ONE OF the most indolent and predictable themes that emerged in the course of the first independence referendum was planted by the Better Together side and then pursued relentlessly by many with a Unionist agenda. It was based on the entirely subjective view that all supporters of Scottish nationalism who deployed social media were so-called cybernats and that, as such, they were unreasonable, obnoxious and, towards the end of the campaign, plainly vicious. This being so, the entire referendum campaign was characterised by their scrofulous conduct. It ‘divided Scotland’ and left a ‘nasty taste’ and thus provided one more reason not to repeat the exercise any time soon.

It was, of course, a fiction which paid little heed to the fact that no police action arose from any online Nationalist unpleasantness while several charges were made following accusations of threatening behaviour by a few individuals on the Unionist side. It's unlikely that it caused anyone to switch from one side to the other, though, and Nationalists who still resent the deployment of this little canard ought rather to regard it as having been part of the civic cut and thrust of the campaign which they have been celebrating ceaselessly in word, song and workshop ever since.

Now, as the braziers signalling a new battle for Scotland’s independence are being rekindled atop hilltops across the land, Nationalists must brace themselves to deal with a new trope that is beginning to find traction in the Unionist commentariat. This one holds that, as the SNP’s writ now directs every sinew of Scotland’s body politic virtually unchallenged, the country has become a one-party state. Worse, the Nationalists are trying to close down political debate and are intimidating news organisations to bend the knee at the sight of Nicola Sturgeon’s refulgent Manolo Blahniks.

To press home their point an element among the Unionist cheerleaders has fastened on to the curious case of one Stephen Daisley, the erstwhile head of STV’s digital news platform. Mr Daisley, who emerged during the first referendum campaign as a writer of considerable political depth and acumen, nevertheless was also prone to advancing and disseminating some opinions which several Nationalists considered to be unkempt and inappropriate. This, though, was also a largely subjective view and some of their responses to a few 140-character apercus of Mr Daisley were as contrived in faux outrage as that of some Unionists.

The issue came to a head when it emerged that Mr Daisley’s vivid and elegant political essays were no longer appearing on STV’s website and that his rebarbative tweets had also ceased. Within days a flotilla of Unionist commentators sailed to Mr Daisley’s defence and accused the SNP of forcing STV to gag their troublesome scribe. Bizarrely, they accused the National Union of Journalists of standing idly by and watching one of their members walk the plank. It was a sinister example, they all cried, of the SNP undermining freedom of speech. I had, as they say, a dog in this fight.

Mr Daisley had commissioned me to write a series of essays for STV digital and I got to know him and his team of online journalists very well. Mr Daisley possesses some right-wing views which I personally find a bit eye-watering but, well, if you see a fight get stuck right in and stop bleating. What an insipid and asinine wee land we would be if we were all singing from the same hymn-sheet. After all, aren’t we all supposed to be the offspring of the fecund reverend Jock Tamson?

On hearing that he may have been the subject of politically-motivated interference I did what any good trade unionist would have done and offered to come out in sympathy and stop contributing to the website. Perhaps unsurprisingly, Mr Daisley chose not to reply to any of my communications. I also asked the SNP outright if they had made an official complaint about Mr Daisley: they hadn’t. And neither had either of the two SNP MPs who were being specifically accused of having ‘done him in’: John Nicholson and Pete Wishart.

This was confirmed to me by each of them and by STV management. Admittedly, both Mr Nicholson and Mr Wishart had criticised some of Mr Daisley’s views at an informal function also attended by STV executives. My view on this is that they were probably foolish to do so as they ought to have known that in Scotland whenever a junior politician seeks to influence a major news-gathering operation they are usually invited forcibly to behave themselves and to get the next round in for a change.

Furthermore, a senior STV executive expressed to me his admiration and no little affection for Mr Daisley and said that he had been asked merely to concentrate on the job for which he was principally being paid, that of managing their digital politics and comment operation.

I learned, too, that STV’s NUJ chapel had also reached out to Mr Daisley but he had, for his own reasons, politely declined their assistance. It’s since been suggested that Mr Daisley is not, in fact, a member of the NUJ though I’ve been unable to have that confirmed.

Now it transpires that Mr Daisley has handed in his notice to STV and hopes to launch a new career as a political commentator. I wish him well and hope that he hasn’t been unduly wounded by this episode. I also harbour the distinct impression that Mr Daisley, a thoroughly likeable but relatively young fellow, was setting too much store by the opinions of a few other media types who were safely cocooned in their own secure and blossoming careers. The notion that he is a victim of a vile Nationalist sting operation is a bizarre one.

There are also lessons in this, though, for the SNP and the wider Yes movement. Last Saturday, the Scottish Independence Convention held a conference in preparation for the next independence referendum. One of the sessions, under the chairmanship of the esteemed former Sunday Herald editor, Richard Walker, discussed the independence movement’s relationship with the media. The very fact that this was being discussed at all set hares running in pro-Union circles and led to claims that this was a thin veneer covering a more toxic strategy of seeking ways to control the press.

Yet it was merely a workshop to address one of the teething issues for a future Yes campaign. How do you deal with the media when the overwhelming pattern of press ownership in Scotland is pro-Union? Scottish Nationalists have previously been clumsy in dealing with this, displaying an attitude that has been both jejune and unnecessarily antagonistic. There is no moral or ethical obligation for any privately-owned newspaper to adopt a neutral stance on the constitutional issue. Yet hundreds of journalists, both print and broadcast (and I know many of them) are either fiercely pro-independence or at least open to persuasion. Dismissing them all as paid lackeys of the Unionist establishment is not, I would suggest, the best way of winning hearts and minds.

By all means call us out when we get the facts wrong but refrain from personal vindictiveness when sincerely-held support for the status quo is espoused as belligerently as pro-Nationalist ones. And one more thing; get out more and enjoy yourselves.