Patrick Harvie (Green) Drew Smith (Lab) Andrew Morrison (Con) Katy Gordon (LDem)

1. Should Homeopathy and other forms of complementary and alternative medicine

receive funding from the Scottish NHS?

PH: I would not support a blanket rule against anything and everything labelled
“complementary and alternative”. I would prefer to see all products and therapies held to a
reasonable standard of evidence. I have little doubt that sugar pills would fail such a test,
but the phrase “complementary and alternative” covers a much wider range.

DS: No I generally wouldn’t support that, although, where evidence exists for benefit from
remedies which have not been developed by the pharmaceutical industry then I would
support further research and availability when/if proven to be of benefit.

AM: Any medical treatments which can be scientifically proven to have a beneficial
medical impact on patients should of course receive funding from the NHS. Having
protected the NHS budget in Westminster, and campaigning to protect the NHS budget
here in Scotland with increases at least in line with inflation each year, we will ensure there
are adequate funds available to pay for any viable form of medicine which can be shown to
work.

KG: I have nothing against the use of homeopathy or other types of alternative medicine.
However, I do not believe that they should be supported by public money without sound
scientific evidence of their efficacy. In light of the present lack of evidence supporting their
effectiveness (in comparison with traditional medicine) I don’t think they should be fully
funded by the NHS.

2. Scotland has declared itself GMO free – do you welcome this or do you worry it
could have an impact on our world class life sciences research?

PH: I welcome the GMO free stance, with particular reference to food production. I regard
GM crops as serving the private interests of corporations, rather than the public's common
interests in sustainable agriculture.

DS: I believe that this has majority support in Scotland at present and would not
necessarily argue for a change at this time. However, I would generally like to see policy in
this area proceed carefully on the basis of scientific evidence rather than fear.

AM: I support the Scottish Conservatives’ plans to ensure honesty in geographical

labelling for food, to help alleviate confusing and misleading labelling. The possibility of
purchasing genetically-modified foodstuffs totally flies in the face of the aims we are trying
to achieve here: good, honest and wholesome food, something which we can be doing
with a lot more of here in Scotland.

KG: I believe that GM technology has a role to play in making food production more
economically and environmentally sustainable in the future.
 Patrick Harvie (Green) Drew Smith (Lab) Andrew Morrison (Con)
The Liberal Democrats have called for all decisions on new technologies such as bio-tech
to be based on scientific evidence and not political dogma. Decisions on new technologies
such as GMs should only be based on scientific advice.
 Patrick Harvie (Green) Drew Smith (Lab) Andrew Morrison (Con) Katy Gordon (LDem)

3. What would you propose as a “Scottish Solution” for funding our universities?
Should we take similar steps regarding fees as England and Wales? Should we
introduce a graduate tax? How can we ensure that Scotland’s Universities continue
to be world class?

PH: Graduates already pay tax. Progressive income tax would mean that the more a
person earns (whether as a result of their education or any other factor) the more they pay
for the provision of public services and investment.
We remain fully committed to opposing tuition fees, which are turning HE south of the
border into a market commodity, as well as opposing a special graduate tax. Unlike the
other parties taking this position however, we are being clear about the need to raise
taxation, as fairly and progressively as possible, to pay for Scotland’s HE institutions.

DS: I personally do not and have never supported tuition fees. The Scottish Labour Party
has committed to no fees within the next term of the Scottish Parliament, I support this
position. In the future there may be further debate about whether graduates should make a
contribution to the cost of education such as was previously provide by the Graduate
Endowment. My personal preference would remain for any contribution to be paid for
through progressive taxation. On a related issue, I remain concerned about student
support and believe that arguments around fees and contributions should not obscure the
need for real help for students who do, or are likely to, need it if they are to have the benefit
of getting to, and completing, further or higher education. For these reasons, Scottish
Labour are also committing to reform of college bursaries, a review of how institutions are
funded in the future and further investment in apprenticeships for those who are looking for
training rather than further or higher education.

AM: We are the only mainstream political party telling it like it is at this election. There is
no such thing as a free lunch, and all we are expecting is if you are eating at the top table
as a graduate with a salary approximately twice the national minimum wage, that you pay
a contribution towards your education. I, in line with the majority (63%) of the Scottish
population, support this proposal. Not only will it mean we can retain funding for our world-
class universities, and the number of placements in those universities, but it will also mean
we can put an extra £55million into bursary support for undergraduates from poorer
backgrounds.

