The document discusses a study analyzing social media discussions among Scottish voters regarding Scottish independence. It found that 72% of those expressing an opinion online supported independence, compared to most polls showing less than 50% support. Males were more likely than females to cite specific government policy reasons for their vote. The economy was the most discussed policy area, but views were divided. Other highly discussed topics included democracy, nuclear weapons, and attitudes toward England. The study aims to understand how Scots form opinions to inform campaign strategies rather than predict the referendum outcome.

1. The Scottish Independence
Referendum
The campaign on social media

2. 2
Contents
1. The Study 3
2. Methodology 5
3. Results 7
3.1 Voter intention 7
3.2 Government policy areas and reasons for voting ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ 8
3.3 Key policy areas within voter opinions 11
3.3.1 Economic confusion 11
3.3.2 The Bedroom Tax 12
3.3.3 Trident 14
3.4 Other key themes influencing voter intention 16
3.4.1 ‘Democracy’ 17
3.4.2 The Conservative Party and England 18
3.4.3 The Scottish National Party 20
4. Recommendations 23
5. Further steps 24

3. 3
1. The Study
The Obama presidential bid in 2008 broke the mould for political campaigning by employing
online sources for research, polling and messaging purposes. By failing to get to grips with
the technological advances, the Republican Party in the United States surrendered
successive elections to the Democrats whilst simultaneously underscoring the importance of
an online movement in any public poll.
Scots will vote in September 2014 on whether to dissolve the United Kingdom and gain full
independence and social media could prove the difference in this campaign. With the
franchise likely to be extended to include 16 and 17-year olds, a demographic dominated by
online users has become even more crucial in deciding the direction of the vote, adding to the
importance of analysing those areas of the web where Scots, every day, convey strong
opinions about the way in which they will vote and the issues that will inform these decisions.
These thoughts are unstructured and unsolicited, making them distinct from more
conventional political research results but no less valuable.
In his publication The Illusion of Freedom: Scotland Under Nationalism, Tom Gallagher claims
that “now [the conservative, industrial Scottish working-class] is fast disappearing, being
replaced by different social categories and a very large underclass, none of which are as
predictable in their political behaviour”
1
. This underscores arguably the most significant
requirement of social media for effective campaigning anywhere, but particularly in Scotland.
Scottish society has experienced many profound changes in the last few decades,
accelerated by global economic turmoil since 2008 and the everyday ramifications on
employment and prospects for the young. The political ‘predictability’, or lack of thereby, is
thus particularly relevant when considering the youth of Scotland, a generation that will be
pivotal in September 2014. In addition to the social change discussed by Gallagher, these
voters have never before visited a ballot box and so their electoral behaviour is inherently
tough to forecast. It is also the generation that most intently engages with online platforms,
both as a means of communication with peers but also to soak up information.
Moreover, the relevance of online platforms is widening rapidly. Discussing a ‘stereotypical’
social media demographic is no longer sufficient as the Internet usage of swathes of voters
increases. Brandwatch analysis of the recent Presidential battle in the US
2
proved that social
media is no longer the preserve of the young, educated, liberal, tech savvy voter. Nor is it
1
Gallagher, T., 2009. The Illusion of Freedom: Scotland Under Nationalism
2
http://www.brandwatch.com/2012/09/social-media-shows-founding-american-values-at-the-
heart-of-the-presidency-battle/

4. 4
dominated by political extremes, heavy campaigners or lobby groups. Whilst online research
by no means conveys the attitudes of a representative share of society, its relevance is being
continuously stretched.
Both Yes Scotland and Better Together will develop online campaigns in advance of the 2014
referendum and accurate analysis of how these platforms are used by Scots will ensure
effective communication. As noted, voters that are using online platforms can be reached but,
in addition, examination of the sentiments of voters, the key issues raised and the means by
which Scots form political decisions will also naturally apply to those not active on the web. In
recent traditional offline polls, around 20% of all Scots asked of their intent to vote remained
undecided
3
. This constituency, whether debating the issue on or offline, is likely to harbour
the same hopes and fears, on both sides of the debate. Far from attempting to predict the
eventual outcome, this analysis aims to comprehend how Scots have formed opinions up to
now on independence, as a means of highlighting effective electioneering methods.
Brandwatch Political Analysis will follow the campaign judiciously to understand how the
views conveyed on Scottish social media change, and why, over the next 17 months.
3
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/scottish-independence

