SIR Bruce Pattullo and the Bank of Scotland could be about to pay a heavy price for their controversial intervention into the referendum campaign.

There was growing evidence yesterday that some of the bank's customers were sufficiently upset by Sir Bruce's attack on the proposed tax-varying powers of a Scottish parliament to move their accounts elsewhere.

Accusing the embattled governor of abusing his position and his board of being disreputable for not stopping him, several of the bank's customers felt strongly enough to write to The Herald declaring their intention to sever all connection and advising others to do likewise.

Last night, a Bank of Scotland spokesman said: ''As expected, we have had some reaction from our customers to the comments made by Sir Bruce on the second question in the referendum. Some of these comments have been critical but some have also been supportive.''

Typical of the sentiments came from Professor Bernard Crick, who said: ''Pattullo must be as ruled by his prejudices as any of us, fair enough. But it is disreputable that his fellow directors of the bank did not stop him. He concludes: ''Personally, I don't like my money being spoken for either way, so today I have closed my account with the Bank of Scotland. Just a matter of principle.''

The view was endorsed in part by the Deputy Prime Minister, John Prescott, during a visit to central Scotland. Reacting to the bank row, he told Sir Bruce: ''Play around with your money - it does not seem that you know too much about politics.'' This blunt message provoked a demand from the Scottish Tories for an immediate apology.

Mr Prescott was visiting Glasgow and Falkirk to promote the Yes-Yes campaign. He said Sir Bruce appeared to have launched a Yes-No campaign, but added: ''He is just one voice. It is the people of Scotland who have got to make the decision.''

It was clear from the latest opinion polls that the decision would be an overwhelming Yes-Yes, he said.

Mr Prescott said the governor had made ''a political statement about Yes-No''. He added: ''It is a democratic country, he is entitled to make his statement. But the polls show that the Labour Party has produced what the people of Scotland want, the devolution proposed with the powers proposed.''

SNP leader Alex Salmond joined the attack, calling the intervention ''bizarre and foolish.'' Sir Bruce, who denounced the planned tax-varying powers of the proposed Scottish parliament as a danger to the Scottish economy, was accused by Mr Salmond, an economist, of getting his figures wrong.

''You would think that the governor of a bank, of all people, would be able to do his sums,'' Mr Salmond said.

By Sir Bruce's calculation - based on figures given to the Bank of Scotland by the Scottish Office - the Scottish parliament could mean 1.67m people in Scotland who pay basic rate income tax paying more. He claimed those on average earnings of #18,900 would have their tax bill increased by 9.8% or #6 per week.

But Mr Salmond, speaking after the launch of the SNP's campaign for a Yes-Yes vote, said: ''We already know that the yield from a 3p-in-the-

Continued on Page 7

Continued from Page 1

pound increase in the basic rate of income tax would be #450m. If 1.67m people in Scotland pay another #6 a week then they are paying #521m.

The SNP leader said Sir Bruce was trying to push the Yes-Yes campaign off the rails but had been proved devastatingly wrong.

Responding to Sir Bruce's claim that a devolved Scotland with a different rate of income tax would put off investors, Mr Salmond said that the Bank of Scotland had just invested in Australia by buying a provincial ba-nk in Perth, where Western Australia exercises its own range of tax-varying

powers.

''He was not deterred by the tax-varying po-wers of a province of Australia so why should investors be deterred in Scotland?''

Mr Salmond also attacked the role of the directors of the Bank of Scotland - some of them formerly high-profile Tory supporters - for giving their blessing to Sir Bruce's comments.

''Have the bank's staff no voice in this? What about the shareholders? Were they consulted? This is not the sort of party political question the directors of a clearing bank should be involving themselves in.''

The Liberal Democrats joined in the assault on Sir Bruce with leader Jim Wallace claiming the governor's words had been thrown back in his face by other business groups.

Mr Wallace went on: ''What Scots must ask themselves is - do we, as Scots, have the courage to vote for a parliament which is truly powerful, which can stand up for Scottish interests, which is truly accountable to the people of Scotland, or are we so in thrall to Westminster that we won't even trust ourselves with the power to tax?''

Substantial inward investment in Scotland had recently been won from businesses in the full knowledge that there was likely to be a parliament

with tax-varying

powers.

The SNP concluded a week of successive launches of the Yes-Yes campaign in-volving unp-recedented cross-party co-operation am-ong all the Scottish parties with Westminster MPs.

Mr Salmond justified the SNP sharing platforms with Labour and the Liberal Democrats by arguing: ''We believe that breaking the constitutional log-jam which has afflicted Scotland for so long is vital so that democracy in our country is reinvigorated.''

Support for the Bank of Scotland governor's views was expressed by the anti-devolution Think Twice campaign. Co-ordinator Brian Monteith said: ''Sir Bruce Pattullo deserves a medal for bravely speaking out and highlighting the flaws in the tax proposals.

''It is quite clear from the White Paper that business rates could rise separately from those in England and that the council tax could be replaced by a whole range of new taxes such as a bed and breakfast tax and a sales tax.''