KG: We are determined to support our universities. We will propose reforms to Scottish
Higher Education by making the Scottish degree a more flexible spine and make it easier
to move between college and university (allowing many degrees to become three year
courses). We are proud to have abolished Labour’s tuition fees in Scotland and we are
resolute in keeping education free, with no tuition fees and no graduate contribution.
 Patrick Harvie (Green) Drew Smith (Lab) Andrew Morrison (Con)

4. Should schools be allowed to teach creationism as an equivalent theory to

evolution?

PH: No. Telling young people that creation myths or intelligent design are in any way
comparable to evolution would be the opposite of education.

DS: No.

AM: The education curriculum is already congested as it is, and I can think of one hundred
and one other things we could teach children instead. Religious Education is already part
of the school curriculum – as it should be in order to develop future generations who can
understand other cultures and creeds – and I feel that is comprehensive enough as it
stands.

KG: No, I believe that schools should not be permitted to teach creationism outside the
religious education curriculum and evolution should be taught as a science.

5. Do you agree that testing on animals (within strict criteria) is a necessary part of
the development of medicines?

PH: It would be impossible to end all animal testing at present, and in the foreseeable
future. In that sense, it is currently necessary. However we should never stop trying to find
ways to reduce the need for such testing. Most researchers share a concern for the
welfare of the animals they experiment upon, and I would hope that this concern extends
to a willingness to make every reasonable effort to reduce the number of animals involved.

DS: I would like to further minimise the use of animal testing and desire that this be closely
regulated with animal welfare in mind. However, I continue to accept that animal testing
should be possible where the benefits can lead to better protection or extension of human
life.

AM: So long as the testing remains within strict criteria, then yes I do agree with testing on
animals for medical advancement only. Where I strongly disagree with testing on animals,
however, is for the advancement of the cause of vanity such as cosmetics.

KG: Liberal Democrats believe it is important to balance concern for the animals involved
with concern for those humans who will suffer should vital life-saving studies not be carried
out. Under no circumstances should animals be used for the testing of household products
or cosmetics. However, we recognise that animal testing is necessary in some areas of
medicine.
 Patrick Harvie (Green) Drew Smith (Lab) Andrew Morrison (Con) Katy Gordon (LDem)

6. Should policy-makers trust scientific evidence even when it appears counter-

intuitive? What steps should policy makers take to evaluate claims and seek
evidence?

PH: Trust in scientific evidence, like trust in any source of knowledge or authority, is not
something which switches on and off like a lightbulb. It takes time to grow and to deepen.
The evidence on climate change for example was very strong for years, even decades,
before most politicians began to act. The degree to which any person will choose to trust
evidence on a particular policy will always be conditioned by their attachment to that policy
and by their views about the alternative policy options. It would be foolish to ignore this
aspect of human nature.
Pilots, trials and legislative sunset clauses are all mechanisms by which politicians can try
to gain evidence about the effectiveness of a policy. However it is also important to
remember that political decisions are not mechanistic or based solely on objective facts.
There are subjective judgements involved as well, and these are informed by a wide range
of factors including economics, political ideology, emotions, and the desire to communicate
social values.
Finally, it is often necessary to try new ideas out in the absence of evidence. Sometimes
the imperative for new action is urgent, and policy changes are needed before the
evidence can be gathered. “Evidence based policy making” is a compelling phrase, and
we should all aim to make good use of the evidence which is available. But we should not
allow attachment to such a phrase to become a barrier to making decisions where there is
a want of evidence.

DS: Politicians can only be expected to weigh competing evidence and arguments in the
balance of their own judgement, in a democracy we can expect no more. It is our role as
citizens to advocate our own views and to scrutinise the judgement of those who seek to
make decisions for us.

AM: Scientific evidence clearly has an important role to play in the setting of public policy,
however, it is elected representatives who are ultimately accountable for the impact policy
has on the nation and they must make the final decisions. Policy makers should seek
evidence from a cross section of society, experts within relevant fields and those who carry
out best practice in legislatures elsewhere, where applicable.

