Firstly. Why would it make it any less authentic for true Scots commenting on Scotland just because they don't happen to be over there? Secondly. How much do you think they've saved by having some coverage based in England when, as I said, so many of the Scot's reporters in the Americas. Feck me. You'd be hard pushed to get anyone in Scotland as they're all overseas on their jollies. Thirdly. I would argue, as leader of our Parliament, Swinney has more right to be there than any reporter but I'm not sure I even agree with them using tax payers money to do so. But that isn't money given to a corporation to entertain and inform so it's a different argument. Actually one  you previously claimed to have agreed with.

I prefer the real authentic reporting from the actual venues.  Scottish reporters reporting on Scottish football.  Oh, you've not acknowledged the saving that the BBC have made with their main coverage being based in England? Oh, Swinney is over there spending "our" money, but let's keep that quiet. 😉 

ITV don't spend "our" money so, while I think it's still a waste of resources, it doesn't come from my pocket. I seldom see adverts so they don't even gain that way.. As for a Scottish presence. We have at least 20.000 Scottish people spending their own hard earned cash. How much more Scottish do we need it to be? I also don't think they need umpteen so called pundits, Scottish or English, sitting in a studio in the States discussing what we've all seen on a screen, being paid god knows how much and being put up in what will definitely not be B&B standard accommodation. In an era of technological advances there really is no need for this level of manning, (are we allowed to use that term now?), in the locale. Most of this could be done from a studio in Scotland.