I’m surprised it has taken this long.
This week the Welsh Assembly’s decided to allow Welsh Universities to charge up to £9,000 for tuition fees (as UK Government policy) but pay the difference between that which students currently pay (£3,290) and whatever the university charges – but for Welsh students only. The key points of the policy are:
- Welsh universities will be allowed to raise their fees up to £9,000 from 2012-13.
- All Welsh students living in Wales will get a grant to subsidise the difference between the current and future fee (anywhere up to £5,710 depending on what the university charges).
- This also applies to Welsh students who study in England, Scotland or Northern Ireland, as well as those who stay in Wales.
- This will be paid for by the Welsh Assembly Government.
Naturally, accusations of racism are at play. Â The Daily Mail excels, suggesting “apartheid” on fees and arguing that students were being “punished for being English.”
Now, they may have a point. One definition of “racism” (which I believe their newspaper front page used to describe the policy) is “Discrimination or prejudice based on race.” In this case, that would, I suggest, apply. Welsh students will receive the grant and they’ll take no real hit on the pocket. English students – who may be studying at the same university, taking the same courses, sitting next to the Welsh students paying £3,290 – will not be eligible.  That is discrimination on the basis of nationality.
However, where I think the Daily Mail is wrong is the fact that they blame the Welsh Assembly Government for this. Devolution was intended to allow Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to govern themselves in the areas devolved to them, and to make distinctive policy in those areas where they disagreed with what the UK Government decided. And we’ve already seen examples of it. Scotland, for example, led the UK on the smoking ban, introduced Free Personal Care for the elderly and changed university fees to a graduate endowment, latterly scrapping that as well. Wales has introduced free prescription charges – a move which Scotland will follow – and now decided that universities should not cost their students more than they do at the moment. In short – devolution has done as intended. It has allowed the devolved nations to operate differently in areas where they have legislative powers, to develop distinctive policies for their respective populations and, more recently, to protect their population from the upcoming rise in tuition fees.
But that’s not the only reason I don’t think they can be blamed. Take a look at the House of Commons. It is a UK Parliament, it is true, but only 59 MPs come from Scotland, 40 from Wales and 18 from Northern Ireland. Which means there are 533 English MPs in the House of Commons (650 total seats minus 117 non-English seats). Â Of those 533, the Conservatives hold 298 – a majority over the opposition English MPs on its own. When you add the 43 English Lib Dem MPs, there are 341 English MPs on the government benches against 192 in opposition (191 Labour plus 1 Green).
The point I’m making? Even if all of the MPs from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (including government MPs – 12 Conservatives/ Lib Dems from Scotland, 11 from Wales) vote against the tuition fees rise, it will still be carried by ENGLISH MPs voting for it. This isn’t foundation hospitals or the original top-up tuition fees debate, where the Labour government relied on their Scottish and Welsh MPs to vote in favour of something which was only to be implemented in England. English MPs are voting for this – and will carry it themselves.
So let’s not blame the Welsh Assembly Government or the Scottish Government for deciding to do something which will benefit their own students. This is the natural and inevitable conclusion of devolution – different policies for different parts of the UK. I’m honestly surprised it has taken the English this long to realise that they are getting shafted by the system.
But its not of our doing – so don’t blame us.
PS – Also – don’t blame me for the map above not including Northern Ireland and including Cornwall. I thought it demonstrated my point pretty well but I’m not responsible for drawing it!
#1 by glynbeddau on December 3, 2010 - 11:38 am
The concept of race does not apply here, as any policy is based on “Wales”based students so if an English student living in Wales attends a Welsh University they will be treated as Welsh student would.
What is interesting is that the London media made little comment on the situation in Scotland but when a Welsh government make a similar commitment to University Fees they are regarded as naughty boys who are not spending their pocket money correctly,
#2 by Malc on December 3, 2010 - 12:35 pm
That’s not quite my understanding of it. You have to be resident in Wales for three years to qualify to be “Wales-based” which means that, in the first instance at least, it will only be Welsh students who qualify. Though I accept your point – if English students live in Wales (for 3 years) they qualify too. But I think there’s more annoyance at the fact that Welsh students studying in Eng/Sco/NI will get their excess fees paid.
On your second point – I absolutely agree. It does look like Wales is a completely different case to Scotland when it comes to media reporting.
