Nicola Sturgeon’s speech last Tuesday setting out the Scottish government’s legislative programme for the year ahead confirmed what was already pretty clear. Scottish councils are set to be the first in the UK with the power to levy charges on visitors, with Edinburgh likely to lead the way.

        Tourist taxes are not new. The Himalayan kingdom of Bhutan has a longstanding policy of charging visitors a daily fee. France’s tax on overnight stays was introduced to assist thermal spa（温泉）towns to develop, and around half of French local authorities use it today.

        But such levies are on the rise. Moves by Barcelona and Venice to deal with the phenomenon of “over-tourism” through the use of charges have recently gained prominence. Japan and Greece are among the countries to have recently introduced tourist taxes.

        That the UK lags behind is due to our weak, by international standards, local government, as well as the opposition to taxes and regulation of our aggressively pro-market ruling party. Some UK cities have lobbied without success for the power to levy a charge on visitors. Such levies are no universal remedy as the amounts raised would be tiny compared with what has been taken away by central government since 2010. Still, it is to be hoped that the Scottish government’s bold move will prompt others to act. There is no reason why visitors to the UK, or domestic tourists on holiday in hotspots such as Cornwall, should be exempt from taxation—particularly when vital local services including waste collection, park maintenance and arts and culture spending are under unprecedented strain.

        On the contrary, compelling tourists to make a financial contribution to the places they visit beyond their personal consumption should be part of a wider cultural shift. Westerners with disposable incomes have often behaved as if they have a right to go wherever they choose with little regard for the consequences. Just as the environmental harm caused by aviation and other transport must come under far greater scrutiny, the social cost of tourism must also be confronted. This includes the impact of short-term lets on housing costs and quality of life for residents. Several European capitals, including Paris and Berlin, are leading a campaign for tougher regulation by the European Union. It also includes the impact of overcrowding, litter and the kinds of behaviour associated with noisy parties.

        There is no “one size fits all” solution to this problem. The existence of new revenue streams for some but not all councils is complicated, and businesses are often opposed, fearing higher costs will make them uncompetitive. But those places that want them must be given the chance to make tourist taxes work.

解析：D。根据题干中的international and domestic visitors和tourist tax可定位至第四段最后一句。题干中的international and domestic visitors对应该句的visitors to the UK和domestic tourists，pay tourist tax对应该句的exempt from taxation。该句指出，到英国旅游的外国游客或到康沃尔等热门地区度假的国内游客没有理由免税，尤其是在重要的地方服务面临前所未有的压力的情况下。也就是说，向国内外游客征税是为了缓解地方服务的压力，即减轻地方财政负担，D项符合题意，因此选D。

错项排除：A项利用第四段第一句中出现的international standards进行干扰，但文中提到国际标准是为了说明英国地方政府的软弱无力，并非说旅游业要达到国际标准，故A项排除。B项利用第四段最后一句中出现的maintenance进行干扰，但文中只是提到地方服务包括公园维护（park maintenance），并没有说税收是用来改善维修工人的福利，故B项排除。文章第五段第一句提到，游客除了个人消费外，还必须为游览的地区做出经济贡献，这应该成为更广泛的文化转变（cultural shift）的一部分，并没有说要促进文化交流（cultural exchange），故C项排除。