I caught a snippet of a news article late last night, I think on the BBC, saying that English, Welsh and Northern Irish students would pay fees in Scotland but Scottish students would continue to not have to. I had believed this was already the case and that students from other member states of the EU don’t pay fees due to rules set down from Brussels. (Upon a second look, I note that the news item was that fees would go up from ~£1,900 to £6,000)
It does, on the face of it, appear a nakedly opportunistic way of doing business, smash and grab cash injections with more than a hint of independence-trailing to it from the SNP decision-makers. Of course, the plan may not even raise further revenue as if 67% of English students decide to stay away from Scotland then we won’t make any more money and, indeed, the Scottish students that take those freed up places will cost Scots more. Consequently, I hope a cut in the number of students attending higher education is also in the Green Paper and access becomes more competitive.
However, as opportunistic as this all seems, the Scottish Government has been backed into a corner as it believes in free education but has been handed a spending allocation that does not allow for it without deep cuts elsewhere. There is no reason why Scotland should accept the Browne Review if the proposals are so at odds with what the SNP, Greens and Holyrood Lib Dems (typically) argue for. This, of course, is the harsh reality of devolution, one must take the rough with the smooth, but, equally, those in the rest of the UK cannot complain if Scotland’s MSPs aggressively defend Scotland’s students and their future education.
The four nations of the UK jacking up fees for their three nearest neighbours seems counter-productive and mean-spirited but Osborne cutting so fast and so deep leaves little choice but for administrations light in power to plug the revenue gaps.
So much for we’re all in this together.
Anyway, today sees the Scottish Government announce its plans on how further education courses will be funded going forward. Politically, there is only one announcement that Mike Russell will realistically be able to make and that is to keep university free. A May election, student protests, the Lib Dem u-turn and pushing Labour onto the backfoot will mean that it will be business as usual for now. If you’re Scottish that is, of course.
#1 by Caron on December 16, 2010 - 9:48 am
My biggest fear about the plan is that Scottish universities might, under such a system, give more places to fee paying English students than to Scots.
If English unis charge £9000 pa it would still be cheaper for an English student to do a 4 year degree in Scotland than a 3 year one in England.
I agree that a wider range of post school options for young people would be much better. We need to make sure that the most able kids get to go to universities whatever background they come from. Also we probably do need to think about reducing our standard degree term from 4 to 3 years.
I’m not sure how a graduate contribution differs from tuition fees and I certainly wouldn’t want to see any system that starts payment at less than £21000. I can see why they went with that system south of the border, and the Lib Dems made it better than it was going to be, but that’s not to say that I like it, or that it should be part of Scottish thinking.
#2 by Malc on December 16, 2010 - 1:31 pm
There is danger there whether this idea goes through or not. If the SG doesn’t do something, then Scottish Universities will be much less well off than their English counterparts, and there will be a subsequent brain drain of talent(!) among staff to universities in England who can pay decent money for them. Its all lose-lose. At least this way, the universities have a fighting chance of staying competitive.
Of course, the only way they could really stay in the game is to charge fees again – but that’s not likely to happen… right?
#3 by Daniel on December 16, 2010 - 10:24 am
The actual cost saving for an English student would be less due to our 4 year degrees. £3,000 less a year but with an extra year it could cost £24,000 in fees with an extra £5-6,000 in living costs vs £27,000 in fees for 3 years.
Divide the Scottish cost by the number of years and Scottish Universities don’t look that great cost wise – More expensive and if you factor in a year of lost earnings – assuming you get a job! – a hell of a lot more costly.
Universities such as Edinburgh, Glasgow and St Andrews in particular have always been the more ‘English’ Universities and would no doubt continue to remain so. Edinburgh already has a controversial system of what is effectively positive discrimination for Scots. English students would win on grades every time since we can enter with Highers as opposed to most English students have A-Levels,
#4 by cameron on December 16, 2010 - 10:28 am
They were left with no choice though, it was discriminate against the English financially, or make it harder for them to get seats which is equally discriminatory. The non discriminatory alternative is the Scottish taxpayer has to fund a much larger number of English students because they would be unable to have a preference for Scottish students when selecting students and the cost would attract absurd amounts of English people who are unwilling to take on that much debt .
