AS Greater Manchester votes on whether to accept a congestion charge in return for huge investment in public transport, chief reporter David Ottewell visited Edinburgh - which rejected a similar scheme in 2005 - to see whether people in the city regret saying 'no'.

THE cabbie catches my eye in the mirror.

"We never needed a congestion charge," he says. "Edinburgh isn't that big.

"Anyway, no one talks about it any more. It is ancient history."

We turn on to Princes Street, the main strip through the centre of the city. It is 3pm, but the road is eerily quiet save for a couple of dozen taxis and buses.

 "Ancient history," he repeats as I hand over the fare.

'Ancient history' happened in 2005, when the people of Edinburgh voted to reject a congestion-charge scheme in an all-postal referendum. The result was overwhelming - 74.4 per cent said 'no' on a turnout of 61.7 per cent.

I'm here to search for clues as to whether history is likely to repeat itself in Greater Manchester in 2008 - and what the consequences will be if it does.

There are clear differences between the proposals for Greater Manchester and Edinburgh. For one thing, the 'carrot' in Scotland was a package of transport improvements worth just £800m, including three new tram lines and new park-and-ride facilities. Greater Manchester is being offered more than £2.75bn, including £1.5bn of grant. For a second, 80 per cent of our transport improvements would come before the charge was introduced. In Edinburgh, it was largely a case of stick first, carrot later.

Contrary to appearances, congestion hasn't magically disappeared from the Scottish capital. The city centre roads are empty because private traffic is largely banned while preparations are made for a slimmed-down version of the tram system. Only one line is guaranteed to be built, carrying just two to three per cent of Edinburgh's population, according to some estimates. "A complete waste of time and money," a friend and long-time Edinburgh resident tells me over dinner.

It's a view I've heard all day.

"Businesses are squealing, particularly the inner-city retailers," says Graham Bell, of the Edinburgh Chamber of Commerce. "It has been completely disruptive.

"We hope this is over as soon as possible and we can reap the benefits. Whether what's being done is enough, I don't know. But I have not heard a single person who voted 'no' say they wish they had voted 'yes'."

Businesses in Edinburgh, unlike in Greater Manchester, were largely unified against the congestion charge. Not because they were opposed to road pricing in principle, says Mr Bell, but because what was put on the table was 'the wrong scheme at the wrong time'.

"When we contacted our members we found something like 60 per cent against and 26 per cent for, with others undecided," he says. "Clearly we were being told: 'Something needs to be done, but this is not it.'

"Some 80,000 people come into Edinburgh every day. For too many, there would have been no useable public transport alternative for them during the working day. You have to talk about fairness. A lot of people who commute do so because they cannot afford to live in Edinburgh. Is it fair they should pay for transport improvements in the city?"

During the debate of 2005, experts claimed congestion was costing Edinburgh £20bn a year. People who live in the city are sceptical about that, although Mr Bell accepts that congestion 'is perceived as a problem' and is 'definitely increasing in general terms'.

"The real problem is that public transport is at congestion levels," he adds. "We are at 95 per cent of capacity with the buses. If we tried to run 10 or 20 more buses an hour down Princes Street, it would grind to a halt."

But did the bitter campaign, and the 'no' vote, split businesses and politicians who had previously worked together in the city's interests? No, says Mr Bell.

"It was agreed to be magnanimous in victory," he adds. "The message was that this was a victory for common sense and democracy, not for a particular 'side'."

Others, it soon emerges, are not so sure. I head out to a pleasant detached house in the west Edinburgh suburbs to meet Tina Woolnough. Ms Woolnough was 'just a community campaigner' before 2005, when she was thrust into the limelight as the de facto leader of the 'no' campaign.

Bitter

"There was a lot of personal vindictiveness towards me," she says. "There still is. Environmental campaigners thought their moment had come. They are still very bitter."

Ms Woolnough believes the level of congestion in Edinburgh was, and remains, 'acceptable' in comparison to other British cities.

 "In terms of people accessing the city by car, they still can and still do," she says. "The buses have been very successful and more and more people have been using public transport.

"The other side played up the package of goodies we would get. But we had this anomaly where it would be people living without Edinburgh who would be paying, and the goodies would have been centred in Edinburgh."

So would people have voted for the scheme had it been seen as fairer? Ms Woolnough believes not. "Congestion charging is another form of tax," she says. "People already pay a lot of tax. Many people think the infrastructure should be put in anyway. I like to think referendums are won on decent argument and facts and strong cases, but actually I think it is done on the pound in people's pockets."

I scoot across town to meet one of Tina's 'environmental campaigners'. David Spaven - a transport consultant and former Green Party activist - was a major voice in the 'yes' camp. We shake hands, he invites me upstairs, he makes a cup of tea. He doesn't seem bitter.

"It was not a rational sort of debate at all," he says. "Most people did recognise congestion was a problem. "The complexity of the issues didn't help. Some of the material produced was not as clear as could be in setting out the benefits.

"But there was also a great deal of misinformation kicking around, and the role of the media was critical. Some of the headlines... there was no foundation for them whatsoever, but that didn't matter."

Mr Spaven believes that while the referendum was 'in theory' a good idea, it should never have taken place. The furious nature of the debate, he says, has made it difficult to put sustainable transport on the agenda ever since.

"The Labour group [on the city council] said they wanted a congestion charge and got elected," he says. "That should have been enough.

"You don't hear it talked about at all now. It's a non-issue.

"People will read about Manchester and regard it with passing interest, but think it has nothing to do with them now. That is unfortunate. The debate has gone back here, rather than forward."

Labour no longer run Edinburgh. They were turfed out because of the introduction of proportion representation, mainly, although the fall-out to the referendum - which they were alone in supporting among the political parties - did not help.

Andrew Burns, who was Labour's transport surpremo at the time, refuses to say the people of the city made a mistake.

"It was a missed opportunity," he says. "There has been an increase in congestion that would otherwise have been tackled. But there was a democratic vote and we respected that immediately."

 Evening is drawing in and I head back to Princes Street on a bus. It is cheap - £1.10 for a journey of any distance - and the two-mile trip takes only a few minutes. Festive shoppers are thronging the stores. Congestion charging is the last thing on their minds.

"It's done, it's history," says Hugh Peskett, a 76-year-old genealogist. "The reality is that Edinburgh didn't, and doesn't, need a congestion charge. People may grumble about traffic from time to time, but when you look at London, there really is no comparison."

But clothes shop worker Kate Morrison, 24, says: "At rush-hour, it does get busy and it can be frustrating.

"That makes you want to rely on public transport. But you can't."

And therein lies the dilemma. Everyone seems to want better public transport; no one was prepared to pay with it with a congestion charge; no other money is available.

The Scottish National Party, which runs Scotland, has made it clear they will not be providing 'a penny more' than the £500m set aside for the trams project.

As things stand, that may not even cover the cost of the first line. It may be Christmas, but when it comes to public transport, no one rides for free.