‘WELL. That was a little jolly, wasn’t it?”

So said the presenter after the first televised debate I ever took part in, nervously, back in 2013. A discussion with a fellow artist and a businessman, that show surrounded the manufactured controversy in response to Bowie declaring support for the Union at the Brit Awards. Our discussion was, indeed, “jolly” – respectful, discursive, and led to a change of position with one of those involved. Not what is wanted for adversarial-style news shows.

It was with trepidation that I said yes to appearing on the first-ever Debate Night, for the reasons above. While I have taken part in many such untelevised “jolly” debates, so often I’ve found myself on the other side of such things, throwing crisps at my telly and cursing the constant interruptions, unclear what panellists’ true views are, as they are so ramped up on point-scoring against party political opposition.

I also had true anxiety about social media, having seen how many female pals of mine, writing on controversial (and utterly non-controversial) issues are treated online.

I was assured by both the producer and the researcher who contacted me that they were extremely focussed on ensuring that all panellists would be asked their views on all questions, that a respectful atmosphere would be ensured from the start and that the presenter, Stephen Jardine, was far from an adversarial presenter.

I was also assured about audience vetting, having seen the controversy from The National and others about invites to certain groups. I said yes.

READ MORE: Debate Night confusion over new BBC Scotland ‘touring’ show

The show itself doesn’t go out live, which I hadn’t known. Pre-recorded an hour or two before it goes out, I decided to view it instead as one of the several off-air debates I’ve taken part in. The audience were extremely welcoming, well warmed-up by the host beforehand, and well-briefed before we started recording on how we all wanted the debate to go. No heckling, wait for the mic, panellists – no interruptions.

Don’t get me wrong, we’re living in times that need strong language. We need strong leadership, strong views, decently aired, opposition to power fulsomely expressed. I’ve never understood why people often equate that with “he who shouts the loudest is the strongest” though. “She who rubbishes an opponent’s character the bes is Queen.”

Though well-meant, many pals, finding out I was on the panel, told me to “give ‘em hell”, “tell X I hate them please”, and other such things, which, while understandable, made me even more nervous. I’m not in the business of hating people. Ideas, approaches, ideologies, yes. But not people.

I admit, I worried a little for the first few minutes. An audience member seemingly mistook me for a LibDem MSP in a fairly fiery address.

Murdo Fraser had to be verbally shin-kicked a little – very politely – by Monica Lennon for interrupting her within her first few sentences. However, having set things up so well beforehand, it was clear that not only the panellists, but the audience weren’t going to accept pointless interruptions. And so it proved.

I disagree with all of the panellists on some issues, and found agreement with each (yes, even Fraser) on some parts of what they said.

Though only three questions had time to be discussed, that’s precisely how it should be if all are allowed to be aired – including various audience opinions, many of whom I actually wish we’d had more time to hear from as they lifted our discussion on the sectarianism question exceptionally.

READ MORE: Segregating pupils by religion is a barrier to friendship

At a time when political discourse online is increasingly slogan-driven, where micro-political call-outs and character assassinations abound. Where Westminster discourse is enough to bring on a panic attack and the levels of uncertainty are matched by shouted certainty that rings hollow, Debate Night truly has the potential to cut through the stramash. I hope that the respectful atmosphere continues and starts to be matched elsewhere.