Yet you admit yourself that all but one national newspaper was one side and the state broadcaster was too.

I definitely do not admit that the BBC was biased and deliberately left out any discussion on that topic because it's been done to death and has no conclusions.

Newspapers don't swing elections any more, but I've still yet to hear your solution to it. Are you saying that we should bind papers to the same impartiality rules as broadcasters (which you seem to think don't work anyway so what's the point), or are you saying the state should force an equal number of national newspapers to take each side of an argument on a referendum?

You don't seem to have any practical solutions beyond moaning that private entities took a different position to you, and it's either silly or dangerous to suggest that because of that we should end the British free press.

I don't remember pro-Independence people being denied airtime, I don't remember academics or artists being silenced when they took a pro-Independence position, I don't remember the Nationalist side of the argument never being presented.

A full 2-year slog of a campaign is more than pretty much any election has gotten in my memory, if you were paying even a smidgen of attention you knew both sides of the argument inside out, in fact if anything it got pretty boring towards the end things you'd heard 1000 times before were being repeated every time you consumed the news.

You're the one saying the big group with the big voice should be allowed to keep the wee group small and voiceless.

You argued that the national newspapers were being anti-Scot by taking a Unionist position, I pointed out that the referendum showed that a majority of Scots were in favour of the Union, if most Scots want to remain in the UK then they actually took a pro-Scot position since they were supporting what the Scottish people wanted.

I'm saying that's wrong.

What would you do differently?