Author Archives: Caron Lindsay

Today is going to be a bit of a Jim Wallace Day here. There have been so many wonderful tributes to him from people in and beyond the Liberal Democrats, a testament to how loved he was and how important he was a figure in Scottish life, not just politics.

But we start with his own words, a speech he gave in 2025 to Scottish Conference, three days before the election was called, marking 25 yesrs of the Scottish Parliament:

Grateful for the invitation to speak. Fascination with anniversaries which end in a 5 or a 0. I once heard the late Rev Gilliesbuig Macmillan, Minister of St Giles Cathedral, say how often he was invited to preach at a 50th, 100th, 125th anniversary of a church congregation, but added that if he’d been invited to speak at 129th anniversary he’d have accepted by return.

But 25 years is as good as any to reflect on the Scottish Parliament – what Donald Dewar described as ‘a new voice in the land’ – its successes or where it has fallen short of our expectations; and what contribution our party has made during these 25 years – and indeed before 1999 in helping to create and shape the Parliament.

When I was thinking about this, three particular memories came to mind.

Firstly, as an 11 year old in my final year of primary school, I was fascinated by the 1966 General Election and used to wait outside the school gates to get the autographs of the candidates arriving for their election meetings. Recognising this political interest, my father decided to take me to a meeting. It was the Liberal candidate, Roy Semple’s eve of poll meeting. As I recall my father saying, “It will be safe, there won’t be many people there.”

One vivid memory of that evening was the learning of the Liberal Party’s commitment to a strong Scottish Parliament within the United Kingdom. I thought it was a good idea then – and it still is today. 

Six years later, I joined the Scottish Liberal Party, having read Russell Johnston’s pamphlet ‘To be a Liberal’. And one of the real privileges of my life was to lead the party I joined, aged 17, into the Scottish Parliament, which distinguished predecessors had campaigned for, and which we, as a party through the Constitutional Convention, had done so much to shape. And not only into Parliament, but into government too. 

I have another memory of sitting on the Terrace of the House of Commons in about 1997 or 98, being lobbied by those who sought implementation of the Scottish Law Commission’s Report on facilitating the legal procedures relating to adults who lacked the capacity to enter into legal transactions. The prospect of the Westminster Parliament finding the time to legislate for such an exclusively Scottish reform seemed remote; but within weeks of the Scottish Parliament obtaining its powers on 1st July 1999, I had the privilege of bringing in the Bill to advance such a reform.

And my third memory was walking with my daughters from the place of the old Parliament, adjourned in 1707, to the site, albeit temporary, of the new Parliament for the official opening by our late Queen Elizabeth. We had campaigned for a family friendly Parliament and many of us were determined that our children should accompany us to the opening. The Presiding Office, David Steel, was under pressure from the GOC Scotland not to have children in the procession as it could upset the careful timing of the event. My wife wrote an impassioned letter to David making the case for the inclusion of children As David Steel admitted to me, when under pressure from GOC Scotland, om the one hand, and Rosie Wallace on the other, there was only one possible outcome and our children processed with us.

At long last we had the Parliament for which Liberals and Liberal Democrats had campaigned for over a century. And as the Scottish Liberal Democrat who had the privilege of leading the party into that Parliament and then into government, I recognise how much we owe to people like Jo Grimond, Russell Johnston, David Steel, Johnny Bannerman and countless other stalwarts who kept the fire of Home Rule burning through some very difficult and unrewarding times.

But as time marches on, I often feel that we need to remind people why we campaigned for a Scottish Parliament within the United Kingdom. 

Just over ten years ago, as Advocate General for Scotland, I was invited to address a class of first year law students at Aberdeen University. Before going in, the head of the Law School took me aside and said, “Just to be aware. Most of your audience can’t remember a Scotland without a Scottish Parliament.” And that was ten years ago. We have a new generation of young Scots who take the Parliament’s existence for granted. 

We have a generation who may well be politically aware, but who have no memory of the time when if Westminster, if we were lucky, might deal with two exclusively Scottish Bills in a year. We were proud of our distinctive legal system, but conscious in these days that it was a distinctive legal system without a distinctive legislature. 

Let’s recall that the first Act of the Parliament plugged a legal loophole which had led to a man who’d pled guilty to killing a neighbour being released from the State Hospital. Most commentators agreed that Westminster couldn’t and wouldn’t have acted so expeditiously. 

And in the years which followed Liberal Democrats in government contributed to an overhaul of mental health legislation. We implemented Scottish Law Commission reports on the abolition of the feudal system, which England had done in 1290; and modernised the law relating to tenanted property. We gave communities the right to buy land and gave individuals the right to responsible access over land; we established National Parks; introduced free bus travel for older people, free eye and dental checks abolished tuition fees, and introduced free personal care for the elderly and proper proportional representation for local government elections.

Perhaps most significantly, particularly in public health terms, was the ban on smoking in public places. We blazed the trail and the rest of Britain followed.

Nor was the 1998 Act a static settlement. It is a home rule settlement which has shown itself to be flexible in meeting Scotland’s needs and opportunities from the early devolution of powers which allow Scottish Ministers to develop our renewable energy resources; through the subsequent transfer of powers which paved the way for renewing Scotland’s rail infrastructure and enacting a more liberal freedom of information regime. And the powers of the Parliament were further increased by the Scotland Acts of 2012 and 2016.