The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) is a multilateral treaty adopted by the UN and has been in force from 3 January 1976. Amongst its stated commitments are a right to free education which, more specifically, relates to the following (from Wikipedia):
“Article 13 of the Covenant recognises the right of everyone to free education (free for the primary level and “the progressive introduction of free education” for the secondary and higher levels). This is to be directed towards “the full development of the human personality and the sense of its dignity”,[14] and enable all persons to participate effectively in society. Education is seen both as a human right and as “an indispensable means of realizing other human rights”, and so this is one of the longest and most important articles of the Covenant.”
The United Kingdom was signed up to this in the Harold MacMillan era, or as many in Labour would probably say ‘the good old days’.
Despite having a good 35 years to make good on this commitment, including 13 years of unbroken Labour rule, we have ‘ganged agley’ on many an occasion, not least the recent move by the coalition Government to open the door to fees of up to £9,000 a year for students. Even the righter wing parties in social democratic Sweden know to not charge tuition fees, front end or back. It’s a shame that the Lib Dems see things differently.
Well, despite the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and via The Telegraph, today marks the day that Labour swung back to being a pro-fees party in Scotland. The SNP has gleefully called it Johann Lamont’s Nick Clegg moment. And well they should.
At the last Scottish Parliament elections, only a year ago, Scottish Labour’s position of “No price tag for Scottish students” was as follows (taken from the party’s very own website):
“a Labour government will not introduce any up-front fees or graduate contribution for access to higher education in the lifetime of the next Parliament. There will be no price tag on education. Bringing in a graduate contribution would not resolve the present financial difficulties of the universities which are the responsibility of the current SNP government. Experts figures show that the gap is significantly less than some had predicted and can and will be met.”
The initial conclusion to draw from this decision is that it is opposition for opposition’s sake and tuition fees can be added to minimum pricing, council tax and votes at 16 where Labour contort their positions, despite their better senses, in order to ensure that their party is not on the same page as Salmond’s mob, come what may.
The argument that Scottish universities can’t offer more places to bright Scottish kids while fees are covered by the Scottish Government seems to be irrelevant here. If a fixed number of Scottish students have their fees paid for and a fixed number of English students have to pay their fees, then the problem of funding for one tranche of students in Scotland cannot and will not impact on the other. There is no incentive, despite what Johann Lamont claims, to have more English students than Scottish because the same money is paid into the university either way, just from a different source.
The main risk that I can see is that this equilibrium is broken through too many English students claiming to be Scottish via a distant Scottish, Welsh or Irish grandparent, as has already been reported. This really would be a nonsense and certainly not in the spirit of the democratic will of the constituent parts of the UK.
England had an election and clearly voted for parties that, with their combined majority, are in favour of tuition fees. Scotland had an election and voted overwhelmingly for parties that want to keep tuition free, or at least said they wanted to at the time before this flip-flopping began. We might as well scrap the Scottish Parliament if we are not going to tolerate and respect devolved differences within the UK. Financing university education shouldn’t be sullied by the same bastardisation of common sense rules as happens when picking a Scotland XV at rugby. Not that it’s easy to prove you are Scottish, English, Welsh or Northern Irish when we only have British passports and British driver’s licenses to identify us. There’s a simple solution to that of course…
So, much like the 1970 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, Labour signed the United Kingdom up to move the country towards free university education but is pulling us in a different direction with its reactionary policies.
What will it take for Labour to move away from opposition for opposition’s sake and realise that we already have a graduate tax in operation to fund free tuition and ensure our universities remain world class. It’s called income tax.
#1 by Craig Gallagher on May 13, 2012 - 7:22 am
I agree entirely Jeff, though I will note a friend of mine who attended the Fabians speech think the Telegraph has distorted Lamont’s position, particularly in relation to college funding. Wouldn’t be the first time, but I’d need to see a transcript of the speech before I could say for sure either way.
But if they are indeed correct, and she has indeed declared the Labour party opposed to the current tuition fees settlement – which as you rightly pointed out is to pay through income tax, rather than up-front or back-end fees – then I wish her the best of luck trying to justify such a position to her party’s student wings. She’ll need it.
#2 by Jeff on May 13, 2012 - 9:51 am
An element of trust is required in how the Telegraph have reported this but I wouldn’t be surprised if a skittish attack on the SNP shows that Lamont hasn’t thought through her own position. To be fair though, if Johann is now backing students paying fees, she will be moving in line with 65% of the Scottish public so perhaps smart politics.
