The immediate aftermath of the poll saw the formation of the Campaign for a Scottish Assembly, comprising pro-Home Rule politicians, academics and other activists.
At the same time, the Scottish National Party continued its fight for all-out independence.
After the Conservatives' victory in the 1987 General Election, the idea of cross-party support for a devolved Scottish Assembly began to seem attractive.
Scotland had rejected Thatcherism and the number of Tory MPs was cut to a then all-time low of 10. Labour had looked on impotently as the hated poll tax was pushed through in Scotland and the factories, shipyards and steel mills - symbols of Scotland's industrial might - closed down one by one.
SNP snub
In March 1989, the Scottish Constitutional Convention held its inaugural meeting. It was made up of 58 of Scotland's 72 MPs, seven of its eight MEPs, 59 of its 65 councils and representatives of various groups such as the Scottish Trades Union Congress and various churches.
The SNP refused to have any part in the body but the convention worked on with Labour and Liberal Democrat support. The Conservatives were opposed.
The convention travelled throughout the country and on 30 November, 1990, an agreement on the form a Scottish assembly should take was signed. This was followed by a hard-won commitment from Labour to PR for such a body, in time for the 1992 General Election.
With the Conservatives' General Election victory in 1992, people came to accept the inevitability of some form of constitutional reform which would prevent Tory domination of Scottish politics and the Scottish Office budget on the basis of electoral victory in England.
The closure of the Ravenscraig steel plant and Rosyth naval dockyard in favour of respective sites in more politically marginal areas of England and Wales were seen as further confirmation of how the Westminster government did not have Scotland's best interests at heart.
The convention continued to meet, having successfully united the middle ground. It patiently made plans and bided its time. In 1995 it produced a blueprint entitled Scotland's Parliament, Scotland's Right.
Tory opposition
The summer of 1996 was spent discussing the form of the ballot paper, with Labour moving between the idea of having one or two questions. The latter was adopted and, for the 1997 election campaign, devolution was once again high up on the agenda of all the political parties.
The Conservatives campaigned vigorously against devolution. They feared it would lead to eventual Scottish independence and the break-up of the United Kingdom.
The Tories argued that higher rates of taxation would result if Scotland was given its own Parliament - the "Tartan Tax".
Labour and the Lib Dems issued a statement in March 1997 stating they would support each other on the issue of devolution for Scotland and Wales.
The SNP took no part in the Scottish Constitutional Convention and campaigned for a third question, that of independence, to be included on any Referendum ballot paper. Since this was not realised, they moved slowly towards supporting the double "yes" vote.
Labour wasted no time on devolution after its General Election win in May 1997. A Referendums Bill for Scotland and Wales was published on 15 May followed by the White Paper on 24 July. The date for the Scottish Referendum was set for 11 September.
Two question gamble
There were considerable worries inside the pro-devolution campaign - and sporadically inside government - that Scots would reject tax-varying powers in the separate referendum question on that issue.
The referendum initiative had been announced in opposition partly to counter the Conservative attack on the taxation powers and partly to forestall difficulties for the planned legislation in Parliament.
But the biggest fear among supporters of change was that the tax question would go down. Scots were being asked to endorse the principle of devolution and, separately, to endorse the power of that putative Parliament to vary tax.
The scheme suggested by the government was the power to vary basic rate income tax by up to three pence in the pound.
It was felt this second question ran counter to contemporary political strategy of "never stress the cost, never confront voters directly with tax consequences". Offered a choice, it was claimed, no-one would opt for a decision which could directly affect their income.
In addition, the early stages of the "yes" campaign's efforts were dogged by questions over various allegations of "sleaze" afflicting the Labour Party in the west of Scotland.
The "no" campaign - under the banner Think Twice - made use of the supposed "sleaze" issue by questioning the calibre of potential candidates for a Scottish Parliament. But principally it targeted the tax question.
'Subdued' vote
Opponents of change did not seriously think they could win on the first question covering the principle of devolution.
Rather, their hope was that the entire devolution project could be fatally wounded if the Scots could be persuaded to vote against tax-varying and the Welsh - in their referendum vote a week later - could be persuaded to vote against an Assembly in Wales.
The actual vote and the count were strangely subdued affairs. It was as if the Scottish people had mostly made up their minds - and were going about their task with quiet precision, broadly disregarding the frenzied political campaigning from either side of the argument.
Nearly three-quarters of those who voted (74.3%) in Scotland were in favour of a Scottish Parliament. A lower figure (63.5%) wanted the parliament to have tax-raising powers.
Every Scottish council area voted "yes" to the principle of devolution. Almost every council area voted "yes" to tax powers. The only blips were Orkney and Dumfries & Galloway which voted marginally against tax.
Those with longer memories will recall that the northern isles - and indeed Dumfries & Galloway - voted heavily against the overall devolution project in the 1979 Referendum.
Basking in the after-glow
The day after the vote, 12 September, the prime minister arrived by helicopter next to Holyrood Palace at the foot of Edinburgh's Royal Mile.
Tony Blair stepped out to be greeted by the Scottish Secretary Donald Dewar. "A satisfactory result, I think", Mr Dewar ventured. "Yes, most satisfactory". It was a customary understatement from this most cautious of politicians. But the outcome had the tang of history nonetheless.
Much later - on Scots Night at the annual Labour conference - Mr Blair insisted with a quizzical grin on his face that the party had never had any doubts about the outcome. Not a shred of anxiety.
The truth of course, as the prime minister was ironically conceding, is that the referendum was a substantial political gamble; an initiative which a sizeable proportion of the Scottish Labour Party disliked.
In the months since the referendum, the parties vying for the lion's share of seats in the Parliament have locked horns on all manner of issues.
Only on 7 May 1999, when the dust kicked up by the complex voting system settles, will we know which party - or parties - will be leading Scotland into the 21st century.
|
Events Contents |
|
|
- | Crisis In The Gulf |
|
- | The Money Programme |
|
- | The Dome Zone |
|
- | Indonesia |
|
- | Local Elections 98 |
|
- | Newsnight |
|
- | Vote 99 |
|
- | Budget 98 |
|
Scotland 99 Contents |
|
|
- |
Home |
|
- |
Campaign News |
|
- |
News |
|
- |
The Scottish Parliament |
|
- |
Constituencies and Regions |
|
- |
Parties and Issues |
|
- |
Opinion Polls |
|
- |
Interactive |
|
- |
Your Views |
The Scottish Parliament
CV: Donald Dewar
CV: David McLetchie
CV: Alex Salmond
CV: Jim Wallace
Click-through guide: The regional top-up system (1)
Click-through guide: The regional top-up system (2)
Click-through guide: The regional top-up system (3)
Click-through guide: The regional top-up system (4)
Frequently Asked Questions
Scotland's Parliament - powers and structures
The Scottish electoral system
Why change the system?
Devolution's swings and roundabouts
Milestones in Scotland's history
Rolling back the years
Building for the future
Tough times - then success
Breaking up is hard to do