In June former Prime Minister Gordon Brown finally ignited the debate about the BBC and Scottish independence by raising the “EastEnders” question. The key issue is whether the country’s 5.2 million citizens would have uninterrupted access to all current BBC services, if the referendum vote is for separation, and Scots’ licence fees are then diverted to a new national broadcaster.

He pointed out that Scots get top-class programming from a UK-wide corporation funded to the tune of £4bn; BBC One’s budget alone is three times what the entire proposed semi-­replacement Scottish Broadcasting ­Corporation could expect to receive.

The BBC’s six most popular programmes, headed by EastEnders and Strictly Come Dancing, together cost £160m, with sports rights for Match of the Day included. Brown raised the spectre of Scots having to pay more.

As the 18 September vote nears, it is clear that the BBC will bear the brunt of substantial changes within the media sector if there is a yes vote.

But there has been scant dispassionate examination of the consequences for all 25 million UK licence-fee payers of such an outcome.

The EastEnders question first surfaced with Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond’s declaration at the 2012 Edinburgh Television Festival: “EastEnders will be safe with us.” The subtext was that messing with favourite TV shows could undermine the independence vote.

Stand back from the debate and you see a BBC left isolated among the public service broadcasters: Channel Five, Channel 4 and ITV have been neutralised because they are assured that their existing licences, renewed until 2025, will be fully honoured.

The least affected (and so, most relaxed) is BSkyB, because it uses ­satellite transmission.

It is a different story for Scottish independent producers – 37 companies represented by Pact, with an annual turnover of £33m, who are edgy. As are UK indies in general about any assumption that BBC network programmes they make, and whose rights they own, could be shown for free in the territory of an independent Scotland. It would set a precedent.

“Businesses want clarity,” says Pact’s Scots-born chief executive, John McVay. “There are a lot of unknowns.”

There are rumours that, in the event of a yes vote, some independent companies might relocate in order to continue operating under the 25% production quota and BBC Window of Creative Competition. (Pact declines to comment on this speculation.)

Patrick Barwise, Emeritus Professor of Marketing at the London Business School, predicts that Scots “would see a significant outflow of indies from Glasgow. Their domestic broadcaster would be so tiny.”

Stuart Cosgrove, Channel 4’s Director of Creative Diversity, disputes this as “most unlikely. The main reason people base themselves somewhere is their roots”.

He says that most Scottish producers work in a global market, “neither small nor shrinking”. Channel 4 works with 20-plus indies in Scotland and commissions £7m of content annually.

Frustratingly, the BBC is staying silent to avoid becoming part of the story. The corporation does not want yes campaigners pouncing on alleged bias and, in the process, possibly stifling discussion on the subject.

“JK Rowling found that any individual who puts their head above the parapet gets shot at,” claims Barwise.

“Frankly, the BBC can’t do anything about it. The SNP has a huge advantage, it is in power,” says Alice Enders, author of a critical study, Scottish Independence: Media and Telecoms, for Enders Analysis.

“If Scotland leaves the union, at least one of the letters in the BBC is wrong. It is no longer a UK-wide institution. It is not what it was.”

Media commentator Steve Hewlett worries that the situation leaves the public not as well informed as it should be: “It is a remarkably sensitive issue... the BBC doing nothing adds to the yes campaign.”

BBC official historian Professor Jean Seaton, a confidante of BBC Trustees, says of them: “They are hoping it won’t happen”.

But Anthony Fry, a trustee until 2013, lifted the lid on the grave threat he fears Scottish independence poses, in a letter to Standpoint magazine in March. There is a price to be paid by advocates of sharing the licence fee, he wrote. Critics, “having wrecked the institution”, seem to believe they can have the bits of the BBC they most enjoy.

Hewlett, who has described Scottish independence as “possibly the biggest threat to the BBC,” believes: “It has an existential quality for the BBC. If Scotland leaves the union, at least one of the letters in the BBC is wrong. It is no longer a UK-wide institution. It is not what it was.”

The key policy document remains the SNP-led Scottish Government’s Independence White Paper, published in November 2013.

It assumes an independent Scotland would establish a Scottish Broadcasting Service. This would be initially founded on the staffing (1,000 BBC employees) and resources of BBC Scotland, based at the £188m David Chipperfield-­designed Pacific Quays HQ and studios in Glasgow, opened in 2007.

The SBS (established by Act of Holyrood) would provide television, radio and online services, following a fast handover on 31 December 2016.

The SBS annual budget would be £345m, comprised of £320m from Scots’ licence fees, £13m of BBC Worldwide and commercial revenue
(a share granted in perpetuity), and £12m from the Scottish Government for the two Gaelic services, Bòrd na Gàidhlig and MG Alba.

The White Paper says there “should be an increase in production for Scottish producers and productions that reflect life in Scotland.”

The licence-fee revenue and the share of income from BBC Worldwide is based on Scotland’s 2.5 million homes – Scotland has 8.2% of the UK population. But the SNP’s case assumes the settle­ment would provide the same level of BBC network programmes as at present.

In addition, the SBS plan includes a new TV channel and radio network, drawing on Scots’ licence fees. SBS is expected to work in a joint venture with the BBC: in exchange for Scottish programming fed into the BBC network, SBS would obtain free-to-air terms from the BBC.

Currently, BBC Scotland provides 939 hours of programming to the network, while 50,000 hours of BBC network TV programmes are supplied to licence-fee payers.

Enders says: “The big ask is BBC One and BBC Two on free-to-air terms – this implies a subsidy of £270m to Scotland. This seems very unlikely to be agreed by the rest of the UK, since BBC Worldwide offers only commercial terms to other countries. 

“However, the BBC will not comment on this assumption, so the Scots will only learn of the facts after the referen­dum. Surely, there will be howls of protest from [UK] licence-fee payers regarding this largesse to households north of the border?”

Another area in which the SNP is banking on negotiating a good deal for Scots is the iPlayer, which is not currently licensed by the BBC to any other organisation.

BBC Scotland’s private analysis is believed to back up Brown’s claim that Scots are net recipients under the current BBC licence-fee arrangements.

In fairness, however, the Scottish licence-fee funds might be spent more efficiently by SBC commissioners in Glasgow, and the country’s audio-visual sector is arguably underdeveloped.

Even so, Seaton insists that “the Scots are mad if they think they can have the BBC and have a separate SBC that is not the BBC”.

She also points to concerns raised in the no camp about governance: could a new national broadcaster find its news and current affairs output under intense scrutiny from an interventionist Scottish government?

Scotland’s broadcaster could become “frankly provincial”, Seaton adds.

Cosgrove believes a no vote is still most likely, but “it will have been the biggest democratic discussion Scotland has ever had. And that will be a force for greater change and accountability.”

In short, even if it is a no vote, there will be more devolution in broadcasting.