As part of a weekly state of the debate series, James Mitchell weighs in on what the next 6 weeks are likely to hold.
The boundary between the ‘long’ and ‘short’ election campaigns is marked by the official start when stricter broadcasting and spending regulations apply. From the voters’ perspective the short more intense campaign starts when party manifestos are launched, media coverage increases and the campaigns intensify but the distinction is blurred. That blurring is likely to be even more evident in the Scottish independence referendum. Campaigning has been more intense during the long campaign than would normally be the case in run-up to an election.
The ‘Summer of Sport’ has ensured that the referendum has not completely dominated the news. Neither side needed to be lectured on the dangers of politicising the Commonwealth Games. The danger of trying to insert politics into the Games was always likely to back fire. This has not stopped sections of the press from trying to do so. Indeed, some of the most raucous and adversarial aspects of the campaign so far has been evident in the press coverage.
But now the Games are over, we are seeing an intensification of the campaign kicked off with Scottish Television’s debate between First Minister Alex Salmond and Better Together Chair Alistair Darling on 5th August. The debate signalled the launch of the final ‘short’ campaign. Each side of course claimed victory in the debate. Knock-out blows are rare in such debates. Even a perceived ‘win’ by one leader in a debate does not necessarily translate into votes as Nick Clegg can testify. Despite the widespread perception that he was the ‘winner’ in the 2010 leadership debates, his party only increased its vote share by 1% from 2005 and ended up suffering a net loss of seats.
As noted in earlier blogs, a number of political entrepreneurs have operated as ‘purposeful opportunists’, insinuating themselves into Scotland’s ‘constitutional moment’. Scotland’s constitutional moment has been expansive in the scope of issues discussed, the vibrancy of debate and the renewal of Scottish democracy. Many of these entrepreneurs have avoided taking sides in the referendum, keeping well away from the heated core of the referendum debate but ensuring their interests have been well articulated and had positive responses from government.
Alongside these have been the predictable adversarial battles with organisations and individuals lining up on each side of the debate. Little is to be gained from this other than the hope of contributing to the referendum result and most bodies, including the vast majority of businesses in Scotland, refused to endorse either side in the belief that constitutional change is likely to have somewhat less effect than either side claims.
But a few bodies look likely to be damaged whatever the result on September 18th after taking sides. The most notable example of is the CBI. Not only was it surprisingly confused about Electoral Commission registration but managed to lose a number of members and brought attention to its limited membership in Scotland. It will struggle to convince many that it really speaks for business in the future even if there is a substantial vote against independence.
But as the referendum moves into this next phase it will become more difficult for political entrepreneurs to insinuate themselves into the debate. The focus will increasingly be on the heated core of the referendum, the question actually on the ballot paper. The short campaign will focus more on the leaders and see the First Minister play an ever more significant role while the Prime Minister will play an even lesser role than he has to date. We can anticipate each side announcing more endorsements. It is probable that the two umbrella groups, and especially Yes Scotland will fulfil a similar role to that of Scotland FORward in the 1997 referendum, less as lead campaign group and more as coordinator of activities.
The political parties are likely to assume a more significant, though not exclusive, role as we draw closer to polling day. The parties have the experience, expertise and necessary discipline to conduct an effective campaign. But much energy and resources exist at local level especially on the Yes side. Harnessing this energy will be the main challenge especially as the press are unlikely to offer anything approaching balanced coverage of the referendum.
Broadcasters are bound by strict regulations and each side will meticulously monitor outputs. In essence, broadcast media ought to offer balanced coverage, the press will be overwhelmingly biased in favour of the union and grass roots activity has so far given supporters of independence a marked advantage. However, it is likely that in the final short campaign, the levels of activity on the ground will increase on each side and the current advantage that Yes has may be reduced. The short campaign may offer an interesting test of the relative importance of grassroots campaigning versus press support.
Each side will have held back some key campaign messages until the final weeks but other news will intrude. Campaign plans are invariably disrupted as each side only has knowledge of their own knowns. They have little knowledge – though usually a broad sense – of what their opponents will be planning. Other events will intrude, unplanned and unexpected by either side. The death of Princess Diana during the 1997 devolution referendum suspended campaigning and there was much speculation on the possible impact of her death and suspension. In the event, it had little impact.
In large measure, the final stage of any campaign involves firming up and mobilising identified support. Conversions can occur but this debate has been going on for so long, it seems unlikely that we will witness mass conversions in this final short campaign. Mobilisation of support may prove important especially if we see a high turnout. That may prove the most significant unknown in the closing stage in this very long campaign.