#3 by David on December 3, 2010 - 11:40 am
When I spend my money on women, drink, a fast car and waste the rest that’s up to me. Wales and Scotland should spend theirs how they see fit.
I was slightly concerned that it was also reported that “students from the EU will also be helped with their fees.” but not the English, biased stirring reporting perhaps?
#4 by Malc on December 4, 2010 - 8:12 pm
That’s my understanding from the WAG itself. Apparently its to do with EU regulations – you can’t discriminate against other member states but you can WITHIN a state… which means EU students would have to get the Welsh students rate in Wales while English students (and indeed, Scottish and Northern Irish students) studying in Wales would pay up to 9 grand. So maybe not biased reporting – maybe just the facts?
#5 by Mike on December 3, 2010 - 12:28 pm
The Daily Mail accusing people of racism…that’s a good one. This is the same newspaper that blamed England’s failed World Cup bid on the use of two many black people in the bids video.
The arithmetic lesson is a good on Malc, particularly useful for those bleating about an English parliament. The lesson? You have one, it’s called Westminster?
The arithmetic is also insightful into the ‘mandate’ question and the future of the Liberal vote in Scotland. Recent polls suggest that Labour might be the benificaries of disgruntled LibDems. This idea that Labour can protect Scotland from the Tory-Liberal cuts agenda is nonsense. Your numbers prove that even ifwe al decided to vote Labour in Scotland, every last one of us, we’d still get the govt England wants.
#6 by Malc on December 4, 2010 - 8:17 pm
Indeed. The numbers is something which needs further study. Don’t get me wrong – with 85% of the population, England should absolutely have the bulk of the MPs in any UK Parliament (and indeed Wales are about to feel the brunt of that – they will be reduced from 40 to 29 in the next boundary change). Its just that – as you say – Scotland or Wales could vote for who they like, and it would make no difference if England votes for something different, then that’s what we get.
I think the other point is valid too – its English MPs who are bringing this in. Wales and Scotland have decided against it, and to protect their students. The English population – and the Daily Mail – should be mindful of that.
#7 by oldchap on December 3, 2010 - 1:03 pm
I agree on the points above; there wouldn’t be much point in devolution if we all acted the same way and it’s quite good to see such a decisive move from the WAG.
It’s an interesting solution that the WAG has proposed. As I understand it, they’re aiming to pay for it by top-slicing the teaching grants so in net terms the same amount of taxpayer money is being spent on higher education. Presumably it’ll just shift where the money goes within Wales to the more expensive and well-subscribed courses; with the exception that institutions will be able to charge non-Welsh students more so there will be a little more funding for them from that route. The interesting part will be seeing whether the Welsh universities will be able to compete against the English ones that will in future have a lot more money coming in from increased fees.
#8 by Malc on December 4, 2010 - 8:19 pm
Indeed. Plus the potential “brain-drain” of talented university staff out of Wales to the higher-paying English universities who have more cash to spend on staff?
#9 by Daniel on December 3, 2010 - 3:41 pm
As a student I think the fact that they’re going to subsidise Welsh based students to go to England is a good thing – otherwise they wouldn’t have that much choice! I can’t see Scotland copying that particular part of the policy though, but they rest perhaps?
#10 by Malc on December 4, 2010 - 8:21 pm
I doubt we’ll change much in Scotland. Indeed, I suspect that if England does go for the 9 grand fees we may have to go back to some form of fees in Scotland because I can’t see any way our universities could compete if English universities had the money and ours didn’t.
#11 by David Petrie on December 3, 2010 - 3:50 pm
If it is a case of discrimination it is the English discriminating against themselves.
It’s not racism, it’s masochism.
#12 by Mr. Mxyzptlk on December 3, 2010 - 4:28 pm
Yeah! they are being punished for being English to right!!!they are they are lower Class English and the English conservatives
hate and despise them with every fibre of their being………..
almost as much as they fear them.
#13 by Paul on December 3, 2010 - 7:30 pm
I’m sure it can’t be called racism for a national government(assembly) to decide what to do within its nation or for its nationals ? Maybe racism if the UK government decided to treat Wales differently.
What it really highlights is the skewed form of devolution taking place. I’m surprised the DM didn’t say it was devolution gone mad.
