James Mitchell evaluates the tone and content of the two campaigns.

Whatever the outcome of the referendum, supporters of independence have offered a more uplifting, positive and imaginative message than their opponents.  Yes campaigners offered a vision that went well beyond dry constitutionalism and did so with verve and energy unseen previously in Scottish politics.  As recently as a few weeks ago, many expected to win the argument but not the vote.

Supporters of independence always knew that they would receive scant support or even fair coverage in the conventional media.  It was known that Better Together would have little difficulty in raising money and that the immense resources of the UK Government would dwarf anything that could be mustered in Scotland.  The campaign strategists knew that a conventional campaign would put them at a major disadvantage.  It was known from the start than an alternative approach was necessary.  The key to understanding the strength of the Yes side is to be found in its grassroots campaigning.

Yes has been a grassroots campaigned that has largely by-passed the conventional media.  Indeed, much of the conventional media were caught sleeping, having become focused on the Holyrood bubble, and only belatedly noted that something was stirring across Scotland.

But there are other contrasts between the two campaigns.  Yes Scotland has been remarkably calm and consistent.  There have been bad moments – most notably following the first debate between Mr Salmond and Mr Darling - and frustration amongst some supporters of Yes that the polls refused to budge at times in the campaign.  Yes Scotland has had no relaunches and no panic responses to events or polls.  It had anticipated most of the challenges.  It has ploughed a steady course and it appears to have prepared well for various eventualities.

Its strategists knew that the markets would wobble as the City and financial institutions woke up to the prospect of independence as polling day approached.  It knew it should not over-react.  Markets and democracy are rarely a happy mix.  Before New Labour, the markets would wobble at the prospect of a Labour Government but calm down after the election was over once the financial sky failed to collapse.  The test of Yes Scotland was how it reacted to the wobble.  The real test will come after a Yes vote but then the challenge will face both Governments and each will seek to calm the markets.

Better Together has fought a fairly conventional campaign based on expertise drawn from party election campaigns while Yes Scotland has been a social movement.  Better Together mobilised the political elite of Westminster in the final stage while Yes Scotland set out to reach the parts that conventional campaigns fail to reach.  What may have appeared novel, smooth and professional in 1997 now looks slick and superficial.  The public appears to have grown tired of stylised politics, professional politicians and polished performances.  Some opponents of independence understand this well.

Yes Scotland’s concert in Edinburgh’s Usher Hall – its Night for Scotland  – in the final week exemplifies the spirit of the independence campaign.  But it will be grassroots mobilisation that will be the real test of this campaign that has pitted a social movement against conventional politics.