Why we should vote "Yes, Yes" by Alistair Tough, Liberal Democrat candidate for Stirling in 1997 General Election.  Contact:  
A.Tough@Archives.gla.ac.uk 

We already have a Scottish tier of government within the UK.  It spends a huge amount of taxpayers' money.  What we need is accountability.  The great advantage of the Constitutional Convention's scheme for a Scottish Parliament is that it is designed to give all parts of Scotland a say in government.  With a fair voting system, the Highlands and the Borders, Tayside and the Islands, the North East and the South West will all have an influence.  In fact, the use of Proportional Representation will help to clean up the 'rotten burgh' condition of politics in Glasgow, Paisley and other places which have endured one-party rule for too long. 
Quango control will be one of the greatest advantages of devolution. Scottish Homes, the Local Enterprise Companies and a host of other agencies appointed from above can be made accountable via the new Parliament. 

A catalyst effect on England might well follow.  The people of Liverpool and Newcastle are already aware that they have fared badly under the present constitution.  The example of a successful Parliament in Edinburgh may encourage them to demand a form of devolved government too.  Similarly, we may expect Londoners  to take the opportunity to press the case for a new authority to manage public transport, emergency services and strategic planning.  For it is one of the ironies of over-centralised government in Britain that the capital suffers from inadequate governance too.  The experience of Germany and, more recently, Spain shows that this could be a beneficial process for everybody. 
There is, of course, nothing inevitable about the success of a devolved Scottish Parliament.  There are two vital pre-conditions for success.  The first is that we should vote Yes to both questions.  
Tax varying powers are essential for long-term success.  The Parliament must have the power to return efficiency savings to the people through tax cuts.  And the people must have the democratic right to vote for higher expenditure in the knowledge that higher taxes are the necessary consequence.  These are the essentials of accountability. 
Keeping the wreckers out of the new Parliament is the second pre-condition of success.  Nationalists and Tories who have always opposed the creation of the Parliament must not be given the chance to destroy it.  Ultimately, the responsibility for this rests with the Scottish people.  If those who have worked hard to ensure the creation of the new Parliament are given the job of making it work then it will work. 

Finally,  reform is not an exercise in narrow, selfish nationalism.  Scots will benefit from the new Scottish Parliament.  All the people of the United Kingdom should benefit from the other constitutional reforms which are likely to follow it - a Bill of Rights, a fair voting system, freedom of information legislation and so on. 

*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=* 
Alistair Tough (Greater Glasgow Health Board Archivist)  
/University of Glasgow/  
 

 
 Michael W. Russell  SNP - Scottish National Party 
 

1. Scotland now has its chance to rejoin the democratic world, and to move forward with a Parliament and, above all , with the right to make future decisions here in Scotland.   The eyes of the world are on us - we must not dissapoint them or us. 

2. There is only one choice on Thursday - YES YES (and YES again to the potential that a Parliament with tax raising powers gives Scotland to move on). 
Yes No is an expression of fear, fuelled by the Tory scare stories: why should we not have the same rights and responsibilities as any other people?   No Yes is daft - a gesture that means nothing and can achieve nothing.   And NO NO is tired, old and backward looking: we need to change and change now. 
 
 

Michael W Russell - Chief Executive , Scottish National Party. 
http://www.snp.org.uk/snpeople/staff/michael.html 
 
 

Ian Smith SNP - Scottish National Party 

My views on a Scottish Parliament and the referendum are reflected at the Scotland FORward website http://www.scotland-forward.org.uk/ 

No-No:  A double negative indicative of the type of politics of the people advocating it. This result (not even being forecast by Think Twice) would sentence Scotland to another generation of political discord and turmoil. 
No-Yes: Never really a possibility. But for the diehard unionist it is better to vote this  than No, No.  
Yes-No: The main battleground. The Tories aka Think Twice have been utilising negative campaigning to discredit tax raising powers. In the unlikely event of this being the final outcome it will only lead to discord between Westminster and Edinburgh. 
Yes-Yes: The most likely result. Scotland FORward have managed to do what no other organisation coud have done - get the three main political protagonists to agree a consensus and get behind a single campaign for a Scottish Parliament.  

Whilst on a personal basis I can see the odd niggle in the framework for the proposed parliament - I believe that the  commitment towards fairer representation will radically change the political establishment in Scotland and probably in England as well. A Yes-Yes vote will just be beginning of a new dawn in Scottish politics. 