#14 by Malc on December 4, 2010 - 8:30 pm
I think it can be. What if they’d decided that they’d pay for everyone except Polish students? Wouldn’t that be racist? Because that’s basically what they’ve done…
Don’t get me wrong – I think what they’ve done is smart. It plays on the politics of difference, it protects Welsh students and makes students aware that there is a way round it. It also makes the UK Government’s policy more difficult to sell. But I’m still not sure it isn’t also racist…
#15 by Exiled Nat on December 3, 2010 - 9:50 pm
This is why devolution is not sustainable in the long term.
It either leads to reunification or separation.
By definition a union is a marriage, in this marriage, one person ultimately holds all the power but let’s the other side spend on it’s credit card.
It’ll all end in tears, and a salmond shaped divorce.
#16 by tomdaylight on December 3, 2010 - 10:50 pm
You gloss over the salient point that the Barnett formula means the Welsh and Scottish executives have rather more cash per head to play with than their English counterparts. (Further to that, anyone have any idea how the proportion of young Scots attending university compares to England, ditto young Welsh students?)
#17 by Malc on December 4, 2010 - 8:33 pm
The Barnett Formula wasn’t mentioned above – but I guess you have a point.
Nevertheless, I was to point out the flaw in your point. Welsh and Scottish Executives may well have more money per head than England… but there is no English executive/ counterpart. I guess the point is, if England really wants to make the thing fair, they should get their own parliament.
#18 by Erchie on December 3, 2010 - 11:16 pm
Tom
The Barnett Formula has always been a red herring
Scotland, for example, has identifiable spending. You know its budget, you know what is spent
England (and seriously that tends to mean the M25 encircled area and Home Counties) gets loads of unidentified, “UK” spending.
Add to that that income earned around the UK, but banked and taxed in london gets counted as London income, it’s not as it is often portrayed
#19 by mr fairly nice on December 4, 2010 - 12:43 am
Stephen Glover in the Daily mail even resorted to calling us all taffys and jocks too! maybe he thinks this is still the victorian age .he probably has fantasies of having black slaves keeping him cool with giant feather fans in the Raj too
#20 by Dom on December 4, 2010 - 7:43 am
Bzzz. Erchie, try again.
http://burningourmoney.blogspot.com/search/label/fiscal%20transfers
and
http://burningourmoney.blogspot.com/2008/09/barnett-grrs-and-gers.html
#21 by James on December 4, 2010 - 10:42 am
Yeah, and if you can demonstrate that takes account of the massive amounts of taxpayers’ money spent on Departmental and other HQs in London and the Southeast I’ll eat a teaspoon of yellow snow.
#22 by cynicalHighlander on December 4, 2010 - 9:38 pm
The South East are one of the worst off regions as I have been politely informed in the past. see below.
#23 by cynicalHighlander on December 4, 2010 - 8:17 pm
UK regions all 13 of them
North East £7,892
North West £7,756
Yorkshire and Humberside £7,111
East Midlands £6,468
West Midlands £7,090
Eastern £6,177
London £8,550 2nd
South East £6,165
South West £6,513
England 88 £7076
Scotland £8,544 3rd
Wales £8,172
Northern Ireland £8,990 1st
Taken from Fiscal Federalism in the UK
Why is London the 2nd most susidised region if it was so fiscally sound?
#24 by Chris on December 4, 2010 - 7:47 am
Erchie, whilst there is a lot of truth in that, per capita service funding in Scotland is much higher than in England. This is the cost of providing public services that the Scottish parliament delivers.
Your argument seems to suggest that places with more civil servants should have worse education and health services. That does not seem reasonable.
#25 by Jim D on December 4, 2010 - 4:14 pm
Devolution is doing what it intended, which is allowing other constituent nations of the UK to decide for themselves.
On the other hand, it’s NOT doing what it was intended to do, which is to foster mutual divergence between the different nations of the UK.
Of course, what the Daily Mail et al won’t point out is that there is a “brain drain” from Wales, largely to England, and the education that we pay for ends up benefitting England. In effect, it’s a hidden subsidy where England mops up a hell of a lot of Welsh talent.
