IT’S common knowledge that, in 2014, our pro-independence movement’s cause was stymied by the relentless tsunami of Unionist propaganda in print, TV and radio, with the BBC in particular coming under attack from its critics for alleged bias in its reporting.

Who can forget the BBC’s Nick Robinson asking former First Minister Alex Salmond: “Why should a Scottish voter believe you, a politician, against men who are responsible for billions of pounds of profits?” Having earlier watched the live broadcast of Salmond’s concise and comprehensive answer, one could only gasp in disbelief as Robinson presented an edited interview that same evening, without transmitting Salmond’s response, confidently stating that Salmond “didn’t answer”.

Or how about the time when BBC national news edited out the previously recorded Question Time live audience laughing at PM Boris Johnson when an audience member questioned him on the subject of trust? One has to wonder why the BBC felt the need to spare Johnson further embarrassment for what was the most memorable takeaway moment of the entire night.

And, yet again, the BBC was forced to apologise after using old footage of Johnson laying a wreath on Remembrance Sunday rather than the actual recorded footage of him presenting an upside-down wreath. There seems to be a regular pattern occurring, given the number of times that the BBC actively shields this PM from scrutiny. In The Andrew Neil Interviews series screened on the BBC before the 2019 General Election, Neil was equally savage to Jeremy Corbyn and Nicola Sturgeon, yet Johnson bluntly refused to subject himself to the same withering interrogation. He defended his non-appearance by stating that “we cannot accommodate everybody”, despite having agreed to do so previously. He was the only leader of a major party not to appear on these leaders’ interview programmes. The BBC, having been mildly embarrassed by Johnson’s no-show, subsequently turned down his offer to submit himself to be lightly grilled by Andrew Marr.

Why does this PM seem to be given little to no scrutiny from the BBC? Isn’t that what they’re there for, to hold power to account? Well, apparently not, as Emily Maitlis’s reward for factually laying into Johnson during a recent Newsnight airing was to be temporarily suspended as the programme anchor. When does scrutiny of power suddenly present as bias? When the BBC says so! As much as the BBC shields those who cannot be criticised, it equally attacks those who pose a threat to power, as Maitlis found out. Yet, when Sarah Smith’s assertion that Nicola Sturgeon had “enjoyed” the opportunity to set her own lockdown rules led to more than 4500 complaints to the BBC? Tumbleweed! Her piece to camera had been broadcast on both afternoon and evening news slots before she belatedly took to social media, the following day, to apologise for her “mistake” – there was no question of suspension or mention of bias from BBC HQ. As the French philosopher Voltaire once said: “If you want to know who controls you, look at who you are not allowed to criticise.”

This should come as no surprise to anyone. The BBC is the UK state broadcaster, with a specific remit to promote cohesion across the nations of the UK. When they cut off Sturgeon mid-sentence, or cut away from PMQs when Ian Blackford stands to question the PM, they are, after all, just doing what is expected of them. Therefore any expectation of balance is fatally flawed when the looming prospect of Scottish independence creates a clear danger to the ongoing unity of the UK.

The BBC is funded by annual subscription which amounts to around £320 million from Scottish licence holders alone. Assuming that at least 50% of that income, £160m, comes from independence-supporting households, that amounts to more than one million indy-minded licence payers underwriting BBC news reporting, which broadcasts the state message directly into their living rooms. By contrast, among the alternative pro-indy grassroots media, Wings Over Scotland generates the most significant number of donations, being crowdfunded to over £100,000 per year – that’s the equivalent contribution of just 680 BBC licence fees out of one million indy-minded licence payers. Pro-independence Scots are therefore financially supporting Unionist media outlets more than media outlets aligned to their own political persuasion by a phenomenal amount – and this for the BBC alone, as Sky and Virgin TV subscriptions have not been factored in. Do you see the problem?

I’m not suggesting that your BBC licence should be cancelled, as they still produce many excellent programmes. Nor am I recommending that anyone breaks the law by watching TV without a licence. The unpalatable fact is simply that the sustainability of serious alternative news outlets can only be made possible if similar levels of funding are directed to pro-independence outlets, and that isn’t yet happening.

Scotland must create, cultivate, support and sustain its own homegrown media ecosystem. Isn’t now the time to recognise that we have the power to create the media that we want to see and hear? We only have to make the decision to “be the change”.

Ken McDonald works for the Scottish Independence Foundation