Also worth noting the tuition fees work out cheaper because it’s a four year degree so there’s extra cost associated with supporting yourself for the last year.
#5 by Erchie on December 16, 2010 - 3:02 pm
Surely this Devolution business cuts both ways.
England chose to go in a different direction to the rest of the nations of the UK, so it takes the consequences of its spending decisions.
That’s up to the voters of England to sort out when they next elect a Government
#6 by Alasdair on December 16, 2010 - 3:25 pm
Aren’t the Welsh doing the same thing?
#7 by Malc on December 16, 2010 - 3:49 pm
Yeah. I’m almost certain someone wrote about this in Wales not that long ago…
#8 by Doug Daniel on December 16, 2010 - 8:49 pm
I really cannot see the problem with this proposal, and I like how Joan McAlpine has highlighted the fact that BBC Scotland are focussing on this from an English point of view, rather than the point of view of a Scottish voter. Now, a statement like that could easily lead to claims that the SNP are going to be trying to “buy votes”, but the simple fact is that the Scottish Government are elected by Scottish domiciled voters to represent our interests. If we replace “England” with another country (“China” perhaps) in any news report accusing the SNP of “education apartheid” or the likes, we can then consider how ridiculous it would be to suggest that Scottish taxpayers should foot the bill for Chinese students. There would be no articles, no uproar, because how Chinese students are funded is up to the Chinese government, not the Scottish Government. The same is true of English students: their government decided they should have to pay for their education, which is a disgrace, but it’s their problem, not ours.
Whether people regard Scotland and England as separate countries is up to the individual (as far as I’m concerned, I’m no more English than I am German); but where devolved matters are concerned, England is as foreign a country as Mongolia or Swaziland.
#9 by Jeff on December 16, 2010 - 10:09 pm
I do think some people can be a bit over-sensitive to the supposed ‘anti-Nat’ treatment from the BBC. The big news is the fact that fees are going up for those not based in Scotland. From a British perspective, the situation remaining the same is not as big news as a tripling in fees for those outside of Scotland.
If the headline was ‘Scottish Government keeps fees abolished’ then I’d want to know how they would pay for it. The headline that fees go up for rUK tells me what I want to know.
I’m not saying the BBC don’t show bias (I have no idea, I can be obliviously naive that way) but, on this one, I don’t see it.
#10 by Doug Daniel on December 17, 2010 - 12:07 am
The bias comes from the angle they’ve taken to tackle the story. As Joan McAlpine says, STV are going for the “Tuition fees for Scotland are ‘off the table'” which, to me, seems a far more important point than English students having to pay a bit more. I say this for two reasons: 1) the intended audience of both STV and BBC Scotland are Scottish people, thus the fact that English students may have to pay more fees is as relevant to the students in their audience as the fact that non-EU countries are already paying far more than English students will ever be charged; 2) the fact that tuition fees are “off the table” for Scottish students is very significant, as it shows the fundamental difference in priorities between the Scottish and UK governments when it comes to funding further education – one values the ideals of free education for its people, while the other thinks education is a marketable asset. It’s a significant difference, which just highlights why education is a devolved matter.
I’ll be the first to admit I look upon BBC Scotland as being vehemently anti-SNP, and perhaps part of that is due to the stuff I’ve read about media bias in books like Manufacturing Consent by Chomsky and Herman, which either makes me more adept at picking out hidden bias or more prone to finding bias where it doesn’t exist, depending on your viewpoint. But two other stories recently which I think speak volumes for BBC Scotland’s inability to cover stories about the SNP fairly are the Megrahi WikiLeaks (where BBC Scotland bizarrely chose to focus on a very unimportant point, rather than the main story that the SNP government was just about the only one in the whole saga whose public thoughts and actions matched their private ones), and the M8 snow debacle, where one has to wonder why the BBC in London didn’t call for the head of the UK transport minister for the similar problems on the M25, while BBC Scotland decided to become part of the news, rather than just reporting on it.
To me, this is just another example of BBC Scotland approaching a story with one aim in mind: “how can we make the SNP look bad?” I’m not saying they consciously think this when they look for news, but it’s certainly how they go about their business.