And you’ve got to smile at the hypocrisy of the Mail. It was slagging off English students for rioting the other week, but they’ll be more than happy to whip up race riots with their chauvanistic bile…
#26 by Malc on December 4, 2010 - 8:10 pm
Apologies for the lack of commenting/ moderation. Laptop issues. I’ll go back and respond to some of them now. Good discussion though folks.
#27 by Jim on December 4, 2010 - 9:26 pm
It’ll never work. Either A) Someone will go to court and it’ll be declared illegal discrimination on grounds of race, or B) everyone who can find a Welsh address to register at will do so, go on a 3 year gap year, and get a free university education. It’ll collapse due to lack of funds. At potentially £27K per degree the incentive to game the system is too large. In fact presumably any ‘English’ person who has dual citizenship with another EU country could claim their fees back if they go to a Welsh University. Cue a lot of parents digging into whether their kids qualify for dual nationality because of great grandmother Helga, or grandfather Rene.
#28 by Daniel on December 5, 2010 - 1:56 pm
A similar system has worked fine in Scotland for years now. It’s not based on your nationality but residency, I have English friends whose parents lived in Scotland for the last three years and thus they get free education! 3-Year Gap year? Better of working!
#29 by Philip R Hosking on December 20, 2010 - 3:49 pm
“PS – Also – don’t blame me for the map above not including Northern Ireland and including Cornwall. I thought it demonstrated my point pretty well but I’m not responsible for drawing it!”
Hey! Whats your problem with Cornish self-determination? That’s a bit of a tosser comment don’t you think? Do you really think you know enough to simply write off a movement for greater self-determination in such an arrogant way?
#30 by Malc on December 20, 2010 - 7:38 pm
FFS.
How do you get from that comment that I have a problem with Cornish self-determination?! That’s just idiotic. The PS was an apology – basically to Stephen – for NI not being on the map. And the fact that Cornwall was represented did – I think – amplify the fact that NI was not. That was my only reason for saying so.
For future reference, the way to make your point isn’t to call me a tosser or arrogant. You’ve misrepresented something because it suits your “everyone is against me” viewpoint when in actual fact I quite agree with your right to self-determination. And I thought it was just us who had a chip on both shoulders, but apparently not.
#31 by Philip R Hosking on December 20, 2010 - 7:55 pm
I sorry for any offence cause but if you can’t see how your comment could be easily misinterpreted than there is not much more I can say.
Are you really that surprised a Cornish nationalist has the ‘everyone is against me’ POV. If anybody in the UK deserves to wallow in such a pointless yet self-satisfying heathery bog of negativism it’s us.
Oll an gwella.
#32 by James on December 20, 2010 - 8:00 pm
Personally I wouldn’t have approved the comment calling Malc a tosser. It was pretty obvious that the comment was sympathetic, and if you pick fights with the few who get where you want to go you’ll struggle even harder.
#33 by Philip R Hosking on December 20, 2010 - 8:10 pm
Hey ho! Wait a second! I didn’t call anybody a tosser. My comments were directed at what I considered at the time an ill thought out and ignorant comment (not person) about my nation.
#34 by Malc on December 20, 2010 - 8:21 pm
I don’t want to get dragged into a debate about linguistics, but I’d suggest “That’s a bit of a tosser comment” implies the person who made the comment is a tosser – and given it was my comment, that’d be me.
It’s fine though – I’m over it. Just don’t do it again is all. All I was saying was there are better ways to make your point. But you know now what was meant by the comment, and it wasn’t what you thought, so we should be fine.
#35 by Philip R Hosking on December 20, 2010 - 8:26 pm
No not at all. I make tosser comments all the time. It’s when you pass the 50% tossers comments threshold you need to worry.
Anyway; how about a blog post on Cornwall and a link to my blog, or is it the wrong time to ask?
#36 by Malc on December 20, 2010 - 8:55 pm
Link its up – sorry, I meant to do it before and I forgot. As for a blog post – I’ve written very little recently, but I’ll have a think about it!
#37 by Philip R Hosking on December 20, 2010 - 9:00 pm
That’s very kind and I didn’t expect it. I was just being cheeky. If you are going to have one Cornish blog linked then make it Cornish Zetetics instead of mine. The articles are well written and generally far better: http://cornishzetetics.blogspot.com/ More along the lines of what you are trying to do with this site I think.
Gorhemynadow a’n Seson