As you say though, the student wing (and Liam Burns/Kez Dugdale) will have a hard time swallowing it.
#3 by scottish_skier on May 13, 2012 - 11:00 am
The general public have been sold the idea that graduates are getting some sort of freebie, i.e. they get fees paid but then go on to earn more so… A classic right-wing approach of ‘look at them – getting a freebie from your taxes’.
If graduates earn more then they pay more tax, more than covering their tuition fees. They are also wealth creators (engineers, doctors, researchers….not the rich who are net wealth removers), e.g. starting up business which pay business tax and employ people who also pay tax. I should know – I’m one of them.
Good businesses educate/train their workforce at no direct cost to the worker – it makes them more productive. If a country is considered a form of business, then why should it not do the same?
I agree with people getting their fees based on merit however – a certain standard should be reached e.g. in high school exams to qualify. Likewise we should not be funding ‘BSc boy band science’ or the like.
#4 by Alwyn ap Huw on May 13, 2012 - 8:05 am
There was a time, a long time ago, when I was happy to pay into the general taxation pot for university education because I believed that, despite not having that level of education myself, I benefited from the services of university educated folk like Doctors, Solicitors, etc.
In those days only about 10% of youngsters went to university so paying for their free education and their maintenance grants was not a huge burden on my tax bill. Now , however, with 50% of youngsters going to University and many of them doing degrees which don’t appear to be of common benefit to the whole of society I’m not as happy paying into the pot as I once use to be!
If we want to make University Education affordable again, surely we shouldn’t just be looking at fees!
Shouldn’t we be asking whether so many young people actually need to go to university? And asking if there are better and more practical ways of training young people for working life than a bloated and unaffordable university sector?
#5 by Jeff on May 13, 2012 - 9:46 am
Fully agree Alwyn, great point. Reducing costs by reducing the number of students is something I would be comfortable with. It should be a challenge and a privilege to get into university, irrespective of background.
#6 by Barbarian on May 13, 2012 - 9:00 am
I suggest doing a little research on migrant worker cases brought in the German courts, which subsequently impacted across the EU. The same will happen with the “Scottish granny” loophole. And it has bugger all to do with Westminster.
#7 by Kirsty on May 13, 2012 - 11:11 am
I heard an anecdote this week from a friend who is an academic at St Andrews: there is a concern that there will be an unfair repercussion on potential Scottish students because of English tuition fees.
Basically, Scottish kids who previously would’ve gone to Oxbridge are now going to the ancients in Scotland due to the fees in England, displacing other bright kids who previously would’ve got into St Andrews, Edinburgh etc. Because Scottish Government has fixed the funding for the number of places Scottish universities can provide, there’s no provision for Scottish universities to expand places for Scottish students, to make up for the effect of other Scottish students now choosing not to study in England.
Obviously, Lamont is totally wrong if she thinks giving places to English students is displacing Scottish students. Given the anecdote above, the issue isn’t that simple. Not the Scottish Government’s fault, of course, but I think if the above is true, it needs to be more flexible in its funding settlement for Scottish universities, to enable them to provide more places for any Scottish student caught in this scenario.
As ever, fees are not the answer, but adapting funding, at least in the short term to make up for this effect, might be.
#8 by Paul Cairney on May 13, 2012 - 12:15 pm
If the angle is about Scottish students missing out at St Andrews, then Labour will have missed a trick. The thing to focus on more is what happens at the Universities which will take in relatively/ very few RUK students (i.e. most of them). They would do well to focus on the quality of education that students get when the Scottish Government pays their fees at a relatively low rate and the response of Univerities is to pile-em-high in large lecture theatres and seminar rooms (perhaps ironically, it may only be the intake of a small number of fee-paying new-consumer students that forces Universities to think about how this would be perceived).
#9 by Aidan on May 13, 2012 - 1:30 pm
Where, in either that Telegraph article or in the Fabian speech Johann Lamont actually gave do either say “Labour supports tuition fees”?
#10 by Jeff on May 13, 2012 - 2:31 pm
I’m giving Lamont the benefit of the doubt here really, as I’m assuming she is not so naive as to attack the SNP for its free education policy without adopting an alternative view for the party. This speech looks very much like a stalking horse for a policy shift.
