Another quick guest post from our pal Aidan Skinner. Commenters, like post authors, are encouraged to play the ball.
Mike Russell yesterday announced that students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland would have to pay fees of up to £9000 per year from 2013-2014 (there seems to be some muddle about what the position is on 2012-2013, no cap at all?). While clearly part of the SNP plan to plug the funding gap between Scottish universities this may not bring the level of income that he hopes – there was a 15% drop in the number of university students coming from England last year, presumably this move will cause those numbers to go off a cliff. But, for the sake of argument let’s assume that this does work as planned and our universities get a non-trivial amount of funding from it.
As soon as Scotland becomes independent it all disappears. Under EU rules we can’t charge EU students more than we charge Scottish students. There’s an exemption for students from within the member state that allows us to charge non-Scottish UK students but, after independence, they won’t be part of the same EU member state anymore. We can’t apply a quota to EU students, they have to be given access to Scottish institutions on the same terms as Scots. While the numbers are currently relatively low, approximately 16,000 at the moment, that still costs the Scottish government £75m each year. So we’ll either have to a) charge Scottish and EU students for university or b) offer free education for everyone through general taxation.
Now, much as I dislike the idea of tuition fees, I really don’t see how option b is feasible. We’d have a massive influx of students from rUK bringing no money with them.
So the logical conclusion is presumably that, post independence, the SNP would bring in tuition fees for all Scottish students. “Tuition Free with the SNP” becomes “Tuition Free with the SNP (until we achieve our primary goal, at which point you get Tuition Fees)!”.
Or is there a secret alternative plan?
HT to loveandgarbage for this idea.
#1 by DougtheDug on June 30, 2011 - 12:36 pm
Of course Aidan, this post-independence scenario assumes that Scotland will have the same or less money than it has now.
Are you saying the Conservative Government we have now is as good as it’s going to get?
#2 by James on June 30, 2011 - 12:37 pm
Surely, post-independence, the amount of money Scotland has won’t be determined by any UK Government?!
#3 by DougtheDug on June 30, 2011 - 1:42 pm
A very astute point to raise James but not one I made.
Why does Aidan assume that an independent Scotland could not fund free university education?
The idea that hordes of rUK students coming over the border will cost millions is just scaremongering. The EU requires that the host country treats all EU students the same as its own as regards course fees but the host country has no responsibility for maintenance loans, grants or any other financial assistance and as far as I’m aware the English system does not fund English students studying outside the current UK with either loans or grants.
#4 by Daniel J on June 30, 2011 - 2:34 pm
I’m assuming that once Salmond indulges in cutting corporation tax there will be a sizeable hole…
#5 by Aidan Skinner on June 30, 2011 - 3:02 pm
It’s not scaremongering, the SNP are using those English students to fund the universities. That simply won’t be possible post independence.
#6 by DougtheDug on June 30, 2011 - 3:55 pm
Is the assumption here that Scotland will need English student fees to fund its universities post-independence?
#7 by James on June 30, 2011 - 3:59 pm
It’s an income stream which the SNP plan to bring in for universities, and one which EU law might make it hard to persist with in the event of independence, thus leaving a hole in the finances.
tl;dr version: yes.
#8 by DougtheDug on June 30, 2011 - 4:14 pm
Again the assumption here is that Scotland post-independence will not have any additional sources of revenue available to fund any gaps left by the removal of fees for English Students.
#9 by James on June 30, 2011 - 4:20 pm
From, say, reduced corporation tax?
#10 by Rev. S. Campbell on June 30, 2011 - 9:11 pm
Do you imagine that the purpose of reducing corporation tax is to reduce the overall tax take? Because that would be rather silly, no?
#11 by James on July 1, 2011 - 10:46 am
I think the purpose is to keep big business on side for independence. But the outcome will be to reduce the overall tax take.
#12 by Rev. S. Campbell on July 1, 2011 - 2:11 pm
That’s the exact opposite of the point. The idea of reducing corporation tax is to generate investment and job creation, which then compensate for the lower rate by in fact generating *more* income, both from the new or expanded company paying tax on increased profits, and from workers paying tax rather than claiming benefits.