KG: Yes. However, the evidence must be appropriately presented and backed-up
sufficiently. Policy makers should draw from as wide a pool as possible.
 Patrick Harvie (Green) Drew Smith (Lab) Andrew Morrison (Con)

7. Do you think that abortion time limits should always be determined by the current
scientific and medical consensus?

PH: Scientific and medical consensus should inform the decisions made about abortion
time limits, but they are not the only factors which should inform those decisions. A
commitment to respecting women's reproductive rights is also important, and this is a
political stance rather than a scientific one. The freedom to choose whether and how to
control one's own fertility is a principle which I remain strongly committed to.

DS: Yes, subject to what I have said in the previous answer about science and judgement.
I support a women’s right to choose and I think judgements around time limits would be
best informed by regard for medical evidence, rather than, for example, the moral or
religious views of either ourselves or others in society.

AM: Scientific and medical evidence has a part to play in determining the time limits for
when it becomes inappropriate to have an abortion. However, I would caveat that by
saying if our elected representatives are given a ‘free vote’ on abortion legislation, because
it is a matter of conscience, then why shouldn’t every mother be given that free choice too?

KG: No. I believe in a woman’s right to choose what to do with her own body. Abortion is
never an easy option and it is not sensible to insist on rigid time constraints in what can be
a very difficult situation. Some serious medical conditions can only be identified at a later
stage (eg 19 / 20 weeks), which currently leaves a short time in which to make a decision
either way. The technical ability to ensure a baby is born doesn’t necessarily mean that
the quality of life for that child, particularly if it suffers from complications arising from
premature birth, can be assured. We should focus on effective education about
relationships, contraception and the confidence to say no as a better way of combating
unwanted pregnancies than curtailing abortion purely on the basis of scientific advances.

8. Do you support gay adoption? Do you believe certain adoption agencies should
be able to reject individuals based on sexuality?

PH: Yes to the first question, and no to the second. Adoption decisions should be made in
the best interests of the children involved, and putting prejudice against a whole category
of people ahead of that principle is wrong.

DS: Yes and no.

AM: I believe all adoption cases should be made based on the merits of the adopters, and
the personal circumstances of the child being placed and what will benefit them. I do not
believe that adoption agencies should rule out couples from adopting by virtue of their
sexuality alone - the decision should be made on what is in the child’s best interest on a
case by case basis.

KG: Yes, I full support gay adoption. The decision regarding which parents adopt a child
should be made on a case-by-case basis and always in the best interests of the child. As a
 Patrick Harvie (Green) Drew Smith (Lab) Andrew Morrison (Con) Katy Gordon (LDem)
Liberal Democrat, I do not believe that any agency should be able to exclude anyone from
that decision-making process on the basis of sexual orientation.

9. Would you retain European Human Rights legislation or seek to replace it if

elected?

PH: I am a strong supporter of human rights law, and while it should always be allowed to
evolve like other areas of law, I would absolutely oppose any attempts to abolish the
Human Rights Act or to weaken our commitment to the European Convention on Human
Rights.

DS: I broadly support the current framework of European human rights legislation. That
said, I would certainly be open to extending its provisions, particularly to ensure more
progressive rights at work, if such an opportunity arose. I would not support reneging on
our current commitments as a party to ECHR, nor would I support replacement if I believed
that the replacement being pursued was primarily an attempt to wreck rather than improve.

AM: The vast majority of people want to see their fellow man treated with respect, dignity
and equality. These are the key themes people think the Human Rights Act promotes, and
that is why they automatically will defend it to the hilt. For some time now though we have
seen many cases where natural justice and common sense are being circumvented in the
pursuit of the Human Rights Act, and thus robbing innocent, right-minded, decent people
of their dignity and respect. Take for example the recent ruling which Britain must give the
vote to prison inmates. Some hypothetical old aged pensioner who has been mugged may
be to afraid to go out and cast her vote, and doesn’t trust the postal vote system, thus is
deprived of her vote, yet the European Court of Human Rights would seek to give her
mugger the vote from his prison cell? That is not equal, dignified nor respectful. This is
just one example of why we need a British Bill of Rights which will overrule the Human
Rights Act.