#11 by Aidan on May 13, 2012 - 3:34 pm
Which part of accusing her of reactionary contorted oppositionalism against her better senses, on the basis of something you admit she *hasn’t said*, is”giving her the benefit of the doubt”?
#12 by scottish_skier on May 13, 2012 - 3:47 pm
Given that the Labour party introduced tuition fees and are proponents of them across the bulk of the UK, I could understand why Jeff and others might get the impression that Johann Lamont was potentially going to take the party line on this issue based on her speech. As a voter I personally find it odd that Scottish Labour have policies at odds with UK Labour – it suggests a lack of unity/direction and does seem reactionary. Better Scottish Labour clearly adopt UK labour policy or vice versa to avoid confusion; they are the same party I understand.
#13 by Tris on May 14, 2012 - 11:15 pm
I imagine that Miliband will require that she take that line. It can’t be good for English Labour (which is the one that counts, because it is the one that produces real power for its top people) if English students find their Scottish counterparts paying nothing, while they pay £9000. (I can’t see Labour hauling back on the Tories’ policies.)
But I agree wholeheartedly with Alwyn, above, when he suggests that having more than 50% of the population educated to that level is a mite silly. We still need craftsmen and people with non academic skills.
One thought perhaps, given the feelings of the Scottish people, would be to look at charging some fees for some courses… maybe the ones that we have little need of, whether that be Media Studies or Classical History…. and funding medical, teaching, IT, engineering,etc
#14 by MJL on May 13, 2012 - 1:33 pm
Long overdue. Should never have backed free tuition fees in the first place. Such a policy is neither progressive or fair.
First off let’s start with the myth that at present Students pay nothing. This is entirely false. Unless your parents earn above a threshold (~£20000) you are entitled to ~£5000 a year in student support. The more your parents earn above this threshold, the less of that £5000 you get in support. Now roughly 3/5 of that support is in the form of a loan, that has to be payed back with the rest a non-repayable bursary.
So what you find is that poorer students are at the moment having to go into debt in order to get a university education, while those from better off backgrounds have no debt. Of course their parents are expected to bankroll them but it’s nothing they can’t afford and an advantage that is not afforded to others.
So the idea that students are paying for higher education at the moment is entirely a falsehood.
Secondly, while help in the form of financial support is appreciated, £5000 doesn’t cut it. It works out on a pro-rata basis as being less than the minimum wage. So students are either forced into asking their parents for support (if they can afford to help them) or get a part-time job. Now without going into arguments about working a part-time makes it harder to complete a degree than better off students who don’t have to, the current economic climate had made getting a part-time job very tough. That means that extra sources of income are not open to students from poorer backgrounds making funding a 4-yr degree quite difficult. As it stands the system is set up in a way that makes it harder for poorer students to get a higher education.
Thirdly there is the matter of standards. If universities (and colleges) have less money to spend, that can only mean one thing without a radical restructuring of how universities are run and that means declining standards. Bizarrely at Edinburgh University they are undergoing several renovation projects and new building construction, while staff numbers are being cutback and there is less money spent on teaching.
Lastly, and this is more of a Conservative argument but that doesn’t make it any less true, is that higher education is not a universal service. Only some of the population are rewarded with it. Many of them will have been privately educated, and thanks to that investment will have gained a competitive advantage over the rest of us. So we find ourselves in the perverse situation where workers on low incomes, who can’t afford to send they’re children to private school, are paying taxes so that the children of those who are rich enough to afford private education, then get “free” higher education. Could someone please explain to me in what sense this is fair? We have a situation where the people who do not benefit directly from higher education are being asked to pay for the advantage and privilege of others. That’s not right.
So introduce modest levels of tuition fees. Poorer students are already in debt. Why not share that debt with the better off who pay less? Use the money raised from fees to raise student support and make it less of a financial burden for students from poorer backgrounds to go to university. Use that money, not only to raise the standards of the education we’re currently providing, but to increase student places and give more kids the chance at a better future. Make it so those who can pay more, do pay more. It’s an absolute travesty at the moment, where a lot of not very well off people in our country are paying for advantages that they never got in life, and their children may not get either. That is not progressive and it most certainly is not fair.
#15 by scottish_skier on May 13, 2012 - 3:04 pm
This sounds like centre-right labour thinking? They’ll need that if they are to win some of the 40% right wing vote for Westminster.
You are aware that the more people earn the more tax they pay? Ergo if the argument is that graduates will earn more as a result of their degree, then they will pay more tax. This extra tax more than cover their tuition fees.
