Control. That, in a word, is what politicians have so often craved to have when it comes to the BBC. In the heat of battle, when their blood is up and they can see the white of their enemy’s eyes they simply do not understand why the nation’s broadcaster doesn’t see the world exactly as they do.

So, it has been down the decades and across the political spectrum. Just a few years after the creation of the corporation Winston Churchill attacked its coverage of the General Strike. You cannot, he harrumphed, be impartial between the fireman and the fire. Anthony Eden ordered ministers to examine taking over the BBC when it dared to allow the opposition a say on his ill-fated invasion of Suez. Harold Wilson threatened the director general after Steptoe & Son was scheduled to be broadcast in the hour before polls closed. He saw it as a plot to persuade Labour supporters to stay at home rather than cast their votes. Thatcher went to war with Auntie every time she went to war with somebody else. During the Falklands, the bombing of Libya and her confrontation with the miners she believed that the BBC’s journalists and managers were definitely not “one of us”. Most recently, Tony Blair sanctioned Alastair Campbell’s attacks on Broadcasting House As a direct result of his anger at the coverage of the invasion of Iraq.

Now we can add the name Alex Salmond to that list. Scotland’s former first minister – a man I once described on air as the “canniest politician on these isles” – has taken aim at the BBC, labelling it a “state broadcaster” and accusing it of producing “Pravda-like” propaganda during the referendum on Scottish independence. He targeted my coverage in particular – saying that it was shameful and embarrassing.

Let’s leave aside how seriously we should take any comparison between the BBC’s high journalistic standards, which are recognised around the world, and Russian state broadcasting and focus on his serious underlying point. It is summed up in that word “control”.

Who should control what is broadcast – on TV, on radio and online – to the people of Scotland who pay the licence fee. That, ultimately, is a democratic decision which is part of the much bigger one about independence and the future powers of the Scottish parliament. It is, therefore, a debate to be had by politicians and the public and not by me as a BBC journalist who has a duty to cover both sides impartially.

I will, though, make one observation as someone who has written a history of relations between broadcasters and politicians (this is no shameless profiteering book plug since you could recently buy Live from Downing Street second hand on Amazon for 1p). Salmond’s assertion that the BBC is a state broadcaster that dances to a tune written by the Whitehall and Westminster establishment is wrong. History shows that. “If only it were so” would have been the response of all those prime ministers who clashed with it in the past.

Of course the BBC can never be immune from attempts to influence it by those who set its income and appoint its governors or trustees – witness the current debate and controversy about cuts to the licence fee or the future of the BBC Trust. However, the BBC’s licence fee and its governing board or trust were created precisely to keep it at arm’s length from the meddling of politicians which is so common around the globe. It is that which underlines the trust in which the BBC is still held.

This is not to say that we always get things right. There were many complaints about our coverage of the Scottish referendum – although interestingly just as many came from the No side as the Yes. I have repeatedly and publicly expressed my regret for wording a news report badly to suggest that Salmond hadn’t answered a question when I meant to say that he’d tried to avoid answering it to focus on something he preferred to talk about. There are, undoubtedly, lessons I and others will learn as we should after any significant story.

The BBC’s job is hardest when the divisions in politics are as great as they are over the future of Scotland. Add to that the fact that the world is moving fast and the BBC has a duty not just to report Scottish news to viewers, listeners and readers in Scotland. It also has to report what’s happening there to viewers, listeners and readers in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Finally, it must give Scots full and fair coverage of news from the rest of the UK. Getting the balance right between all three of these is always going to be a challenge.

Some will argue for what’s become known as the “Scottish Six” – replacing the current Six O’Clock News with a bulletin of Scottish, UK and international news edited in Glasgow rather than in London. Others want to see the creation of a new Scotland editor to work alongside the BBC’s political, business and UK editors to lead coverage of news from Scotland for the UK audience. There will be other suggestions too which we may hear more about when Nicola Sturgeon, the current first minister, delivers the Alternative MacTaggart lecture at the Guardian Edinburgh International Television festival later this week.

When I spoke in Edinburgh recently I warned of the dangers of replacing impartial – if sometimes imperfect – broadcast news with the “echo chamber” of Twitter or a UK version of Fox News which allows people to read and hear only what they already agree with. These are important debates about the future of something very valuable – public service broadcasting. They matter much more than the former first minister and me locking antlers like ageing rutting stags about what happened a year ago. When you read or hear or watch them, perhaps on the BBC, remember this: politicians are just as entitled to complain and protest about our coverage as any other viewer and listener but when they dream of controlling what the BBC reports they should be resisted.

Election Notebook: The Inside Story of the Battle over Britain’s Future and my Personal Battle to Report It by Nick Robinson