Ruth Davidson, Gordon Brown, and media bias during the 2014 indyref

David Patrick, senior researcher in the International Studies Group at the University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa, has examined around 7000 articles written at the time for a new book.

He said the project grew out of an earlier study on indyref which found there was a “clear weighting” to the pro-Union side in those articles which were not neutral.

He said: “My original research was looking through was there any evidence of bias in the coverage towards either campaign.

“I’ve tried to look at trends or patterns which appeared in 2014 and should another referendum happen how likely would they be?”

Here we look at some of the key findings of his research, which will be published in Front-Page Scotland Newspapers And The Scottish Independence Referendum by Routledge at the end of this month.

The “anonymity” of Ruth Davidson

Ruth Davidson – who has now taken up a peerage – was leader of the Scottish Conservatives in 2014, but Patrick argues her influence on the No campaign has been inflated in the years following the vote.

He said: “Post September 2014, the centre-right press went to great lengths to build Ruth Davidson into a sort of champion for the Union.

“She harnessed that and for several years the Scottish Tories have more or less been a one-issue party in terms of basically just saying no to independence.

“A lot of comment pieces or analysis of Ruth Davidson’s career talk about her being a key voice in 2014 and a key person in terms of getting the Unionist message across.

“But she is almost anonymous, apart from the occasional response quote, or there might be a very short period of temporary coverage.

“This idea almost taken as common sense fact that Ruth Davidson was a key campaigner in the independence campaign and she helped get the result that ultimately turned out – to my mind there is no evidence for that whatsoever.”

Gordon Brown as political “titan”

One of the findings which Patrick said surprised him the most was the way in which former Prime Minister Gordon Brown was presented as a “political titan” in the final weeks running up to the referendum.

“It’s not just Labour-supporting papers who are doing this – it is ubiquitous across pro-Union titles,” he said.

“At every opportunity probably for five years or more, Gordon Brown was generally vilified or critiqued. He was not in any way given positive coverage by the centre-right press.

“But suddenly in 2014 the campaign needed a trusted Scottish political voice to get across the various messages, especially this idea that somehow Scotland would be granted a new swathe of political powers for Holyrood.”

He added: “Gordon Brown fitted that mould and the way that was achieved was the centre-right press who had demonised him, suddenly turned around and talked about his speech-making abilities, his obvious passion, his record, his political legacy – all in glowing positive terms.”

Why Scotland needs diverse media

At the time of the referendum, there was only one paper – the Sunday Herald – which backed a Yes vote. The Sunday National is its successor, while sister paper The National was launched in November 2014.

When it comes to the influence of the press on votes, Patrick said there is no doubt it has a “huge impact” – although it is impossible to quantify.

He said: “Diversity in any media in having more voices heard and having more opinions expressed leads to a healthier political system.

“Having an engaged and especially informed electorate is to my mind a necessity for a functioning democracy.

“Since 2014 there has been some big changes in Scotland – not only with the publication of The National and The Sunday National, but also what you would collectively term new media such as blogs and podcasts.”

But he added: “Obviously on a Scottish scale, pro-independence voices are evidently still in the minority in the media sphere, if you purely work it out on number of titles and their editorial position.”

A different media landscape for indyref2?

When it comes to any future independence referendum, Patrick said he expected issues such as the economy to still dominate the headlines, with an even greater focus on the NHS following the pandemic.

He said the “cast” would be very different with the main figures from 2014 – Salmond, Brown, David Cameron and Alistair Darling – no longer in frontline political positions.

“A very interesting aspect is that largely you could say in its makeup and its coverage, the 2014 debate was very male-centric,” he said.

“One thing which could change in a subsequent referendum is that both campaigns could be led by women and there could be more female voices covering it – and that is definitely a good thing for Scotland.”

Patrick’s research also found the London-based media did not give the referendum the coverage which might have been expected until the last weeks of the campaign.

He added: “I think [the Unionist media] would realise they were in for a fight this time compared to 2014 – and because of that you can only assume the amount of coverage and tone of coverage would be more intensely negative even compared to 2014.”