You might also find that ‘angry joe from conservativeville’ who does not have a degree is employed by someone with a degree. If that someone did not get their degree in the first place, joe might not have a job. Oops.
Take me. I had my fees paid to get a science degree. My colleagues and I started a specialist consultancy company – something we could not have done without higher eduction. That company now employs 12 people who pay tax while paying a large amount of buiness tax too. So would you say the investment the government made in me was not worth it? They’ve had a hell of a lot more back than they put in already and I’m decades from retirement.
At my place of work, the company trains us and covers the cost of this training. This is very common in successful companies; makes the staff more productive/efficient. Are you suggesting that the government should not adopt the same approach in training its ‘workforce’?
Classic right wing ‘see him – he’s getting a freebie on your taxes’ divisive tactic the whole argument about graduates getting paid more so they should pay for their education. If they get paid more they are already paying more into the system. Engineers, doctors, researchers – the ones that will earn quite well over the course of their lives but will not be particularly ‘rich’. They are the true wealth/job creators and they are the ones that pay the most tax relative to earnings as they’re not rich enough to avoid it.
This quote seems fitting:
“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.”
John Kenneth Galbraith.
#16 by MJL on May 13, 2012 - 9:55 pm
The argument that because a more educated workforce will create a more prosperous nation is not an argument against what I’ve said. If you took the whole thing in instead of selecting the bits you don’t like, you may have got that.
You say graduates create more jobs. I agree with you. That’s why I’d like us to charge to tuition fees to create MORE graduates. Create more opportunity. Not just hand out a freebie to a lucky select few.
#17 by Don McC on May 13, 2012 - 3:07 pm
So because students from poorer backgrounds will need to take on debt to support themselves, we should force everyone to take on debt by removing free eduction? Totally ludicrous argument. If parents can afford to shell out 5 grand to support their offspring, they will, in the majority of cases, afford an extra few grand to cover the fees as well. Or will you ban parents contributing to their offsprings education next?
To claim free education is a non progressive policy shows which way the wind is blowing for labour supporters. This, along with opposition to council tax freezes and free prescriptions shows that Labour really have lost the mantle as the progressive party in Scotland. Next, they’ll be jumping into coalition with the tories….oh, wait. That’s right, they already have.
I’m not sure if you actually believe what you’re shovelling, MJ, or whether you’re sounding out the general response, as per Jeff’s idea about Lamont’s speech. Either way, Lamont should come out and state, unequivocally, where Scottish Labour now stand on free education.
#18 by Iain Menzies on May 13, 2012 - 7:13 pm
Free education is not a progressive policy.
Unless you want to restrict education provision to the state that is.
Those with money game the system, they get the nice house near a good school.
They pay for private tuition.
Or they go private.
Those with abit of cash dont worry about the quality of education provided by the state because if it isnt up to their standards then they can fill the gap. The poor cant.
So every penny that is spent on ‘wealthy’ kids, for example those who paid to go to private school and get free tuition, is a penny that cant go to those kids form the schemes whos parents cant do much more than wish them well.
But sure you want to favour a policy that restricts social mobility you can, its a free, if not very socially mobile, country.
#19 by scottish_skier on May 13, 2012 - 8:39 pm
I’m confused. I thought that people who earned more paid more tax and that tax was used to help those less well off, e.g. by paying for the university education of the latter’s children? Is that not the basic principle of socialism? I can understand you being annoyed about the idea of the very rich getting free education but there are not many of them and where do you want to start drawing lines…
If we follow your logic, should we not be making primary and secondary school education chargable unless people are poor so they get a grant? Again, where would we draw lines? ‘Free Schools’ is of course the first steps in privatisation of this sector.
Fees = education privatisation. I thought that was obvious, I mean its the first thing the Tories did when they took power; upped the fees to 9k making them the third highest in the world. That’s not something to be proud of.
#20 by Iain Menzies on May 14, 2012 - 1:11 am
See from your first para i think you think i might be a socialist.
I assume you get that from my annoyance that those who will pay for a private primary and secondary education still get a free university education.
Thing is im not a socialist.
Indeed I am one of those evil tories…….at which point i expect you to stop reading.
Also if you follow my logic you wont get anywhere near charging for primary/secondary education. On account of the point i was making is that if you ARE paying for that already (and not by taxation) then you SHOULD be paying for university. Its not complicated.