#11 by Indy on December 17, 2010 - 10:19 am
jeff why would BBC Scotland be reporting the debate around fees from a British perspective?
#12 by Brian on December 17, 2010 - 11:06 am
I have to agree with Doug above, the way this story has been spun by the BBC is pretty weird. They haven’t been giving the Welsh solution this kind of angle at all.
The Scottish Government has limited powers and this measure does prevent the ‘fee refugee’ situation. It could be an issue with any other policy of the Scottish government passed so far such as prescriptions, care for the elderly etc. which all come down to the devolved priorities that people voted for. The only difference there is that these are not public services that you normally travel for, unlike university where students can and do travel across the globe for education.
If however, parents started moving into the ‘catchment area’ of a university as they do with schools, it wouldn’t be a bad thing I suppose, boosting tax receipts and the population in Scotland… although that gets you onto the efficacy of the calman proposals and that’s a whole other debate..
#13 by Daniel on December 17, 2010 - 1:37 pm
Does anyone know the precise EU law that requires equal treatment from educational institutions etc etc ?
#14 by Fitalass on December 17, 2010 - 10:33 pm
I have to disagree with you on this one Jeff. No one is stopping Scotland from embarking on a different policy of funding in further education, we are perfectly free to do so. I have to say that I found the whinging about an English policy on funding effecting us through Barnett cons cringe worthy to be honest. Just as England plans to cut their taxpayers commitment to fund this, we can choose to do the opposite. We did have tax raising powers at Holyrood, but not now for the foreseeable future, if we want it free then we sell it to the Scottish Taxpayer.
But so far, the whole issue has turned into a political football when we really should be addressing the imminent question of funding asap. Our politicians are not being honest about the funding hole that is opening up. And the SNP should hang their heads in shame over yesterday’s little political ploy. They have the might of the Holyrood government machine at their disposal, and all we got was what they wouldn’t do and shopping list to tempt and mislead the electorate before the upcoming elections.
I would have preferred a Browne style commissioned report, and then for all four parties to work together to come up with a viable and working policy that would receive cross party backing.
I was never a fan of devolution, but I had hoped to be proved wrong as everyone including myself would have been beneficiaries. But this Parliament is letting my children and many others down right now. Whether you agree with what has happened down South or not, at least they are doing something constructive.
#15 by James on December 17, 2010 - 10:34 pm
Which of the five Parliamentary parties are you writing out of the picture?
#16 by dcomerf on December 17, 2010 - 10:33 pm
I think there’s an easy way to implement a sensible policy on this:
tie it to attendence at a Scottish state school e.g. provide a state benefit of (say) £5000 per year for 5 of the 6 years of attendence at a Scottish state school, set fees of (say) 6250 per annum chargeable to all students (Scottish, rUK & EU (and international though my understanding is that we can discriminate here to our hearts content)), hey presto, those students who went to state School in Scotland have their fees paid. Removes all discussion of discrimation and unfairness as a state benefit is being provided with a clear qualifying criterion.
#17 by dcomerf on December 17, 2010 - 10:36 pm
Further, this benefit could be carried to any rUK or EU university – further proving that no discrimination is being undertaken, but also further acting under the principle that a state is there to benefit its own citizens. If English students feel they are being treated unfairly then they should take the matter up with their own government (I understand that they are already doing this), but it’s not really a matter for the Scottish government.
#18 by CassiusClaymore on December 19, 2010 - 9:00 am
Still waiting for Grey, Goldie, Scott to demand the resignation of Philip Hammond.
Are they too busy drinking their free beer?
#19 by Mike on December 19, 2010 - 4:09 pm
danile writes: ‘Edinburgh already has a controversial system of what is effectively positive discrimination for Scots.’
Does it indeed? And why does it? How many Engllish
students are there at Edinburgh University? Anyone?
The talk of ‘educational apartheid’ is absolute nonsense. We should not be driven to privatise our higher education because London wishes to.
Fitalass writes: ‘Whether you agree with what has happened down South or not, at least they are doing something constructive.’ I’m afraid that sentence just doesnt make logical sense. Where were you educated?