5. 5
2. Methodology
Brandwatch crawls around 65 million data sources a day across the web, finding the
opinions of millions of social media users on a multitude of brands and wider issues.
Brandwatch Political Analysis uses the thoughts of everyday voters conveyed on these
sources to inform public policy and communication.
In order to ensure the data for this study was relevant, data was only taken from Scotland.
Twitter data (the vast majority) can be narrowed down by location based on a hierarchical
system that takes into account geo-coordinates, time zone, language and the location given
by the user. For non-Twitter sources, the IP address of the site was analysed to confirm that
the opinion was given in the United Kingdom and the content was then read by a human
analyst to ascertain whether the thought came from the Scottish electorate. The in-built
problem with this methodology is that Unionists living in Scotland may wish to define their
location on Twitter as ‘UK’, whereas nationalists might opt for ‘Scotland’. This almost certainly
covers a small proportion of the data found but could explain an element of the swing away
from the results of traditional polling.
A sample of these online authors was then manually analysed, with only one opinion per
person included to mitigate disproportionately vocal users. The sample taken is statistically
representative within a margin of error of 4.9 points.
Voter intention, and the topics associated with these decisions, was selected by a
human. Voter intention was limited to ‘Yes’ and ‘No’, with no Devo-Max option. Only opinions
given online were analysed. The majority of online data on Scottish independence carries no
sentiment, merely bland comments on the issue or factual content. The volume of voters
giving balanced views in the sample was very small due to the nature of Internet discourse:
users rarely give the opinion that they are ‘undecided’. Government policy areas were defined
based on the categorisation of Holyrood
4
and additional themes in the data (figures 6 and 7)
were identified by the analyst himself within the process. Similarly, male or female opinions
were defined as such by the information given by the social media user themselves and were
defined as ‘unknown’ where insufficient information was available.
The methodology also needed to combat aspects of online conversation that are common
across many topics, such as the perceived influence of protesters and political extremes
(although this can’t be ignored entirely, and is perhaps a different study). Findings, however,
were not weighted in order to stand for the population as a whole. Unlike traditional
polling, the purpose of this analysis is not to predict the result of the referendum but to
4
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics

6. 6
understand how the online users of Scotland form opinions and how that can improve
campaigns.
More than two-thirds (68%) of online opinions on independence in Scotland were posted on
Twitter, with 24% on found on Facebook and the remainder on forums and blogs. This is
very similar to the distribution in the majority of social media datasets.
‘Questions’ have been attributed to each category of data, as with traditional polling. These
questions were, of course, not asked of social media users, but by the data analyst of the
unstructured thoughts given online.
Quotes have been taken verbatim from social media platforms. Spelling errors have not been
corrected or denoted with (sic).

7. 7
3 Results
3.1 Voter intention
FIGURE 1.
IF A REFERENDUM WAS HELD TOMORROW, WOULD YOU VOTE FOR AN
INDEPENDENT SCOTLAND?
FIGURE 2.
GENDER OF THOSE GIVING OPINIONS ONLINE ON SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE
Of those giving explicit opinions on Scottish independence, 72% of all voters answered ‘Yes’
to the question, a marked difference from the results of offline polling. The possibilities for this
are vast in number. Yes Scotland, in some quarters, amounts to a combination of protest
movement, a political campaign and an amalgamation of political parties, potentially
multiplying such support. Similarly, dissent of the status quo may be much more noteworthy
on online platforms than traditionalism, similarly attracting a wider social media following,
resulting in content sharing. As discussed throughout this analysis, the socially left-wing
elements of “Yes’ supporters could be merging with the more traditionally reactionary aspects
of any nationalist movement, creating a perfect storm of conditions necessary for social
media popularity. A further possibility could be that the stereotypical social media
NO
YES
UNDECIDED
FEMALE
MALE
FEMALES
MALES
UNKNOWN

8. 8
demographic is more likely to vote ‘Yes’, whereas reticent voices (Shy Tories?) and those not
actively discussing the issue online could form the core of the ‘No’ base so often encountered
amid traditional, offline polling. Similarly, another polling phenomenon, the Bradley Effect,
may be in play, although this is much less likely where direct questions are asked by a
human.
Reticence may be particularly pertinent when analysing the much less visible opinions of
female social media users on the issue of Scottish independence, at least in comparison to
males (see figure 2: females provided only 23% of all opinions). Coupled with the findings of
figure 5, we can understand that especially females planning to vote ‘No’ in September 2014
are much less likely to cite a policy-related reason for doing so, more often retreating to
irrational positions, quite literally, on the ‘No’ side of the debate, without giving further
thoughts, on social media platforms, at least.
3.2 Government policy areas and reasons for voting ‘Yes’ or
‘No’
FIGURE 3.
WHICH GOVERNMENT POLICY AREAS ARE IMPORTANT TO YOU WHEN DECIDING
‘YES’ OR ‘NO’ (MALES)?
0% 5% 10% 15%
Environment
Farming and rural issues
Built environment
Law, order and public safety
Marine and fisheries
Transport
Education and training
Arts culture and sport
Public sector and government
People and society
Health and social care
Business, industry and energy
Foreign affairs
Economy and taxation
% of all voter opinions
YES
NO