The basic point of university is that if you can get in, you should get in, dependant on availability of places.
Fees shouldnt be a barrier to that, even at £9k. So long as there is a loan/grant system in place that assesses need. I knew people at uni whos parents had serious money who never had a worry at all.
And then there were those people who had to get by, year on year, on nothing but the student loan, unless they could get a part time job, which as often as not they couldnt.
When we waste money on people who dont need it, we deny those who really do need it, the poorest in society, the resources they need to do it.
One friend of mine, whos parents were in no position to help him, had to take a year out twice because he couldnt get a part time job that gave him enough extra to live on without spending so much time working that he couldnt do his degree.
If you think thats right, and socialist than all well and good, but i want no part of it.
#21 by scottish_skier on May 14, 2012 - 8:20 pm
Why should I stop reading if you happen to be of right-wing leanings? I’m neither right wing nor left wing; both are completely unworkable as history teaches us. If you look at economic disaster stories it was governments too far to the left or too far to the right that led countries there – ideology does not make good governance. I consider each policy on merit, be that a right or a left, a liberal or authoritarian one, and the net result is I end up somewhere in the middle; a socially liberal economic centrist might best describe me.
I see where you are coming from in terms of people’s ability to pay vs those who do not, but you seem to be missing my basic point.
What is the difference between primary, secondary and higher education? Why should fees be charged for degree level but not for secondary school or primary school? At PhD level a student is funded based on merit; questions are not asked about how rich their parents are. Do you think they should be? Do you suggest I find out how much one of my PhD student’s parents are earning and if it is a lot, reduce their stipend/charge them fees? Fees at undergraduate level are introducing a gap in the education system which does not discriminate on merit, but on ability to pay. Do you think it will remain 9k? Higher education is being privatised and if you go down that road then long-term the poor will lose out at the expense of the rich. Just look at the USA…
I am of the opinion that people should be able to progress to the highest level possible based on merit, not on ability to pay. However, when we start introducing rules – as you suggest – that are not based on merit but some sort of assessment of their/their families ability to pay, we introduce all sorts of complexities. How to measure ability to pay? Combined parent salary or based on the highest? At what level is university unaffordable for them to pay for 1, 2, 3 children? Should we make decisions on whether their younger children might attend university in a few years so adding additional financial burden? What if they have disabled children or relatives needing a lot of care? Hmm, seems to me we are starting to spend a lot of money here and chances are we’ll get it ‘wrong’ a lot of the time…
And anyway, why it is the parents that should pay? It is not them getting a degree, nor is it them who will benefit from the degree specifically. Who benefits? Well the recipient, the government and other citizens. The person getting the education is a future (or current) worker/wealth generator of Scotland Ltd, Earth, The Milky Way, The Universe. Do you think it a bad idea that Scotland Ltd pays to educate its workforce? That is normal business practice in successful companies – companies that do not train their workforce to be productive fail.
I believe education should be a universal benefit that discriminates only on the technical merit of the recipient to receive that benefit. Education is after all the cornerstone of civilisation. I do agree that we need certain standards to be met academically for someone to be funded, just as is the case for PhD level. Likewise we should focus funding on training that is considered a priority for the success of the country.
I’ll finish by saying that charging for education also devalues it. Bob asks Stu ‘So how much did you pay for your degree?’…. The higher the charge, the more worthless the degree becomes academically. Right now at my institution we face this very problem emerging. We have a lot of students paying large fees to study for an MSc course. How can we fail them? They are paying very large amounts of money to purchase something of value. Can we take their own money and not give them what they have purchased? We have the university pushing us to take expand the number of students taking courses while putting pressure on us to have these students all pass their exams so the institute looks good and the cash keeps coming in. If they were funded by the state based on merit, then letting them go if they could not perform would not be a problem and we could use the remaining unspent state cash to take on other students. A loss at times yes, but better than a slow erosion of standards in the quest for ever more money.
Oh, and I wouldn’t say Tories are by default evil, just economically disastrous if allowed to run the country. But then the same applies for communists….
#22 by MJL on May 13, 2012 - 10:00 pm
No it really isn’t “ludicrous”. It’s opportunity that matters, why is that such a scandal? Why is that somehow a betrayal of Labour values?
I notice you don’t actually supply any detailed rebuttal of my arguments just a stream of ad nauseum. Just because it’s free doesn’t make it progressive, that makes it populist. There is a difference.