Ian Smith  SNP -  
Scottish National Party Councillor, Bonnyrigg, Midlothian Council 
Webmaster, Scotland FORward homepage: http://www.ed.ac.uk/~ias/ 
 

1. General view about the Referendum and its consequences. 

As with most Lib Dems I feel the referendum is unnecessary I think we 
should just get on and establish a Parliament. 
I am very concerned about the projected date for electing one it seems two years will elapse which will give plenty of time for mischief to the 
Parliament's enemies. 
I run my own business which goes to show that not all business people are Tories and I am strongly in favour of Scotland having its own parliament. I see no great problem in it. The Tories are likely to do themselves no favours by opposing it and should be challenged as to their hypocrisy as no doubt if there is a yes vote they will have the brass neck to stand candidates for this new legislature. 

2. A very short description of the possible consequences of voting: 
a) NO - NO  
This is a dismal option and will do nothing for Scottish self confidence or 
culture. 
b) NO - YES  
As far as I can see this is meaningless as it is the status quo. 
c) YES - NO  
The creation of a talking shop 
d) YES - YES 
The best option - a three pence variation in tax will not raise much but it 
is better than nothing. It would be better to be able to set any rate. 
 

Member, West Aberdeenshire & Kincardine, Scottish Liberal Democrats. 
Best wishes 
Tom Potter 

I believe that a YES-YES vote would be the best result for Scotland, a devolved parliament would at least bring some decision making and accountability north of the border.  
True the parliament would require cash to set up and maintain, but that cost is relatively small in relation to the total Scottish Office budget and would be money well spent.  
What we cannot afford are the continuing costs incurred as the result of bad decision making, government dictats issued remotely by out of touch politicians who do not represent Scottish interests.  
One only need think of the massive swanderings that the last government made (e.g. Health Care International,The Poll Tax) to put these costs into 
perspective. In my own constituency, after massive Government initiated spending on the RD57 project at Rosyth Dockyard, the Trident refit contract was awarded to Devonport, this has now transpired to be the costliest option in anycase.  
The SNP's own stance is opposed to nuclear weapons but this obscene waste of public money should surely be condemned across the political spectrum. 
The Think Twice (or Think Tory) campaign's arguments against a parliament for Scotland always relies on one thing. That having gained a small degree of  responsibility, the Scottish electorate will suffer a collective attack of insanity and elect a majority of politicians hell bent on irresponsible behaviour. 
As usual, theirs is a negative campaign designed to undermine any degree of  
self-confidence that the electorate might have gained after resoundingly  
"relieving" Scotland of Tory MPs.  
This type of scaremongering has been shown to be bogus in the past:-  
   At the 1992 General Election the local Tory Parliamentary Candidate (Mr M Scott-Hayward) promised that a vote for the SNP would mean the closure of the Rosyth Naval base. The Tories were returned in 1992 and soon went on to close the naval base themselves, leaving us with a huge hole in the ground, a contaminated site and 7 dumped nuclear submarine hulks.  
I hope that the parliament is a success, and it will be if the Scottish people make it so. I believe that it can demonstrate that Scotland is capable of taking  
responsibility for it's own affairs and, when the electorate desire it, independence will follow. 
 

     Jim Jackson SNP - Scottish National Party Activist (SNP Dunfermline West Constituency)    http://www.cix.co.uk/~alba/dunf_snp/  
 
 
 

Catherine Organ Conservative Party   
 
 

