There you go that's what happens when you f**k about at the back.

Firstly, it makes a big difference when people are face to face, you know, human contact rather than screen to screen?  Secondly, they will have saved a fortune as any coverage for England would be considerably more than for Scotland.  Thirdly, yes, I have no problem Swinney bring there, it goes with the territory. Again, reporters do their best work in situ, not from behind a screen. Not sure about who's more important, depends if you ask a nationalist or any other member of the Scottish public. The money given to the BBC is to entertain, inform and give us an insight into the event, all done by humans.  This, after all, is the biggest sporting event in the wild.  Need to go, the world cup is starting. 👋👋👋 

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.