#23 by Alwyn ap Huw on May 14, 2012 - 3:09 am
I can afford private healthcare, and if I choose to avail myself of that option I can argue that I am not “jumping the queue” , I am actually vacating a place in the state queue for somebody who is less fortunate than myself – and it appears from your argument that if I took out that private healthcare option I would be “progressive” and those of who insist on a cradle to grave healthcare system for all regardless of wealth are “regressive” – Very New Labour!
#24 by Barbarian on May 13, 2012 - 6:21 pm
University education is not a guarantee of successful employment. I worked in graduate recruitment from the commericial side for a few years, and did rather well getting people jobs. If you have free education it must be targetted those on academic merit alone, rather than ability to pay. And that means a reduction in numbers.
And some people here really need to research the full facts on student loans, grants and especially repayment before going off on a rant.
#25 by Shuna on May 13, 2012 - 11:18 pm
University education in Scotland is not free.
We may not pay fees, but the cost of accommodation and living is not cheap. We have 2 university students that we are supporting. Thankfully we have been saving for this since they were born (aspirational parents or what?). We are fortunate to be able to afford this. Had we not saved we would have struggled. And we saved at a time when money was tight and on one income. Not everyone is able to or plans ahead in the way we did.
To those who have little the cost of Uni fees that we see over the border must seem prohibitive. To be saddled with that level of debt when we are talking sums of cash that sound like a fortune must be very scary.
The reality is that we currently fork out about £1000 a month in rent and living costs and both our kids work part time as well as study. We are a couple with a decent joint income. Because of funding we also had to pay our daughters fees this year (she took the HND route to Uni). It’s been tight for us. How less well off families would cope I have no idea.
I am really not sure what the solution is but we have to keep routes into higher education open to all.
#26 by Doug Daniel on May 14, 2012 - 9:07 am
I just want to highlight a fallacy in that Telegraph article:
“Universities have insisted the number of places for Scottish students will be protected, but the most recent official figures show the number of applications from north of the Border is down by 761 compared to the same time last year.
In comparison, the number of applications by fee-paying foreigners has increased by more than a fifth to 2,163. It also emerged last month that Edinburgh University has offered more than double the number of places it did last year to English students.”
This is meant to show that SNP policy is leading to less Scots being accepted into Scottish universities. However, all it really shows is that, this year, 761 fewer Scots decided to apply for university than last year. That doesn’t prove less are being accepted, it just means less want to go to university in the first place. Not only that, but on its own, this statistic is completely irrelevant. Was last year an all-time high for applications? Are there 761 extra college applications? Did 761 fewer Scots leave school this year? Are 761 more Scots going straight into a job than last year?
The second part merely highlights that a Scottish university education continues to be much sought-after, which is a good thing. Edinburgh has offered more than double its places to English students than last year? Well, with less Scots applying, there’s presumably more spaces to fill.
Perfect example of a newspaper choosing statistics to prove nothing. I trust I wasn’t the only one to pick up on this?
#27 by Doug Daniel on May 14, 2012 - 9:58 am
Incidentally, there are no negatives to helping people better themselves, which is what university does. We need to stop thinking universities are factories for churning out people ready to slot right into the workforce. That’s not what a university education does, and it’s not what it’s for. If all we care about is preparing people for entering the workforce, then we might as well scrap universities altogether and get companies to offer apprenticeships to people instead. After all, almost everything I use at my work as a software developer was learned through work – university really just gave me the theory and developed my way of thinking.
This view that your degree must prepare you for the working world makes it little more than a glorified training programme, only the companies you work for didn’t have to pay for that training – pretty good swizz, eh? If this is all a degree is, then we should be forcing businesses to pay for degrees. They should be anyway, because they benefit enormously from an educated population. Not just their own workers, but the people who buy their services too. For example, a software company not only benefits from the university educations of its workers which it didn’t have to pay for, but it also benefits from the fact that graduates tend to get higher wages, meaning more disposable income, and more people to buy their products.
But the reality is that an educated populace is good for more than just businesses. You won’t find many graduates in the dock for burglary, for example. The bridges we use to get us from A to B are designed by people with civil and structural engineering degrees. Our buildings are designed by people with architecture degrees. Our software systems are created by people with software engineering degrees. Our children are taught by people with teaching degrees. We’re kept healthy by people with medical and nursing degrees.