The Referendum to be held in Scotland on 11 September ought to be carried out throughout the United Kingdom, as it changes the present Constitution of the British Isles. The resident population of Scotland, who are not all Scots, are being asked to vote on a principle which leaves many questions unanswered, undebated, let alone aired in public, and unlike 1979 there is no funding available to put the opposite view. This is how Government is run in a totalitarian state and is a negation of democracy. It will forever change the way in which the whole of the UK is governed, in order to redress a perceived notion that Scotland does not have its own voice. Yet today in the 22 strong Cabinet there are 7 Scottish MPs and Prime Minister Blair with Scottish connections. This is a proportionately over a third, and high in relation to the reminder of the UK. Is their voice not strong enough for those living north of the border? The nut of the perceived problem lies in the fact, that the previous Government only had 11 MPs from Scotland, 3 of whom were in Cabinet. The electorate still does not understand the ramifications of the YES - YES vote both in the UK and in Europe and how it will affect the decision making process in both these areas. 
This ill thought out proposed legislation has been rushed through on an election mandate which did not trip off the lips of the electorate in May - in fact it was never raised on the doorsteps, despite the manifesto pledge, unlike and Education the Health Service - and is being presented to Scotland without full and careful consideration of the consequences. 
Even the Government itself has admitted publicly, reservation within Cabinet. The Scottish electorate must "Think Twice". Politicians are not universally popular, in fact they are frequently regarded cynically. Do we require a further 129 in order to carry out the duties of the Secretary of State? Surely this is federalisation of the UK by the back door, which was rejected during the seventies by all parties except the SNP, whose qualified acceptance gives them the platform for Independence. Mr Dewar advocates "Scotland should take decisions about their own future", but Mr Blair during the election referred to the proposed legislature as an English "Parish Council". It is what Scotland wants at the cost of "under £10.00 per head of population" says Mr Dewar, which has doubled in a few weeks from £5. All those who vote will not pay. The population of Scotland is about 5 million, deduct the children, deduct the unemployed, deduct the low income pensioners plus those who pay no tax, deduct the students, deduct those on disability and the reminder will pay the balance. 
How many are aware that the Scottish Office has issued a document on the setting up of an Independent Commission on Local Government and the Scottish Parliament before the Vote on the referendum has taken place on the presumption that the YES - YES vote will be successful. This proposes that members can travel around the world to examine how other nations operate. Junkets! To be paid for out of your scottish tax pockets. 
The NO - NO vote will leave the UK united as a powerful force in Europe. 
The vote is essential to protect us from harmful legislation. 
The NO - YES vote will not bring extra Governmental funding, as the power to set the budget remains in Westminster. 
The YES - NO vote will produce the talking shop declined in the seventies. 
The YES - YES vote will change the UK irrevocably. 
The electorate is being carried along on a political tide of enthusiasm which has not been thought through, nor has the salient West Lothian question been addressed. 

                                            THINK TWICE 

Councillor Mrs Catherine Organ 
Ex - teacher. 
Ex - Company Director. 
Elected member for 26 consecutive years. 

 Joe Taylor SNP - Scottish National Party 

Scotland is an average-sized European country with approximately the same population as Denmark. Like all other countries of the European Union, Scotland has its own legal, educational and religious systems. But no parliament. Yet, in Edinburgh is located a Civil Service which (as Sir Edward Heath likes to remind europhobic "Brussels Bashers") is several times larger than that which runs the whole of the EU.  
This idiocy must stop.  
I hope too that a re-constituted Scottish parliament brings an end to the destructive parochialism which is endemic on this island. To survive in the modern era we must increasingly see ourselves in  both a world (especially European) context. 55% of Scots manufactured exports (accounting for 60,000 directly dependent jobs) are sent to the EU. A further 83,000 jobs in Scotland are in overseas-owned manufacturing which depends on access to the EU market. From EU tourism alone, it is estimated that over 20,000 jobs are directly dependent. 
We Scots can take great heart from the economic success of our fellow celts in Ireland. More remote than we are and with none of Scotland's powerful assets (North Sea Oil, Hydro Electricity, Scotch Whisky...) they have, in recent times, consistently outperformed us (as evinced by the OECD's figures on GDP per capita). Surely a Scotland which rules itself can do at least as well? 
Two words on Thursday 11th September 1997 will begin the recovery: 
YES,YES.  
The consequences of any other vote are too awful to contemplate. 

Good luck, 
Scotland. 

*************************** 

Joe Taylor  SNP-Scottish National Party -is the Vice-Convenor of the London Branch of the SNP and edits their newsletter "Exiles"  
He is a former active member of the Labour Party.  
He taught mathematics at the University of Sussex for 25 years where he was the President of the Association of University Teachers and a member of the the AUT National Executive Committee. 
 

