'Not right that all papers have the same views,' he says

This article is more than 6 years old

This article is more than 6 years old

"It is almost impossible to think of civil society as we know it without the contribution made by papers like The Scotsman and The Herald over the last 200 years," writes Iain Macwhirter, the political commentator for the Glasgow-based Herald titles. He continues:

"Newspapers don't just sell news; in fact, that has been an increasingly small part of their function in the last century. Newspapers have been cultural curators, critically evaluating artistic and literary trends, providing a showcase for good writing, informing readers on important developments in science and society. They have provided a forum for informed debate, and promoted their own vigorous opinions on affairs of state, forcing politicians to take note."

Then comes the inevitable but, and one with a Scottish independence referendum sting...

"But the financial problems of the press are making it harder and harder for them to provide this essential cultural service. Scottish papers, according to the National Union of Journalists, have lost half their journalists in the last decade or so. UK papers with nominally Scottish editions now dominate the Scottish market. This is becoming a constitutional issue in the run-up to the independence referendum in September because the Scottish and UK newspapers are almost exclusively unionists – often militantly so. It is right that newspapers have strong editorial views, but it is not healthy when they all have the same editorial views."

Macwhirter's article, on the AllMediaScotland site, is the prelude to next week's presentation of his pamphlet "Democracy in the dark: the decline of the Scottish press and how to keep the lights on."

It is taking place on Wednesday (30 April) at the Saltire Society in Edinburgh. For more details and tickets, go to saltiresociety.org.uk or phone 0131-556 -1836.

Comment: That single phrase, about it being right for newspapers to have strong views "but not when they all have the same views", goes to the heart of a wider debate about the relationship between ownership and editorial content.

It also touches on the fact that a large proportion of the Scottish press is Scottish in name only. With the exception of DC Thomson's operation, the major newspapers are published by companies based in London (and, in The Herald's case, ultimately in the USA).

Now I happen to be agnostic on the Scottish independence debate or, arguably, conflicted. I understand why, even in the 21st century, there remains an insistent pressure for independence from nations that have been colonised or incorporated by other nations.

At the same time, I hope for a future in which there are no national barriers whatsoever. There is only one race, I always tell myself, the human race.

Reality impinges, however. I realise distinct societies that, for one reason or another, have failed to hold on to their nation state status (or never even had one) do need to regain it or achieve it.

They must assert their nationhood as a stage on the road to the eventual dismantling of all such geopolitical boundaries.

In view of my ambivalence, I'm glad I'm not confronted by a yes-no voting form. But I am, like Macwhirter, concerned that a fake "Scottish national press" has adopted a single view on the matter.

Then again, note also the fact that opinion polls suggest the independence campaigners are winning the argument despite the press being united in opposition. What does that say about newspapers' political influence?