KG: I would retain it. The Liberal Democrats have fought hard in Westminster to make sure
that withdrawal from the European Convention on human rights would not be considered
by the inquiry into Britain’s human rights laws.
 Patrick Harvie (Green) Drew Smith (Lab) Andrew Morrison (Con)

10. What are your views on nuclear power and green energy?

PH: The opportunity which Scotland has to develop a truly sustainable energy system is
far too important to miss. With demand reduction, decentralised generation (and
decentralised ownership), a mix of renewable technologies, a large increase in electrical
storage, and a sub-sea HVDC supergrid connecting Europe, we can more than meet our
own electrical and energy demand without relying on nuclear.
As in other areas, the objective must be to meet our needs from within our ecological
“income”, as for far too long we have been living off the Earth's “capital”. This will mean
bringing our demand down to the levels which can be met sustainably, rather than trying to
cater for eternally-growing demand.

DS: I support a mixed energy policy but with an emphasis on investment in renewable
energy, and green jobs.

AM: I believe Scotland requires a balanced energy supply to meet future demand, and by
virtue of the nature of renewable energy, such as fluctuations in wind strength and hours of
sunshine, we cannot depend exclusively on one form of energy generation. England is
likely to go ahead with a new generation of nuclear power stations, and in the extremely
rare event of a nuclear accident of some sort, the impact of that would not stop and turn
back at Hadrian’s Wall – we would be affected to. We share this planet with many others
who will continue using nuclear power, and on that basis we should share in the benefits of
it if we face the dangers regardless of our own decision.

KG: We will continue to oppose the construction of new nuclear power plants in Scotland.
For Scotland in particular, nuclear power does not even need to be considered as an
essential party of the energy mix. It has been estimated that Scotland’s renewable
electricity resources stand at more than 60 gigawatts, ten times Scotland's peak electricity
consumption. The Liberal Democrats have committed extensive funding in our manifesto
to developing the whole range of renewable energy options.
 Patrick Harvie (Green) Drew Smith (Lab) Andrew Morrison (Con) Katy Gordon (LDem)

11. What public services would you retain/scrap in Scotland if elected?

PH: The major cut that we would support would be in the road-building programme, and
aviation subsidies. This money would be better spend on repairing and maintaining the
road network we have, which has suffered badly from two harsh winters, and in improving
and subsidising public transport which is presently unattractive or unavailable to many
people. Support for the private sector has also been to open to abuse by multinationals;
these funds would be better spent on small business and in keeping our local economies
strong.
However these changes would be made for policy reasons, not in an attempt to hand on
the UK Government's cuts to Scotland. We do not accept the view that Scotland must
operate within a fixed budget; by empowering local councils to raise taxation either to
service debt which they take on for investing in infrastructure, or to fund public services
directly, we can close the gap between rich and poor as well as protecting the services
which people in Scotland depend upon and value.

DS: I don’t believe that to be a necessary question, public services are relied upon by
millions of Scots and the public sector is an important driver of the Scottish economy. I
have no doubt that savings can be found in areas of expenditure for example through
service redesign and high pay at the top but on the whole, I regard Scottish public services
to be efficient and vital and I would approach questions of spending priority from that
starting point.

AM: We will retain free bus passes for over 65 year olds and existing claimants, maintain
NHS spending at current levels, maintain the 1,000 extra police officers which are on the
streets of Scotland as a direct consequence of Scottish Conservative MSPs being a
political force in Holyrood, amongst everything else.
In terms of public services being scrapped, none of them. We will reduce waste and
bureaucracy so that our public services can work better within current budget levels. We
will scrap free prescriptions for those who can afford them - such as the First Minister of
Scotland - and reintroduce a charge at Labour’s levels in 2007. This is not a cut to public
services; indeed the funds would allow us to introduce our universal home visitor service
for all newborn to five year old children.

KG: We are fighting to protect local services. We believe in giving local service users,
communities, and frontline staff more control over services. We will shake out new ways of
doing things and find new ways to join together different services. We certainly don’t think
that forcing services such as the police, fire service and care out of local control is either
sensible, effective or indeed a cheaper alternative. We want to keep our services locally
accountable, while scrapping ineffective quangos such as Skills Development Scotland,
Scottish Futures Trust etc.