Scottish Independence Guide: Politics and the press

Murray Ritchie, former political editor of The Herald, calls for more political balance in the Scottish press.

from the Saltire Society Newsletter

A few weeks ago Scotland on Sunday carried this eye-popping headline: 'Despite its critics, an independent Scotland is irreversible and must be nurtured'

Not only was this apparent acceptance of independence as inevitable highly exceptional if not unprecedented for a Scottish newspaper, the article was the work of none other than John McTernan, the new policy adviser to the prime minister. Tony Blair.

Newspaper readers in Scotland who constantly complain that the independence issue is either ignored or misrepresented by our media must have been stunned - until they took a closer look and read all of Mr McTernan's article and not just the headline.

He did not quite argue that independence was irreversible - he said that of devolution - but he did insist that the present constitutional arrangement was not sustainable and that new powers were inevitable for the Scottish Parliament. 'Some have read the 2003 election results as a blow to nationalism from which it will not recover. It is, however, far form clear that that is the case,' he said, moving on to examine the justification for more constitutional reform, and to conclude: 'There is a need, at some point, to ask clearly and to answer unequivocally the question about whether our future lies in full independence.'

Having just retired after a lifetime in Scottish journalism, where free discussion about any benefit from independence is regarded as too dangerous by half, I welcome this call for debate. Most Scottish newspapers are downright hostile to independence and those which are not are mainly indifferent. This is an auld sang, and an affront to democracy and free expression. Indeed it is more than that because it amounts to a conspiratorial denial of the existence of a political ambition which is attractive - sometimes obsessively so - to a significant section of the electorate.

When I began in newspapers more than 45 years ago my father, who was non-political, worked on the Glasgow Herald where several senior journalists were aspiring Conservative MPs. Tory Party activism was regarded as the natural order and a good career move for those working on a strongly Unionist newspaper. Life is still like that on papers like the Daily Telegraph which has trenchant right-wing views. But the Telegraph sells mainly in England where those who disagree with its politics have rival newspapers to choose from. In Scotland we take anti-independence papers or none because of the self-denying ordinance editors practise on the most important division in Scottish politics.

Some of my father's colleagues were active in the Labour Party but had to keep the fact quiet for fear of their careers. Not so very much has changed in Scottish newspapers except that the party which now commands most support among proprietors and senior journalists is Labour, the new Unionist establishment. The SNP hardly has a look-in.

When I was Scottish political editor of The Herald and covering the 1999 Holyrood elections my paper was denied hundreds of thousands of pounds of advertising from Labour-supporting businesses because, in the words of a senior Labour figure who picked favoured media outlets, we were 'not sufficiently supportive'. This sort of political sectarianism is nothing new. For generations Scottish journalism has been littered with examples of independence- friendly writers finding life unusually complicated.

I once made a light-hearted speech at a private function where I confessed personal support for Scottish Nationalism and was immediately reported by a Labour spin doctor to my editor. I wasn't fired, thanks to an understanding editor (but the spin doctor was, eventually). When a bright young BBC journalist stood for the SNP in a Falkirk West by-election, he was promptly banished to covering sport in London. When the SNP leader took a wife who was a BBC political correspondent she was bumped into general reporting. When Dorothy-Grace Elder stood as an SNP candidate she had her Sunday column killed off. At present I cannot think of a single columnist who is paid or even permitted regularly to advance the case for independence - while many others make lucrative careers by routinely rubbishing the idea.

Contrast this with the easy ride for Labour (or Tory) supporting journalists. The divide between Labour Party employment and political journalism is easily crossed. For years Scottish Television was regarded by many as a Labour club. The political editor was the daughter of a former Labour cabinet minister, and the political correspondent was a Labour activist who went on to spin for Donald Dewar. The present head of news is a former Labour spin doctor, and, of course, the former SMG chairman. Lord Gus Macdonald, became a Labour minister. BBC Scotland's main political programmes are produced by the husband of a Labour ex-cabinet minister and Labour's current spinner is a former BBC broadcaster.

It is only fair, indeed crucial, to point out that these individuals were and are all honest journalists who proved themselves perfectly capable of questioning Labour when the need arose. My quibble is that they obviously had little time for independence and were unlikely, therefore, to suggest testing public opinion by putting the subject up for objective examination. And, even if they had felt moved to do so, they would have found little encouragement from their employers.

The Scottish media's unfair treatment of independence should not be put down simply to prejudice on the part of pundits or political correspondents. Rather it is more to do with newspaper ownership and the culture in Scotland where Unionism, whether Tory, Labour or Liberal Democrat, remains ingrained. I know of at least one case where a respected editor suggested to his management that it might be useful and exciting to support independence (but not specifically the SNP) and was promptly warned to back off. The thinking was that sympathy for nationalism would so offend advertisers that revenues would collapse. There was, of course, not the slightest evidence to support this fear and this commercial knee-jerking ignores the equally obvious possibility that some advertisers might be encouraged to place their business with a newspaper which endorsed independence.

For a time Rupert Murdoch, of all people, allowed the Sun in Scotland to support independence. The SNP derived no noticeable benefit. Nor, apparently, did the Sun itself which eventually cooled on the idea and last year fired Jim Sillars. The Sunday Herald has shown itself fairer than most to independence. My old paper, almost alone, has made strenuous efforts to be even-handed with the SNP, but also to criticise the Nationalists when they deserve it. The trouble is that being fair to the SNP or Scottish Socialists is routinely interpreted as being unfair to their Unionist rivals. All this means that those newspaper readers in Scotland who support independence - more than 50% according to some polls and including, it is said, up to 40% of Labour voters - are generally starved of any editorial expression of their views,

What is especially unfair is how the SNP's disappointment at the 2003 Holyrood elections has been interpreted by a hostile Scottish media as a stalling of the independence cause. Yes, the SNP fared poorly (as did Labour) in the elections but independence itself did rather well - well enough to put more independence-supporting MSPs into the Holyrood chamber than in 1999. What's more they and their Unionist colleagues are now demanding a wide range of new powers, if for different political reasons.

Everyone seems to agree, except (publicly) the Executive, that control of taxation should pass from Westminster to Holyrood. Many MSPs are vociferous in seeking more power over transport, broadcasting, fisheries and Scotland's representation in Europe. At the same time there is rising resentment among many Westminster MPs about Scottish MPs voting on English-only affairs. All this surely means Scottish politics is moving closer to, not farther from, independence but you would never know it from the Scottish press.

A dam is building, a dam of the sort which burst when the Conservatives denied devolution and were swept away. History appears to be repeating itself as the pressure rises for another constitutional advance with independence as the inevitable destination. How long can the Scottish media continue to ignore it?

Murray Ritchie is the current chair of the Scottish Independence Convention.