9. 9
The largest shares of potential voters conveyed opinions on issues in the Economy and
taxation and People and society categories when deciding on ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ votes (see
figures 3 and 4). Of all Holyrood policy areas, the economy provoked by far the most
significant share of concerns over independence among both males and females, although
the category still accounted for more ‘Yes’ voters.
Discussion of People and society issues was far more lopsided in favour of dissolution, for
voters of both genders, with no women found to be in favour of the union based on these
policies. Debate over the fairness of Scottish society and the distribution of wealth and
services were regular conversation topics in this category, whilst dialogue on Trident was also
contained in People and society due to the social factors involved in storing the UK’s nuclear
deterrent. ‘Democracy’ and ‘Trident’ are covered in greater depth in the following section
(Trident also falls into Foreign affairs).
FIGURE 4.
WHICH GOVERNMENT POLICY AREAS ARE IMPORTANT TO YOU WHEN DECIDING
‘YES’ OR ‘NO’ (FEMALES)?
Two significant differences were evident when contrasting the views of males and females on
Holyrood issues: males were more likely to address Foreign affairs, Business, Industry
and energy and Health and society matters amid debate of why Scotland should not
dissolve the United Kingdom (although were still more likely to be positive on these issues on
aggregate) and females, particularly those offering ‘Yes’ opinions, were less prone to giving a
0% 5% 10% 15%
Environment
Farming and rural issues
Built environment
Law, order and public safety
Marine and fisheries
Transport
Education and training
Arts culture and sport
Public sector and government
People and society
Health and social care
Business, industry and energy
Foreign affairs
Economy and taxation
% of all voter opinions
YES
NO

10. 10
policy-related reason for their decision (see figure 5). People and society was considered to
be by far the most provocative policy area by women and was also, proportionately, much
more likely to be cited by women than men as motivation to vote ‘Yes’.
FIGURE 5. WOULD YOU CITE A GOVERNMENT POLICY-RELATED REASON TO VOTE
‘YES’ OR ‘NO’?
Figure 5 also reinforces a widely held view that voters than plan to vote ‘No’ are doing so
more due to emotive, irrational motivation than for more practical reasons. Males made up
more than 70% of all opinions and, of these, those planning to vote for dissolution were 17
percentage points more likely than females to discuss an issue under Holyrood or
Westminster control. Again, we might understand from these findings that ‘No’ is a vote for
the ‘fear of change’. Interestingly, females that were drawn to social media platforms to
participate in the debate were more likely to address government topics when intending to
vote against independence.
MALES
TOPIC
NO TOPIC
FEMALES
TOPIC
NO TOPIC
‘NO’
‘YES’
‘NO’
‘YES’

11. 11
3.3 Key policy areas within voter opinions
3.3.1 Economic confusion
Without robust finances, an independent Scotland will flounder; this much is agreed by almost
all that are engaged in the online debate. This Holyrood policy area commanded more
attention from the Scottish online population than any other but was, in turn, the most divisive.
The feeling still abounds that economic confusion will ensue in the event of dissolution.
“Also, I have yet to hear one solid argument for independence - they are all
speculative. If Scotland becomes independent, it is a fact that a huge volume of cash
will be needed to even get close to where the UK as a whole is at the moment -
HMRC, DVLA, Passport applications etc. - all of these will need to be dealt with. The
UK might not be perfect, but spending billions to get to the level the UK is at now, just
to change the name of a country is economic suicide.”
Parsnip, pistonheads.com
Economy and taxation discussion also ramped up significantly in April due to ongoing
decision-making over Edinburgh’s choice of currency in the event of dissolution. The links
between currency choice, the decisiveness of the related policymaking process and a broader
budgetary stability of an independent nation are interwoven in the minds of many online, often
undermining the overall plausibility of independence itself. Far beyond being the campaign’s
preeminent policy-oriented concern in terms of the sheer volume of opinions, its significance
is arguably far greater from a more qualitative position. An economy perceived as incapable
would shake the ‘Yes’ campaign’s very foundations and, in addition to this, without a credible
financial platform, Scotland will not stand as an entity aside from the remainder of the UK
(rUK) in the eyes of many swing voters. It is for this reason alone that the issue should be
undoubtedly, and unsurprisingly, the primary focus of any online campaign.
“Have always held view an indy Scotland must have indy currency. It's not true indy if
it doesn't... Indy.”
Peter Welsh, twitter.com
Certainty and clarity over currency amid economic messaging is paramount. The issue of
whether Sterling, Euro or any newly devised coins are in the pockets of Scots is often
deemed unimportant in relation to the firmness of this choice and its eventual implications for
‘true’ independence. Evidence exists among would-be ‘No’ voters that Holyrood is trying to
have its cake and eat it over sterling. Crucially, though, this is deeply evocative of concerns
held in England, potentially strengthening views that the Better Together muscle emanates
from south of the border, a constant thread in the much wider debate of independence

