#indyref Watch Report Emily Randall, Pete Foster & Erik Cummins [Unlock 4 jemocracyExecutive summary + Two surveys were carried out, one comprising data from 1,079 respondents following the referendum, the other consisting of weekly surveys throughout the pre-referendum period, with 121 respondents... Page 3 * 84% of respondents had encountered some kind of campaigning activity, with leaflets being the most common. There was greater awareness of campaigning activity from the Yes campaign than the No campaign... Page 4 + Opinions of friends and family were rated as most influential in how respondents voted in the referendum, followed by TV debates and social media. Respondents reported perceiving a media bias towards the No campaign... Page 6 + Respondents perceived currency, oil, and self-determination to be the most prominent issues raised in the campaigns, with local issues coming last...Page 8 + There were clear differences in how respondents perceived the focus of the campaigns. The No campaign was seen to focus more on economic issues, and personalities while the Yes campaign was seen to be focusing mostly on self- determination, education, civil liberties and electoral reform...Page 10 + Issues surrounding the economy and/or self-determination were most likely to persuade respondents to vote one way or the other...Page 12 + The Yes campaign was rated as more positive overall than the No campaign...Page 14 + While a quarter of respondents were convinced to vote yes by the Yes campaign, 15% were driven to vote no. 5% were convinced to vote no by the No campaign, while almost 48% were put off by it...Page 15 + Conclusions drawn from these data are discussed...Page 16#indyref Watch Report Unlock Democracy has conducted two survey projects to analyse campaign activities during the Scottish Referendum with the aim of getting an insight into how the campaign was conducted by the two sides and received by voters. The following is an analysis of the survey responses. The online surveys were carried out among Unlock Democracy supporters via social media platforms and through the organisation’s website. While the responses cannot be said to accurately reflect the referendum electorate (among respondents more than two thirds voted for independence), they do provide voter feedback on how the two sides approached campaigning and how those campaigns were received. Survey responses The largest of the surveys, the Snap survey, was carried out after the final referendum vote, with responses solicited from Unlock Democracy supporters as well as being promoted via social media. Scottish Referendum Watch (SRW), on the other hand, was a weekly survey among a smaller number of mostly regular responders that ran for the last 10 weeks of the campaign. Responses were primarily from Unlock Democracy supporters. The Snap survey, which provides the main data for this analysis, received a total of 1,079 responses. While every Scottish local authority area is represented, the responses for Edinburgh and Glasgow accounted for almost half of the total, a bias towards the two cities which, in the actual referendum vote, only accounted for 20% of the votes cast. It is also worth noting that a significant number of the respondents, around 40% of both those voting yes and those voting no, were actively involved in campaigning. The smaller SRW surveys received a total of 121 responses over the final 10 weeks of the campaign, with a number of respondents providing continual feedback over several weeks of the campaign. The responses were spread across just 10 of the 32 local authorities, with Aberdeen and Edinburgh representing more than half of the total.Campaign activities + 84% (905/1079) of respondents encountered some campaigning activity * Overall the respondents were aware of one third more instances of campaigning from the ‘Yes’ campaign than from the ‘No’ campaign. + The form of campaigning seen most often was leaflets through the door and posters/banners in houses. + The biggest differences in the impact of campaigning activity between the two sides was the ‘Yes’ campaign's use of ‘events’ such as town centre canvassing. A number of comments were received about the appearance of pop-up shops. + The ‘Yes’ campaign was also more prominent on social media and direct emails, significantly more than the competition, as well as door-to-door canvassing. + The ‘No’ campaign seems to have relied a lot more on phone canvassing and traditional media than the ‘Yes’ campaign. There was also more awareness of ‘No’ campaign TV advertisements. + Several respondents noticed the use of cinema advertising by both campaigns. anabettertogether'f.Which of the following campaigning activities did you encounter? Online Ads Direct Email Leaflets through your door Door-to-door canvassing Telephone canvassing Events Social Media Posters/banners ‘on homes. Posters/banners on commercial ad space Ha 2 10% 20% KHONG TOR THOM 10H Yes canpoin i No cempagnInfluence of campaigning When it comes to scoring various campaigning and related factors on their influence on voting intentions, it was friends and family rather than any campaign activity that came out as most important, scoring an average of 4.7 out of 9 for all respondents. This is a reminder that the referendum was a much more personal issue than most political campaigns. Not surprisingly, the TV debates were seen as the second most important factor, if only for their wide coverage and the media coverage they generated. But very close behind was direct contact via social media, followed by public meetings, both of which were areas where the Yes Scotland campaign was judged to be more active. On the other hand, phone canvassing, where Better Together was seen as more prominent, scored lowest of all — with an average score of just 1.6 out of 9 (almost 80% thought it was ‘irrelevant’ in it’s influence on voting). The comments showed a great scepticism about media coverage with many respondents believing that there was a media bias towards the ‘No’ campaign, which may have undermined the message. For example, one person commented “TV/radio/newspaper coverage was decisive as it made me vote the opposite of what | saw. There was no Yes campaign on television or news, but the clear bias is what actually put me off the No campaign and the media in general’. There were also several references to people doing their own research, either online or reading from a wide range of sources: of the 157 respondents who chose to include a comment in the ‘Other’ section of Q4, 42% indicated that they had sought further information with which to inform themselves. Many of the comments indicated that respondents had done this so that they could get as complete a picture of all the facts as possible, though some respondents went as far as to say that doing their own research was the only way to avoid gaining information via biased media. As one respondent put it: “I researched the facts for myself. The media are a shower of liars and manipulators so | went to source material.”How would you score the following influence on how you voted in the referendum? On a scale of 1, irrelevant, to 9, decisive TWads Online Ads Direct campaign emails Media Editorials Leaflets through the door TV debates Door-to-door canvassing Work colleagues Telephone canvassing Public Meetings Town centre canvassing Friends and Far Social Media Posters/banners ‘on homes Postersibanners on commercial ad spaceMain issues raised The currency issue — perhaps the main point of controversy in the two televised debates — was judged to be the most prominent topic of the campaign, followed by more general economic aspects. These were followed by the oil situation and the general issue of self- determination and moving away from Westminster rule. The areas receiving least campaign coverage were local issues — not surprising since this was, if nothing else, a national question. There was also little coverage of civil liberties and electoral reform. Various issues were raised in the ‘Other’ section of this question. 54% of the respondents who included a comment here stated that the NHS was a prominent issue that received a large amount of attention from both campaigns. This was followed by Trident and the nuclear deterrent, which many respondents considered separately from defence, while issues relating to social justice and equality were close behind.Please choose the five main issues i.e. those topic areas that were most prominent and received most focus from the two sides throughout the campaign Civil liberties Cost of living Currency Defence Economy and prospects Education Electoral reform EU Local issues Nuclear Power Oil/Resources Personalities Self determination Tax Welfare! pensions Other 0% 10% 20% 9% AO «SOT 7DK «DK GOK 100% gCampaign Focus Respondents were asked which campaign focused most on each of the various issues. There was a very clear difference across most topics. Better Together was seen as focusing primarily on economic-related topics — currency, cost of living, welfare/pensions and tax — as well as defence issues. The No campaign was also seen as based more on personalities than that of Yes Scotland. In contrast, Yes Scotland focused on a range of issues, led unsurprisingly by self- determination. Civil liberties, education, electoral reform, nuclear power and local issues were also seen as high on the campaign's agenda. From the responses it seems that Better Together managed to set the agenda for the referendum campaign as a whole; the areas that the campaign focused on were those that were seen by respondents as most prominent during the campaign. The much smaller SRW surveys reflected these findings on issues and campaign focus: + The economy, currency, self-determination and oil were cited as the main issues covered most often in TV ads. While economic issues were seen as prominent in the advertisements from both sides, the No campaign ads were seen as particularly focusing on the currency issue and the ‘Yes’ campaign ads on self- determination. + While the personalities of those involved was not seen as one of the major campaign issues, the SRW survey also suggested that it was a more noticeable aspect in the ‘No’ campaign advertisements than was the case for the ‘Yes’ campaign.Which of the two campaigns, Yes Scotland or Better Together, focused most on each of these issues Civil liberties Cost of living Currency Defence Economy and prospects Education Electoral Reform Local issues Nuclear power Oil/Resources Personalities Self determination zd 2 g m c Welfare/Pensions 0% 10% 20% «30% «= 40% S070 UN. 2 (Yes Scotland focussed most lj Better Together focussed mostRelevance of issues Respondents were asked how important the various campaign issues were to them in their decision on how to vote. The responses show a concern for a range of issues. The only one that scored significantly below the rest was that of the personalities involved. The economy/prospects and self-determination vs Westminster were the two topics most likely to persuade respondents to vote one way or another. But issues of civil liberties, education, electoral reform, EU, oil and welfare/pensions were all close behind. While the previous questions suggest that the No campaign RE: set much of the referendum => SOURCE agenda, with its focus on economic topics, a range of a ww FOOD AND DRINK other issues which were WE HAVE sey. OF Tit JUST 1% important to voters seems to CH BEEF U'S have been given much lees MORE aiostié POPULATION consideration. TOPUNIVERSITIES aa YET OVER 20% Pe OF EUROPE’S ER HEAD THAN There were many comments ANY OTHER #13 BILLION FISHERIES oe from respondents on a variety COUNTRY’ AYE, YEAR of issues they thought important. The NHS stood out in particular. Issues such as social justice, equality, women's rights and human rights also ranked highly with puRsu GENERATES respondents, as did Trident 26.2 BILLION A YEAR’ aad s and the issue of nuclear HORE weapons, Referring back to iat WIND ANG TIOAE Q5, several of these issues OUR - %. OvER POTENTIAL are the same as those that “PvE 10% OF EuRape’s respondents felt were GREATIVE Yi WAVE ENERGY focused on most by the two | .MMSTRES ERS Roun | soma i a campaigns. However, those ECONOMY EVSIL RESER Ti that ultimately voted ‘No’ gave higher scores to economic and finance issues in their responses to this question, so these were clearly a significant factor in voting ‘No’.How important were each of these issues to you in how you decided to vote? On a scale of 1 - 5, where 1 means of little or no interest and 5 means one of the most important topics. Civil liberties Cost of living Currency Defence Economy and prospects Education Electoral Reform EU Local issues Nuclear power Oil/Resources Personalities Self determination Tax Welfare/PensionsTone and impact Respondents were asked to score the tone of the two campaigns. The responses showed an overwhelming view that Yes Scotland conducted a much more positive campaign, scoring an average of 6.6 out of 9, compared with 2.4 for Better Together. How would you assess the overall tone of each of the two campaigns? Ona scale of 1, entirely negative, opposing the views of the opposition, to 9, fully positive, only putting forward their own outlook Yes Scotland Better Together Not surprisingly, those respondents that ultimately voted ‘Yes’ saw the ‘No’ campaign as much more negative, whilst those that voted ‘No’ saw little difference between the two campaigns The SRW respondents were asked more specifically about the tone of the TV advertisements and the feedback showed an even wider gap between the two sides. Of the people that saw Yes Scotland's ads, 90% thought them more positive than negative. Of those that saw advertisements from Better Together, three quarters thought they were more negative than positive.Campaign Impact Bearing in mind any negative campaigning, respondents were asked to score the effectiveness of the two campaigns. A score of five meant that the campaign convinced the respondent to support that cause whereas a score of one meant the campaign had the opposite effect of that intended — it made the respondent more likely to vote the other way. Campaign Effectiveness 60% 50% ax No Campaign 30% Yes campaign 20% = = | = = : 1 2 3 4 5 More likely to Convinced me vote against to support On that basis, respondents said that overall the Yes Scotland campaign convinced more than a quarter of them to vote ‘Yes’, although it also made almost 15% more likely to vote ‘No’. In contrast, Better Together’s campaign convinced just over 5% to vote with them but put over 48% off to the extent that they were more likely to vote ‘Yes’. However, it should be borne in mind that more than 30% of respondents said that neither campaign made any difference to their decision; many of the comments we received pointed out that respondents had made up their minds years ago and the campaigns did no more than reinforce those decisions one way or another.Observations and Conclusions With the referendum question framed as “Should Scotland become an independent country?”, did the fact that Better Together was trying to persuade people to vote ‘No’ mean they adopted a negative approach? Certainly there is a perception among survey respondents that the ‘No’ campaign was more negative, primarily anti-independence rather than pro Union. The surveys also reflected a view that, while personalities were not one of the major factors in the campaign, it was more often part of Better Together's strategy, although this may partly reflect the high proportion of ‘Yes’ voters in our survey. What does seem clear from the responses is that the ‘No’ campaign focused strongly on financial issues and this turned out to be the major focus of the campaign overall, despite the fact that Yes Scotland was covering a range of other topics significant to the electorate. The ‘No’ campaign strategy seems to have worked since those respondents that ultimately voted ‘No’ gave greater weight to economic and finance issues than those that voted ‘Yes’. There was a belief among many that the media was biased towards the ‘No’ campaign. But, perhaps as a reaction, there were also a significant number of respondents who commented that they had done their own research on the campaign issues using a variety of sources. Yes Scotland adopted a more online and dynamic approach, making better use of social media than its opponents as well as creating pop-up campaign stalls and generating other activities in town centres. Better Together relied on more traditional campaigning techniques — phone canvassing and TV ads. The use of social media is likely to have been a significant factor in the Yes campaign, particularly with respondents saying that friends and family had more influence than anything else on voting intentions. The use of social media is likely to have been even more important in this campaign than most political votes. From the survey responses, it seems that the ‘No’ campaign managed to set the referendum agenda and ultimately focused on the topics that decided the vote, even though there were a number of other issues that were also important to voters. However, based on the findings of our survey, the Better Together campaign is likely to have lost support along the way because of the tone of its campaigning. Our survey was biased towards Yes voters but when almost half of our respondents report that the ‘No’ campaign actually made them more likely to vote ‘Yes’, the message was clearly not delivered well.