Rod Ackland Liberal Democrats Party 

Why we need a parliament 
------------------------ 
In a nutshell, the members of a society should have control over the laws under which they live. This hasn't been the case in Scotland since the Act of Union, which joined the crowns and parliaments of England and Scotland, but left the legal systems separate. The Victorians moved administration of Scotland back to Edinburgh but left it answerable to a parliament in London. The proposed Scottish Parliament is intended to put the third leg back on the stool. For the first time in nearly three hundred years the legislature, judiciary and executive branches of Scottish Government will be in the same city and talking to each other and to the people of Scotland. That has to be a good thing. Only stool pigeons can be happy with the present arrangement. Put the third leg back  before it all falls over.  
Like most Liberal Democrats, I didn't want the referendum - and certainly not the second question. I think the General Election result was as clear a mandate as anyone is likely to get. But now we have it, I want another clear vote that the people of Scotland support this necessary and overdue change. 
A NO-NO vote would be a disaster. Fortunately, with the Tory expertise in running no-no campaigns, we are unlikely to see this outcome. 
A NO-YES result is, I think, meaningless. A parliament that doesn't exist cannot raise taxes.  
A YES-NO vote would cause major problems. Scotland is already run from Edinburgh, by the Scottish Office. Giving the powers of the Scottish Office to the Parliament but leaving the purse strings tied to London would be pointless.  
A YES-YES vote is what Scots voted for overwhelmingly in May and hopefully will do so again in September. Delivering a real parliament with real powers - but answerable to the people through a fair voting system in a way that the Westminster Parliament is not. 

Rod Ackland  
Member of Executive of Scottish Liberal Democrats since 1990. Candidate in last four general elections. In May this year stood in Greenock & Inverclyde. In real life, computer support for Glasgow University.  
  

 Dr Jenny Dawe  Liberal Democrats Party 
1.  General view about Referendum. 
        The referendum is unnecessary and the second question on 
tax-varying powers is particularly superfluous and leaves the way open for a potentially unviable Scottish Parliament with no fiscal teeth. 
        That said, now that we are faced with a referendum, it is essential 
that apathy does not win the day.  I want to see a resounding YES YES vote, ideally with a turnout of well over 60%, which at the moment seems unlikely. 
        Despite efforts by Scotland FORward and local party activists from 
Labour, SNP and Liberal Democrats attempting to cooperate in some areas, the feeling I have is that the YES YES campaign is very sluggish. 
        The Scottish media has been attempting to stir up interest.  
However,  'The Scotsman' sometimes seems rather ambivalent in its attitude,  with editorials appearing to support a YES YES vote while undue column inches are given to such as Tam Dalyell. 

2.  Possible consequences of voting: 
        (a) NO-NO.   A disaster for Scottish democracy with no-one to blame but ourselves. 
        (b) NO-YES.  A cynical, frivolous way of achieving disaster for 
Scottish democracy. 
        (c) YES-NO.  A useless vote in my opinion, which would not give the kind of Scottish Parliament I wish to see with some real means of bringing about improvements in Health, Education, Local Government etc. 
        (d) YES-YES.  My desired result which will give us powers we have 
wanted and needed for over a century.   I do not see this as a halfway 
house to full independence but a positive move in itself and a catalyst for a strong federal UK with powers handled at the most appropriate level. 

Dr. Jenny Dawe, 1997 General Election Candidate for Liberal Democrats in Edinburgh Pentlands, ex-Convener of Edinburgh South Liberal Democrats, Member of Scottish Policy Committee, Editor of the Scottish Liberal Democrats' official gazette - but this response is as an individual not in any official capacity.  

 David W.R. Lees Liberal Democrats Party  

(The Liberal Democrats have their own conferencing system CiX, where this and many other issues are fully and frankly debated by party members, MP's and others.  
Yours aye  
David)  
 

Normally this would have resulted in the manifesto commitment of the new 
government going forward but in the case of the Scottish Parliament the 
Labour Party in England were concerned that a tax raising Parliament was 
coming under fire from the Conservative Party during the election campaign, 
and to avoid Labour being seen to be a party that would increase taxes it 
decided that the way forward would be to have a referendum on the tax 
raising powers of any future Scottish Parliament as well as on the question 
of the Parliament itself. One problem which this raises is that no party 
stood for a Parliament without tax raising powers - in fact many people 
believe that this type of Parliament would be worse than useless and could 
only develop into a talking shop. Yet if the people vote Yes/No in September 
the Government will be landed with delivering what no party stood for in the 
General Election.  

If a referendum is to take place at all it should be with one question on the complete package of a tax-raising Parliament - YES or NO.  