12. 12
(discussed in section 3.4.2). Wavering over a choice of currency, however, also occasionally
leads to a lack of voter confidence over the economy more broadly and threatens to discredit
the economic theory underpinning elements of Yes Scotland.
“There has been a lot of discussion in recent days about what independence might
mean for our currency. The choice of which currency to use is perhaps the single
most important economic decision a country can take. As part of the UK, the pound –
one of the oldest, strongest and most successful currencies...”
Jamie Leishman, facebook.com
“Surely if you were ever saying yes or indecision about Scottish independence then
the change of currency would make you see sense”
Tom Smith, twitter.com
‘No’ campaigners addressed the inconclusive nature of the ownership of natural resources,
among other financial capital, again charging Yes Scotland with indecision and a lack of
concrete detail. This is not always a pejorative element of voter opinions. Those giving their
opinion online will acknowledge, if sometimes tacitly, the institutional entanglement of UK
finances and the laborious process of separation, identifying with a lack of detail from the
independence movement.
“Additionally, and most importantly, the Scottish people have to remember that North
Sea Oil is not Scottish, but British, meaning owned by the United Kingdom, which
includes: England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. If independent, Scotland
would receive a share of present and future oil Lastly, Scotland, as part of the UK, will
have to take some of the deficit raked-up by the UK government. Scotland is
represented in the British parliament, therefore are accountable for a share of the
national debt. They cannot say it for the British government to deal with; there are 52
MP’s for Scotland. What will have to be decided is how much; will it calculated on the
percentage of people in Scotland, against the UK overall population? Or will it be
calculated from the number of Scottish MP’s in the House of Commons?”
Christopher Miles Jenkins, facebook.com
3.3.2 The Bedroom Tax
Counter opinions to the economic doubt identified in the previous section took two primary
forms. Online users regularly established positions of principle or theory, discounting the
importance of economic data in comparison to democracy, human rights and freedom of
speech. The argument that Scottish independence is a process, exclusively, of democratic
self-determination is not new, but holds increased relevance amid economic confusion. The
legal fine print can wait until full autonomy, in the minds of a vocal minority, whilst others

13. 13
simply consider that the economic situation could not fall further than is currently the case.
The importance of ‘democracy’ is analysed in section 3.4.1.
“I'm past caring about the financial state of Scotland if we go Independent. It can't be
any worse. The no's are going on about how much less money we have and the yes's
are saying how much more.”
Philip McAuliffe, facebook.com
Secondly, support in Westminster for changes to housing benefits (the ‘Bedroom Tax’) was
widely lambasted by Scots, falling into two Holyrood policy areas in figures 3 and 4,
Economy and taxation and People and society. Of political parties in Scotland, only SNP
MPs offered blanket opposition to the reforms, proving hugely popular with both the
independence campaign and fence sitters. The issue is also representative of three much
broader themes within the debate: the importance of class, political bias and England.
The Bedroom Tax policy, in practice as well as the views of Scottish social media users,
largely affects those considered to be working class and it is on this note that Yes Scotland
can be seen to harness support from the corresponding end of the social scale. When
analysed in relation to the ideological position of the political parties on either side of the
referendum campaign (and also in opposition to each other over the Bedroom Tax) it
crystalises the view that Scottish nationalists will seek to create a more equal society that
protects its poor. In short, a government that will serve all Scots, and is representative of
Scots, as opposed to those in support of the Bedroom Tax that are not only seen as having
abandoned those that may be cared for by Edinburgh but also that have colluded with a
primarily English parliamentary majority in ratifying the legislation. Which arrives at the third
broad theme. Put brusquely, the Bedroom Tax can be seen as an English invention imposed
upon Scots and that, by implication, those promoting the bill are potentially less Scottish.
“With the enactment this week of the savage 'Bedroom Tax' and other radical
changes to the social welfare system, the UK government has rendered 'better
together' an oxymoron and doomed any prospects of convincing Scots to remain
within the Union.”
Fiona Johnston, Facebook.com
“If anyone ever tells you that Scotland has influence at Westminster, respond with
two words, 'bedroom tax'”
Stewart McDonald, twitter.com
The visibility of England and the English in this debate among Scots on the issue of Scottish
independence is striking. It is analysed in greater depth later in this paper but discussion of