Every man, woman and child living in this country benefits from our universities, directly or indirectly. Education is the path towards a better life individually, and it leads to a better world for everyone. We should not obstruct that by placing a price on further education. University needs to be based on ability to learn, not ability to pay, and I don’t care how small a fee it is you charge, the fact is any sort of fee is a barrier to some people.
And a graduate tax is just as wrong. If a person truly has benefited financially from their degree, then they will pay more income tax. If they haven’t, then is it fair to make them pay an extra tax? A graduate tax implies university educations only benefit those who embark on them. This is just wrong, and should be resisted. Rather than pointing at graduates and saying “see them? They’re getting more money and they were subsidised by you, Mr Non-Graduate”, why don’t we just extol the virtues of a university-educated populace and increase the higher bands of income tax? I could certainly afford to pay more than I already do.
#28 by BM on May 14, 2012 - 11:30 am
Glad someone has finally said this.
#29 by Iain Menzies on May 14, 2012 - 2:08 pm
If you can, and think you should, pay more in tax, well nothing is stopping you.
Im sure if you spend 5 minutes on the treasury website you will find out how it is you give more of your money to HMG.
#30 by scottish_skier on May 14, 2012 - 8:37 pm
Could not agree more.
#31 by Danny on May 14, 2012 - 2:21 pm
Jeff, the “granny loophole” you alluded to does not exist.
The free tuition is not for Scottish students, it’s for students who have lived in Scotland for 3 years immediately prior to the beginning of their degree.
So if an English student wanted to not pay tuition fees they’d need to move North of the border 3 years before applying.
#32 by GMcM on May 14, 2012 - 3:14 pm
Here’s a wee scenario which I think descibes the difference between the SNP and previous Labour admins policies on HE funding.
You have two ropes hanging off the edge of a cliff. On each rope you have ten people (each represents the deciles of socio-economic backgrounds in Scotland).
Now both the SNP and the Labour ropes are fastened in place at the top of the cliff by a buckle (taxpayers money).
There the similarities end.
At the top of the cliff gathered around one rope are the SNP. As the person near the top climbs the educational rope to reach the better place he/she is congratulated on their success and pointed toward the path to their future. Now the rope is under great strain (financial competition from our neighbours) and so the SNP pay for a bigger buckle through taxpayer funding. The next person makes it up quite easily too and as more people ascend the rope the harder it is. The further down the rope you start the more effort it takes to reach the top. The SNP congratulate all those who make it and point them to their future, but no matter how much money they throw at buckles to secure the educational rope the same opportunity exists for people lower down the rope to reach the top.
Now at the other rope….
Same scenario – the rope is fastened by a buckle and there’s Labour waiting to congratulate those who climb to the top.
The difference here is what makes the graduate endowment a progressive policy compared to the SNP policy.
As each person reaches the top they are congratulated and before pointed onwards and upwards they are asked to stop for a second, look back at those still on the rope and pull the rope up a little. They do so and the rope is re-fastened a little further up.
As more people ascend, more of the rope is pulled up behind them and the distance those at the bottom have to climb is shortened.
This means there is a greater opportunity for those nearer the bottom to climb to the top.
So there you have it – a policy of HE funded by taxpayers where the successful move on and don’t look back against a policy where those who succeed are asked to help those behind them and give them a helping hand.
I know what I would prefer to see called a socialist policy.
(I should actually say that the additional buckle the SNP put in place is the FE buckle which has been replaced by a relic that will struggle to hold the weight it is required to).
#33 by Roll on Sausage on May 14, 2012 - 7:37 pm
What nobody seems to have satisfactorily explained with respect to no fees in Scotland relates to those (many) graduates who have to leave Scotland to find work. What about them?
Effectively, Scottish taxpayers are having to fork out massive amounts of money to educate these graduates. But, at the same time, these Scottish taxpayers they don’t receive the benefit of their investment because those graduates take their skills to benefit the taxpayers and economy of another country, whether it be England, Canada, Germany or Australia.
Don’t get me wrong, it is not the fault of these graduates who have to leave Scotland to utilise their skills effectively. It is the fault of politicians (of all political hues) and others, who have systematically failed to create the conditions for there to be a vibrant and sustainable economy in Scotland that would absorb the number of graduates we produce year on year.
I also appreciate that graduate emigration is less of a problem nowadays than it once was – but Scotland does export more graduates compared to most other countries and I don’t really see that changing any time soon.