Sarah Smith’s parting shot as she embarks on a new BBC job as North America Editor has caused a storm. The BBC’s former Scotland Editor said she was relieved to be heading for a country where she would be “gloriously anonymous” after years of misogynistic “bile and hatred” which arose, she believes, because her late father John Smith was a notable critic of Scottish independence.

Dishing out bile and hatred online is totally wrong and counter-productive. So is deciding a woman’s views always echo those of her father.

Clearly, Sarah Smith did make mistakes with Scottish hospital statistics, Nicola Sturgeon’s “enjoyment” of Covid and Alex Salmond’s “call” for the First Minister to resign. But equally clearly, she apologised.

The reason that didn’t end online criticism was only partly because a tiny minority of independence supporters overstepped the mark. It was mostly because every subject a BBC Scotland Editor tackles is deeply contested.

Yet the BBC often appears to be in denial about that fact. Scotland has two evenly balanced views about the political significance of almost everything, which makes this a difficult place for anyone to put their head over the parapet.

Without a generally accepted narrative, the country is stuck betwixt and between, every policy is argued over and every media moment likewise.

Ms Smith’s exhaustion with Scotland is part of a bigger BBC exhaustion. It’s not that her new American beat will be less riven. It’s that Ms Smith has no skin in that American game – the tone of her essentially foreign reports will not bother Americans of any political persuasion or make the slightest difference to their lives. Her role as BBC Scotland Editor – a Scot reporting on Scotland to a home audience – was always very different.

So, whilst there is every point in complaining about vindictive social media attacks, there’s no point wishing away the underlying dilemma that accompanies the job. Political reporting in Scotland is not straight-forward, the days of a settled will are long gone (on the constitutional front anyway) and presenting a fair report is like walking a tightrope.

Indeed, this is why so many folk favour a second independence referendum – to clear the air. Even so, a substantial minority opinion will always exist here. And that’s why this personal story has important public policy ramifications.

How does Scotland’s public service broadcaster reflect the country’s diversity of opinion? Is it winner takes all? Or is it easier to avoid political stories if at all possible?

The BBC’s Scotland Editor is essentially stretched across the wheel of Scotland’s constitutional divide. It’s an uncomfortable position and James Cook should be congratulated for stepping forward. There is no quiet, controversy-free corner for broadcasters in a country undergoing social, political and constitutional change.

Newspapers can take sides. BBC Current affairs programmes can achieve balance by using union and independence supporting pundits.

But correspondents must deliver one single narrative. And network correspondents like Smith and Cook are employed to serve a largely English audience that finds Scotland’s constitutional deadlock fairly boring. Yet all the time, Scots are watching, listening and judging that output as well.

So, whilst personal unpleasantness is inexcusable, the well-paid BBC Scotland Editor knows they are dealing with a unique journalistic challenge. They must reflect the uncertainty and divided opinion that genuinely exists over Scotland’s constitutional future within a corporation that constantly refers to the four nations of the UK as the nation and prefers that single, simple and erroneous political narrative to the endless faff of achieving real balance in its broadcasting.

Sure, the BBC has ditched its disgraced policy of giving equal time to climate deniers in the name of balance. But it has never acknowledged its role in validating Brexit by making Nigel Farage Question Time’s most regular contributor and crafting Scottish audiences to reflect England’s pro-Brexit default.

No amount of reasoned criticism has brought any change to that reality-denying BBC approach to the construction of its flagship programme audience – another reason some folk are tempted to shout louder on social media.

This is the context within which the BBC’s Scotland Editor must operate. With one added difficulty. Since 2010, key positions within the BBC have been filled with Tory appointees in a way that would have been unthinkable in the 80s and 90s when I worked at the corporation.

Prominent presenters have been Tory Party members and organisers. Others have taken public political stances, generally opposing independence. Top jobs in Tory HQ and the BBC Newsroom seem to operate on a revolving door basis with no attempt at concealment. That erodes trust, especially in Scotland.

So, Scotland editors must work harder to convince sceptical Scottish viewers. Every perceived lapse in fairness by the BBC elsewhere in its output is heaped on the head of the “local” correspondent. It’s not fair, but it’s human nature.

So, correspondents must choose words carefully and make a visible effort to cover all bases of opinion.

That demands muscular and energetic journalism by journalists willing to embrace Scotland’s evenly-balanced political situation instead of trying to simplify life by ignoring one half of it.

Times are changing. School pupils are taught to deconstruct the media, advertising, and bias. That’s no wicked plot by nationalists – it’s a vital skill for generations who expect news to contain different outlooks not the single tablet of stone traditionally delivered by the BBC. Modern citizens want to exercise their own judgement. But they also want a public service broadcaster willing to enter the choppy seas of intense debate instead of waiting till the storm’s subsided. Is that BBC Scotland?

Our columns are a platform for writers to express their opinions. They do not necessarily represent the views of The Herald.