14. 14
the Bedroom Tax underlines that England runs through a range of conversational themes in
the debate and shows further how the actions of both campaigns have positioned a clash
among pro and anti-independence Scots as a fight between a Scottish Yes Scotland and an
English-dominated Better Together. It also reduces the validity of charges of economic
confusion within the independence lobby: the UK may be more fiscally decisive, but to the
detriment of many Scots.
3.3.3 Trident
The housing of Britain’s nuclear deterrent on the banks of the Clyde being vocally opposed by
many Scots, including pro-independence champions, is again far from new to this campaign.
Its relevance, however, has swelled due to both the adjunct elements of the debate, notably
the salience of ‘the English’ and political preference in Scotland, and also due to the issue
being placed firmly in the spotlight by the prime minister himself in April. The issue generated
a significant volume of both Foreign affairs and People and society concerns during the
month, across both males and female voters.
The significance of the geography of the British Trident programme has never been lost on
Scots. Indeed, its basis as a rallying call for political autonomy is also well entrenched, but its
guise as another apparent imposition by a majority Anglo-Saxon government in Westminster
makes it even more apt amid consideration of the debate, in some quarters, as Scotland
versus England.
“75% of Scots don't want Trident and 83.3% of Scots didn't vote Tory”
Radical Independence, twitter.com
Politically, a similarly anti-Scottish Westminster view could be ingrained. The visibility of
Trident, a nuclear programme widely opposed by the political left, within pro-independence
discussion indicates that, in addition to forming a broad ‘imposition’ rallying call across the
masses, nuclear weaponry more generally could be considered un-Scottish due to the
apparent left-of-centre slant north of the border. Trident, crucially, has historically also been
opposed, as with the vast majority of nuclear technology, by students, a demographic crucial
to forming the referendum outcome.
“We've had @CNDuk's website open, in order to see how much UK has spent on
#Trident since David Cameron started speaking.”
SNP Students, twitter.com
Considering the appearance of Trident within these criteria, the fuss visible on social media
platforms amid David Cameron’s visit to Scotland on April 4 was far from arresting. Not a
single voter within the sample considered Trident to be a reason to vote against

15. 15
independence, despite the prime ministerial rhetoric on the economic and employment
benefits from the nuclear deterrent should Scotland stay in the Union.
“And just to be clear, the jobs would be secure in an Independent Scotland
WITHOUT A TRIDENT! Stop your Tory scaremongering!”
Gillian Coyle, facebook.com
Nationalists latched on the prime minister’s appearance, exacerbating the level to which it
backfired from a Better Together perspective, at least online in Scotland. The apparent
foolishness of the prime minister’s speech topic was also not lost on Yes Scotland
champions.
“David Cameron coming to Scotland to tell us why we should be grateful for Trident.
That should go well.”
Mike Weir, twitter.com
The importance of Trident to Yes Scotland cannot be underestimated for the above reasons,
often forming an umbrella over the political differences underpinning aspects of the campaign
as well as perceptions of English governmental imposition. The prime minister raised Trident
high as a unionist creation to be celebrated, but the way with which this backfired on social
media platforms in Scotland necessitates its resurrection across Yes Scotland campaigning at
regular intervals in the run up to September 2014.

16. 16
3.4 Other key themes influencing voter intention
FIGURE 5.
WHICH OTHER ISSUES ARE IMPORTANT TO YOU WHEN DECIDING ‘YES’ OR ‘NO’
(MALES)?
0% 5% 10% 15%
Voting at 16
Donors and donations
Trident and nuclear issues
Democracy, freedom, destiny,
and human rights
England
The Scottish National Party
The Conservative Party
% of all voter opinions
YES
NO

17. 17
FIGURE 6.
WHICH OTHER ISSUES ARE IMPORTANT TO YOU WHEN DECIDING ‘YES’ OR ‘NO’
(FEMALES)?
3.4.1 ‘Democracy’
To a number of Scots, the fine print of autonomy is merely a sideshow. The process of
ensuring Scottish independence is purely one of self-determination, to be fought on grounds
of democracy, freedom and, more broadly, human rights. As previously discussed, this
sentiment permeates the views of many Scots to the point where detail can be dismissed as
Better Together doubt or scaremongering. Put more transparently, social media users can
recognise factual naysaying, particularly economic, as fear, whereas the realisation of
democracy will demolish this doubt.
“What is at stake is not identity, but democracy, embedded in the principle of popular
rather than parliamentary sovereignty. While Westminster offers only a territorial
compromise (combined with an unreformed electoral system and House of Lords,
crown prerogatives, and repeal of the Human Rights Act), the Scottish government is
offering a real constitution, produced inclusively, that will establish an independent
democracy fit for the 21st century.”
Alan McKinnon, facebook.com
The fundamentals of freedom of speech were also present within discussion of the removal of
Co-operative head, Mary Lockhart, in April. Far from being seen as a bold and decisive move
by the party to stand down its chair for promoting the socialist values of dissolution, Yes
0% 5% 10% 15%
Voting at 16
Donors and donations
Trident and nuclear issues
Democracy, freedom, destiny,
and human rights
England
The Scottish National Party
The Conservative Party
% of all voter opinions
YES
NO