The four ways people can vote and some of the consequences are - 
1) NO - NO  Nothing changes, confusion follows as the Scottish electorate 
will have asked for change in May and then said no change in September. 
2) NO - YES  No Parliament but tax raising powers for Scotland. Probably 
more confusing than NO NO  as people argue who decides what happens next, 
another unlikely result. 
3) YES - NO  A possible result as people think they would like a Parliament 
but don't want to pay any more tax. This would strengthen the SNP argument 
that the option for a completely independent Scotland should have been one 
of the questions on the ballot paper. Another reason for this result would 
be that many people want to see a Parliament established but have little 
trust in Scottish politicians - also if the Government asked in a referendum 
if people wanted to pay any tax the chances are that people would always say 
NO.  
4) YES - YES This is what the parties that have all the MPs in Scotland will 
argue for and is the only option that delivers a worthwhile Parliament. 

The danger faced in any referendum is one of apathy. A low turnout would 
affect the credibility of any result. 55% in favour of anything on a 60% 
turnout will not help the progress of the Parliament at all. On September 
11th the people of Scotland will have the chance to take control of many 
important aspects of their Government. Will they have the nerve to do it ? 
 

Councillor John Barrett  
Chairperson of City of Edinburgh Liberal Democrat Councillors, Convenor of Lothian Liberal Democrats, Convenor of the Scottish Liberal Club, Election  
Agent for Donald Gorrie MP. (Edinburgh West)  
 
 
 
 

The White Papers proposals puts at risk Westminster's power to raise ANY taxes from Scots. Ample scope for a direct confrontation over tax powers between the People's Parliament of Scotland and Westminster will be created by this Government's plans.  The Government cannot guarantee that the Scottish Parliament cannot rebel over taxes. 

It is proposed that the Scottish Parliament be empowered to determine the form of local government taxation, to set the framework within which local government operates, to legislate to make changes to the powers, boundaries and, crucially, to change functions of local authorities. 

Power is thus bestowed on the Scottish Parliament to make local government responsible for the administration and financing of any or even all areas of government provision in Scotland, retaining only legislative powers at the Parliament itself. The Parliament would be Scotland's legislative body, and a new form of local government would become its administrative arm. Local Government, restructured, would be responsible then for raising all the revenue needed to administer all government action and services in Scotland, raising the money through business rates and whatever other taxes the Scottish Parliament sets up in place of the council tax (which it can abolish).   The White Paper gives it that right. 

One can therefore envisage an unlimited "local" (Scottish) income tax, a host of other levies (road charges, pollution charges, capital value property charges) and taxes (local sales taxes, bed taxes, tourist levies) - all under the aegis of local government, all vulnerable to Westminster control. 

The White Paper does foresee this danger in part and spells out a need for caution in "council" spending. Thus it proposes the threat that Westminster would consider arrangements that would in effect reduce the Scottish Block Grant by whatever "excessive" amount is raised for local government revenue. 

But that is no remedy and, if the Scottish Executive is canny, will cause  
Westminster a bigger problem than it causes the Scottish Parliament.  The Scottish Executive could accept, even invite, Westminster to exercise its threat to cut the Scottish Block to "maintain a level playing field".  But then Westminster  could not justify raising any UK taxes from Scots.  

The "clawback" threat, written into the proposals, is therefore an empty power and in fact a dangerous and  destabilising invitation.  Effectively, by opting for excessive taxation via a reformed local government structure and by forgoing the Scottish Block willingly, the Scottish Executive can seize full taxation powers from Westminster.   All the Scottish Parliament need do is agree that Westminster has aright to raise enough UK taxes from Scotland for Defence and other reserved powers matters - but no more than that. 

Westminster would have to exercise its claimed sovereignty over the Scottish Parliament to prevent this - a political confrontation and a mockery of setting it up in the first place.   By giving the Scottish Parliament full control over the local authority remit which includes revenue raising responsibilities and the definition of its functions, New Labour is leaving the back door wide open to Scottish independence.  No wonder they have the support of the SNP.  

I defy any Government spokesman to say that New Labour will ensure that the Scottish Parliament will not be allowed to  exercise its powers to wholly alter local government functions and finances in this way - and to point to the clause in which they have told the Scottish electorate that Westminster would thus rule the roost whatever the wishes of the Scottish Parliament.  If they say I am wrong, they cannot mean what they've published.  They cannot have it both ways.  

Mike Scott-Hayward