’s grip on the airwaves was not accepted as a natural law: Yes carried the question by three to two. Yet the result was less a settled theory of broadcasting than a vote of confidence in loosening the centre’s hold.
The winning side’s practical case was modest but tangible: “more localised news tailored to the regions”, with neglected places given room to find and fund their own stories. The floor’s highest-rated Yes argument was more accusatory — “London is no longer culturally British” — while another voter argued that decentralising power “removes the power from too few hands”.
No had more voices on the page, and its objections were strikingly concrete. London’s economic and creative gravity, one voter said, meant “a lot more than devolved broadcasting powers” would be needed; another asked, “Who honestly listens to the local news after the main news programs now?”
The two sides often answered different questions. Yes voters were talking about representation, local production and the concentration of institutional power; No voters worried about parochialism, extra management, fragmented national consciousness, political capture in Scotland and a media that may already be losing influence to social platforms. Even the strongest No case conceded that devolution could “give the nations more room to develop their own media industries and perspectives”, without materially diminishing London.
That is the revealing balance: voters backed a less centralised broadcasting settlement without agreeing that centralisation is the main source of London’s cultural power.
“London is no longer culturally British. Khan has destroyed the culture and the BBC is his lapdog as well as the met”
YES case · stephencalder · 2 respects
“London is 8 or 9 times bigger than the next largest city in the UK with a hugely and unassailable economic value. It’s going to take a lot more than devolved broadcasting powers to challenge its cultural dominance.”
NO case · rh79 · 1 respect
Should rejoining the EU be decided by referendum rather than being a manifesto commitment?
Constitution · 1,219 votes · 82% voted Yes
Should MPs in the UK face a term limit?
Constitution · 1,214 votes · 62% voted No
Should Holyrood spend time debating Scottish independence?
Constitution · 1,143 votes · 70% voted No
Should the UK have a codified constitution?
Constitution · 1,094 votes · 51% voted No
Should there be an automatic General Election if a Prime Minister resigns mid-term?
Constitution · 1,149 votes · 56% voted Yes
Should the UK introduce the Alternative Vote?
Constitution · 929 votes · 52% voted Yes
Should Westminster have the final say over whether a devolved nation can hold a referendum on its constitutional future?
Constitution · 897 votes · 67% voted Yes
Should only British citizens be allowed to vote in UK general elections?
Constitution · 835 votes · 78% voted Yes
15 Opinions
There is no doubt that the London area has many different cultures, all useful for developing good TV programmes. It's also become a very expensive place to live. So far, making programmes outside of London has not been taken full advantage of. The North of England and Wales seem in some minds to not exist, or seen as poor and uneducated. Devolving, if done well, would help spread wealth, and bring out hidden talent.
Scrap licence !! Does not represent me.or my area . Refnation.uk more info.than some outlets. Londonastan does not speak fir me.
The only reason for keeping everything centralised is to push the massive propeganda machine that broadcasting has become. Decentralising removes the power from too few hands.
London is the capital of the UK and broadcasting should reflect that. Individual minorities are already catered for especially via DAB and digital TV channels. By further increasing the ghettoisation of broadcasting and the potential for unrepresentative views to assume greater prominence than they deserve mitigates against effective integration into the host country.
We made Dr Who in Cardiff and Corrie in Manchester and they both went to pot. More devolution would be a path to parochialism and extra "management" costs.
I voted no because the SNP have a monopoly in Scotland. Noone challenges them. I myself have called them out on numerous occasions including what I see as deliberately sabotaging the economy. Devolving television rights would ensure we were subjected to language tantamount to subversion on a daily basis.
London’s cultural dominance does not exist because Westminster controls broadcasting. It exists because London is Britain’s economic, political and creative centre of gravity. Devolving broadcasting could give the nations more room to develop their own media industries and perspectives without materially diminishing London’s influence. If anything, it would make the UK’s cultural settlement less centralised without pretending London can simply be displaced.
London is no longer culturally British. Khan has destroyed the culture and the BBC is his lapdog as well as the met
NO But I've only voted that because I can't see it working.. We already have local radio & TV stations which no one really listens to. So why is devolving broadcasting further going to make any difference? Who honestly listens to the local news after the main news programs now?
Fragmented media already weakens our national consciousness. Learn from the USA example, where news is limited and parochial, and where there is little news of the nation and international perspective.