18. 18
Scotland supporters employed the situation as an example of the limited democracy on offer
within the union. Lockhart’s piece also raised an important point on the left: does New Labour
represent the direction of socialism across the whole of the UK and, if not, which side of the
referendum debate is truly socialist?
“I remembered the trades union legislation which Margaret Thatcher introduced, and
which Labour failed to repeal, which keeps workers divided. I pondered a Labour
Party which had failed to highlight the bedroom tax at earlier stages of the Welfare
Reform Bill, a Labour government which had pledged to renew a redundant nuclear
deterrent. And I went to sleep wondering if the Labour Party socialism by which part
of my identity is defined was beyond redemption. On the 20 March, I awoke with a
sense of hope, and with new resolve. A resolve to vote Yes in the referendum for
Scottish independence.”
Steven Cookson, facebook.com
Democracy was considered to be around twice as noteworthy by women than men, with the
latter seemingly more focused on the economic and legislative feasibility of self-rule. As with
Trident, the issue was also partisan, heavily on the side of Yes Scotland, with the sole anti-
independence voice concerned with democratic values critical of the Scottish National Party
and its role in the campaign, rather than any standards attributed to the United Kingdom
(analysed in section 3.4.3).
Democracy is crucial to Yes Scotland for at least two reasons. The philosophical principals
themselves are crucial to advocates of the campaign itself but can also be employed to paper
over any perceived detail deficits.
“what is "guaranteed" is Scotland independent will be Fairer, Greener and more
Democratic than the UK”
“fairer and greener with lower corporation tax & more reliance on oil :)”
“(at least) that'll be a decision of an independent Scottish
Government”
Mark Gallagher & Keith Houston, twitter.com
3.4.2 The Conservative Party and England
More than any other issue, whether an area of Holyrood policymaking or another social
media-generated conversational theme within the independence debate, the Conservative
Party and, more broadly, the English were crucial elements of the discussion online in
Scotland. The two were inextricably linked by many Yes Scotland campaigners due to both
cultural stereotyping of the Tories and also because of the party existing as primarily an
electorally English entity. This is a crucial linkage: even Scottish Conservatives may not be

19. 19
welcomed as ‘true’ Scots by the ‘Yes’ campaign or many on the fence. Indeed, to many in
support of an independent Scotland, Better Together stands with the English and the
Conservatives.
“If the Better Together campaign truly believe that is the case then prove it get
Cameron and Clegg to show us the books. I while they are at it can the show us the
reports for the new Oil fields off Shetland. The one nobody knows about apart from
the English government.”
Tom Tonney, facebook.com
The prominence of England within the debate as a whole online is intriguing. Multiple factors
have repositioned this apparently Scottish debate as Scotland versus England. The presence
of a Conservative government at Westminster has exaggerated the political and electoral
differences between the people of Scotland and its UK government. One that has, in the
minds of many Scots online, been imposed by electoral results in the remainder of the United
Kingdom.
“points made to me by non nationalists have pretty much conviced to to vote yes on
independence. 1. there hasnt been one election in last one hundred years, where if
you removed the constituacy won in scotland, the overall result of the election would
have changed. so, it doesnt matter who you voted, the result would still have been
decided by voters down south. 2. If we were living in an independent Scotland now,
we would not be suffering at the hands of a tory parliment we did not vote for.”
Tony Stewart, facebook.com
In addition, Better Together has failed to reposition the battle to one unfolding among Scots,
preferring to employ prominent Westminster figures to argue the benefits of union and failing
to promote the virtues of Labour leader Johann Lamont within a framework of ‘Scottishness’.
Dissent over the origin of donations for Better Together also fell into this realm, with large
financial help coming from outside of Scotland. This was conspicuous in the eyes of Scottish
social media users in April and was again used to question the motives behind Better
Together and whether the group is truly representative of Scotland.
“The Unionist No campaign is accepting large donations from people outwith
Scotland who will not have a vote in the referendum. National Collective says:
"There cannot be a fair referendum if money is solicited from outwith Scotland or from
rich Tory donors who do not vote in Scotland.”
Brian Holton, facebook.com