“All we got was what they wouldn’t do and shopping list to tempt and mislead the electorate before the upcoming elections.” Well no. There is a working group that will report on the detail which includes Universities Scotland will report to a reconvened cross party summit in February.
Although it is not definitive and does define SNP policy from Labour for the May election.
Jeff Im not sure in what sense it is ‘a nakedly opportunistic way of doing business’. Can you explain?
#20 by Jeff on December 19, 2010 - 5:34 pm
No worries Mike, I’ll try my best.
We have a Nationalist Government in office with a solid promise to keep university free for students but they are in a bind because they are receiving less money from their ‘parent Government’ in the UK but still want this to be a dividing line between itself and Labour going into May. Irrespective of whether it is right or wrong for the coalition to cut so fast (it’s wrong) the Scottish Government is where it is. Option (1) is to just follow the coalition’s lead and bring in charges while option (2) is to cut costs/jobs in the existing budget elsewhere, leaving itself open to political attack. I would say it could be described as being opportunistic, and nakedly so, to go for option (3) and try to cover the shortfall with those students who are coming in from England to study while helpfully creating cross-border discord (which I can assure you exists down here, this is one Scottish news item that made it to the surface down here!)
That doesn’t mean I don’t think the policy is a good idea of course, opportunistic isn’t necessarily a bad thing. I mean, it’s only a small step away from pragmatic. And it is a good idea to charge English students more, even if only to ensure that English students don’t flock to Scotland to avoid high charges, depriving Scottish students of much coveted places.
#21 by Mike on December 19, 2010 - 7:06 pm
It seems this is a classic divide and rule tactic. English students should be showing solidarity with their Celtic neighbours in defense of free education, as we did over the last month.
Russel has ruled out tuition fees and stuck to his manifesto promise. He has then laid out six options to be examined and decided on before end if February. It just doesn’t feel in the least opportunist.
See http://www.newsnetscotland.com for more on the ridiculous charge of ‘educational apartheid’
#22 by Jeff on December 19, 2010 - 7:33 pm
I don’t blame Mike Russell for wishing to cling on until after May to come up with a final solution but these 6 options (5, let’s rule out philanthropy shall we) are a bit too scattershot to be given too much credence.
If there’s a way around squaring this spending circle in the long term then great but I don’t think there is and I reckon that whoever gets in after May will have to charge students something to balance the books.
#23 by Mike on December 19, 2010 - 8:14 pm
I was just reminded the bank bailout cost £850 billion.
I don’t remember being consulted on that. So I don’t believe
we can’t afford it. I think this is ideology not pragmatism.
#24 by Jeff on December 19, 2010 - 8:30 pm
I don’t think we’re going to print money through quantitative easing to pay for tuition fees but, yes, it is certainly ideology rather than pragmatism given that savings won’t be made for a good few years.
#25 by Indy on December 20, 2010 - 10:25 am
If I could make a brief point here. The Con Dem alliance arguably as a mandate to end state support of higher education (many people who voted Lib Dem would argue with that of course but that’s another issue).
The situation in Scotland is quite different. The idea that the 4 parties could all work together to come up with some kind of deal on higher education without involvong the electorate is appalling, particularly when we are only a matter of months away from an election.
Let’s be clear that effectively ending state funding of higher education would be a massive step to take. There is no way that any party should even be proposing it without first presenting detailed proposals to the electorate. All parties will have the opportunity to present detailed – and costed – proposals as part of their manifestos. Then the voters will decide. That is the correct way to deal with this issue.
#26 by James on December 20, 2010 - 11:19 am
Again, which of the five Parliamentary parties are you writing out here? The Lib Dems are still with us, you know.
#27 by Mike on December 20, 2010 - 11:58 am
Certainly not advocating quantitative easing Jeff – but suggesting that the response to the banking crisis suggests that much of intrinsic public policy is about priority and naked power politics. This needs to be exposed and responded to rather than the blame-game stuff (as Joan McAlpine is currently pointing ou).
#28 by Indy on December 20, 2010 - 1:25 pm
I wasn’t writing any parties out – Fitalass referred to 4 parties with her suggestion that they could just sort the issue out among themselves without the need to put their proposals to the electorate.
Whether we are talking about 4 parties or 5 or indeed every party/individual that stands for election the same principle applies.