20. 20
The inherent contradictions and inconsistencies of rival politicians working together have also
not been missed.
“Alistair Darling: In Westminster Osborne is wrong. In Scotland Osborne is right.”
The SSP, twitter.com
Events in April further widened this gap between what is considered to be Scottish and what
is not. Bedroom Tax legislation and the prime minister’s Trident appearance north of the
border both, as previously noted, highlighted differences between Scotland and England
whilst underlining the role of English politicians in creating laws in Scotland that happen to be
both opposed by huge numbers of Scots as well as being understood as inherently ‘un-
Scottish’.
“Although we elect a few MP's to Westminster, we in Scotland are never likely to
have a real say in social justice in the UK because we are in such a minority.
Only by voting yes in the referendum can we finally have a true voice in defeating
social injustice in Scotland. […] We need to vote "yes" to ensure we have a society
which looks after its poor, sick and elderly citizens and which does not allow its
people to starve or freeze.”
Kieran P Russell, facebook.com
The death of Margaret Thatcher formed another front on the battlefield, with many
recoginising recent events as evocative of the role of the Conservative Party in the 1980s and
90s.
“The day I've feared for so long has come to pass. Thatcher has died. We're going to
be subjected to so much hagiography about what a wonderful person and prime
minister she was, when she did so much damage to this country and started a
cultural change which is still harming us all today.”
Author unknown, soundonsound.com/forum
Underneath discussion of England, the English and the Conservative Party lays the claim of
an imposed government. Scanning the results of general elections in the United Kingdom
since the rise of the Labour Party as an electoral power shows that the Scottish vote would
have never transformed a would-be Conservative government to Labour, or vice versa. Only
twice has a hung parliament changed to a Labour majority, and once (2010) has an outright
Conservative victory in the rest of the UK resulted in a hung parliament (albeit with a
Conservative-dominated administration). This largely debunks the myth that an independent
Scotland would doom rUk to an eternity of Tory tyranny and also that, by implication, Scottish
Labour voters have in any way a moral obligation to remain in the union as a means of

21. 21
preventing this, helping to assuage the concerns among many swing voters on both sides of
the border. It also helps to understand the ‘imposed’ nature of Westminster government, an
issue far from lost on Scots.
“Voted Labour, Got Tory? Make sure it never happens again, vote Yes in 2014”
Colin, twitter.com
3.4.3 The Scottish National Party
That the SNP featured in a wide variety of discourse on independence in April should come
as no shock. The party has forced a vote on dissolution to the forefront of its manifestos for
decades and, to many, the SNP and independence are linked. Perhaps surprisingly though,
the party is considered less noteworthy around the debate than the Conservatives and often
disassociated by Yes activists. If the presence of the Tories in the debate helps to rally the
Yes troops, then it is not behind the SNP. The party was the only major theme amid
conversation on Scottish independence that was more often conveyed as a reason to vote
against autonomy, also providing the negative Public sector and government thoughts
displayed on figures 3 and 4.
“So Alex Salmond, Scotland's First Minister, goes to America to promote 'Scotland
Week', costing the taxpayer almost £360,000 in the process. Does he promote
SCOTLAND? No, he promotes INDEPENDENCE. This BUFFOON is telling MORE
LIES, saying how great and rich an independent Scotland would be.”
Alan McNamara, facebook.com
Many on the Yes side could view the SNP merely as vehicle toward achieving independence,
eager to dispense of Mr Salmond after the vote. Supporters are keen to convey that the SNP
alone is not Yes Scotland, whilst the independence lobbies within the other leading political
parties in Holyrood are vocal in support of autonomy, when present. Whilst a high-profile
‘Swastika’ section header published by The Scotsman evoked much wrath from
dissolutionists and even helped to persuade a number of swing voters to move in that
direction (“the disgusting Scotsman photo has pushed me over the edge. Been thinking about
it for a while. Joined SNP today”), the campaign may have touched a nerve. Many pro-
independence voices have no wish to associate with the SNP.
“A YES vote is NOT a vote for the SNP - folk need to understand this. I despise the
SNP but i'll be voting YES.”
Tom Barrow, twitter.com
“Just a reminder for those that still have doubts. We do not vote for SNP or Alex
Salmond in the referendum next year. We vote for an Independent Scotland and will

22. 22
be free to vote in Elections for the party that we desire. The first Government of an
Independent Scotland could be any of the political parties not just the SNP.”
Harry MacFadyen, facebook.com
Further to this, the post-referendum fortunes of the SNP were debated, noting that a range of
issues may render the party redundant in the event of either ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ votes.
Independence could place extra emphasis on other policies held by the party whilst also
flooding the country with Scots that may have sought careers in Westminster and drawing the
full attention of the current opposition parties. A ‘No’ vote could mean failure and subsequent
electoral unreliability.
“511 days to go till the political death of Alex Salmond at the ballot box, time's a
ticking”
George Laird, twitter.com
“A yes vote does Not Mean Alex Salmond Will be our Leader is a cods wollop. When
Scotland Votes yes we must have an Election to elect the first Government of
Independent Scotland. The only thing we can be sure of No more tory attacks on the
poor.”
Tom Tomney, facebook.com
Whilst these thoughts held by social media users relate to the fate of a political party, rather
than the campaign for independence, and Scottish politics after the vote itself, they remain
relevant. A strong, multi-facetted SNP, if it continues to be tied to the notion of independence,
will only benefit the campaign and help to imbue a sense of permanence and assuredness in
voters. The Scottish electorate knows it will return to ballot boxes soon after a positive
referendum vote, but carrying knowledge of what awaits may prove important. A campaign
that shows a united front with an understanding of the politicians that will be involved in
Holyrood post-referendum will prove much more attractive.
The natural linkage between the SNP and Yes Scotland provides the majority of the positive
thoughts around the party and independence, even when merely sharing nationalist output on
social media platforms. The bond is profitable for both entities but could seek to be more
inclusive in order to progress.
“RT @theSNP: Senior Labour MP says Darling must return £500,000 donation”
Tony Gurney, twitter.com

23. 23
4. Recommendations
The ‘confusion’ over the Scottish economy come independence, as discussed, threatens to
derail the entire campaign. Leaning on the importance of more theoretical principals is the key
to winning this debate until fiscal details can be established. Social media users on the ‘Yes’
side understand the value in the historically embedded notion of self-rule, often over and
above what is perceived to be economic small print. Simultaneously positioning the campaign
as one seeking democracy whilst admitting the immensely complicated budgetary nature of
United Kingdom institutions, and the eventual disentanglement of them, would will counter
claims of confusion over currency and cement the support of the ‘Yes’ campaign, whilst
attracting swing voters.
The role of the English in this debate cannot be ignored, either when discussing individual
examples such as the Bedroom Tax or Trident or the wider perceived political chasm
between how Scots and English vote. Both of the aforementioned policies have underlined
the way in which an English-majority, Conservative government has ‘imposed’ rule on Scots
who not only did not vote in this direction but who also embody an entirely different part of the
political spectrum. A campaign strategy that emphasises the similarities between English
politics and the Better Together campaign would impact on many undecided Scots. That,
however, does not imply that such a tactic should depict Better Together as non-Scottish, but
instead create an inclusive campaign away from issues dividing Scots.
Similarly, the role of the Scottish National Party in Yes Scotland could be downplayed.
Social media users see the party as the sole reason to vote ‘No’ among major issues in the
debate, whilst expressing a lack of confidence about what may follow independence, should it
happen. As noted, a campaign that disavows party politics and seeks to capture dissolutionist
elements of each of the major parties in Scotland, and independents, would rise above the
dislike of individual personalities or parties on the ‘Yes’ side and manage most eventualities
after the vote itself. Dividing Scots into two camps would, of course, be disastrous in any
outcome.

24. 24
5. Further steps
Detailed analysis of voter intention and opinions is just one way to fully utilise the wealth of
social media data for political purposes.
The Brandwatch guide to using social media data for political analysis lays out alternative,
and additional, routes in this genre. More specifically, analysis of Scottish independence
could take the following extra steps:
• More detailed polling – where do the political parties stand on this issue compared to
wider approval ratings? How popular are party leaders and other frontbenchers?
• Deeper public policy and issue research – how can the views of social media users
affect policymaking?
• Social media platform analysis – how can those involved in the independence debate
fine tune their own online pages and communication to improve public standing?
Examples of each of these methods are available in addition to this document by contacting
gareth@brandwatch.com.

25. 25
Contact
Gareth Ham, Head of Political Analysis, Brandwatch
Email: gareth@brandwatch.com
Web: http://www.brandwatch.com
Twitter: @brandwatch
Phone:
UK: +44 (0)1273 234 290
US: +1 212 229 2240
Germany: +49 (0)711 912 442 04
Fax:
UK: +44 (0)1273 234 291
Document Limitation
The information given in this document has been checked for accuracy and
completeness however Brandwatch shall not be liable for any errors or omissions.
Brandwatch is a trading name of Runtime Collective Limited. Registered in England &
Wales: 3898053
4th Floor, International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE, United Kingdom
© 2013 Brandwatch | www.brandwatch.com