#13 by James on July 1, 2011 - 3:05 pm
If the logic is that every penny we cut from it makes us better off, which is utterly unproven, and in fact Ireland’s example suggests the exact opposite, why not call for it to be abolished so we can reap the massive magical benefits?
#14 by Aidan Skinner on July 1, 2011 - 3:48 pm
In fairness, in neo-classical economics cutting corporation tax can increase revenues if you’re in the right hand part of the laffer curve. But that depends on current rates of corporation tax acting as a major disincentive to investment.
Is there evidence of what the elasticity of corporation tax is in the UK? Yes. It’s fairly well studied, eg. page 18 here: http://ideas.repec.org/p/btx/wpaper/0712.html
Basically what the evidence says is that UK corporation tax is currently well within the left hand part of the laffer curve where tax elasticity is essentially 1. If your reduce corporation tax by 1%, you get a 1% fall in revenue. If you increase corporation tax by 1%, you get a 1% increase in revenue.
Sorry to be so very, very, very dull and uncouth as to bring facts into this.
#15 by Rev. S. Campbell on July 1, 2011 - 4:21 pm
If you reduce it *in the UK*, yes. But that’s not what the SNP want to do, is it?
#16 by Aidan Skinner on July 3, 2011 - 4:47 pm
Rev, if you have evidence that corporation tax elasticity in Scotland is any different from that of the UK as a whole please cite it or, as they say, haud yer whist.
#17 by Rev. S. Campbell on July 4, 2011 - 1:11 pm
You miss my point. The SNP want to make Scottish corporation tax *lower than that in other parts of the UK*, therefore creating an incentive for new and existing companies to move to Scotland. You may wish to debate the morality of that, but economically it’s a completely different proposition to what you’re talking about.
#18 by Aidan Skinner on June 30, 2011 - 1:40 pm
So, two questions: post independence, you’re saying we will have enough money to provide free university education for all the EU (including rUK) students that come here?
Secondly, if it is possible, the rationale for doing so is?
#19 by DougtheDug on June 30, 2011 - 2:21 pm
“So, two questions: post independence, you’re saying we will have enough money to provide free university education for all the EU (including rUK) students that come here?”
It all depends on the numbers which is dependent on whether or not the student’s country is willing to provide loans and grants to the student when they are outside the country as Scotland is not liable for these.
If the numbers become too great Scotland could charge a registration/administration fee like the Irish but make it of several thousand and refund it through a maintenance grant paid to Scots. Scotland is only liable for the course fees in respect of EU students.
The rationale would be that if the cost isn’t too great it’s worth it to provide free education for Scots.
#20 by Aidan Skinner on June 30, 2011 - 3:04 pm
We already spend £75m, just short of 10% of the entire HE budget, paying for EU students. There was double that number of English students in 2011, and they had to pay tuition fees.
If that number just stays the same we’ll be paying a third of our HE budget on non-Scottish students.
#21 by Indy on June 30, 2011 - 3:41 pm
No we won’t be able to rovide free univesity education for unlimited numbers of EU students that come here. But we won’t be the only EU country which does not charge tuition fees -so we will look at what strategies those other countries have adopted and see what we can learn from them. And if we need to develop new strategies then we will do that.
But we will do is start from the basis that we want to live in a country where access to university education is free. That doesn’t mean it is universally free of course – people already have to pay fees for second and third degrees most of the time. But we effectively look at a first degree almost as an extension of school education. No-one suggets that school students whose parents can afford it should be charged fees for sitting their Highers and on the same basis we think that students who are capable of continuing their education to degree level should be able to do that.
Your position appears to be that because there is a different attitude south of the border – and because that different attitude creates some difficulties – we should just give up and adopt the same approach even though we don’t agree with it. That is rather feeble if you don’t mind me saying so. People generally elect governments to solve problems and overcome challenges, not to succumb to them.
Congtatulations on avoiding saying that you agree with free access to higher eductaion “in principle” but you just don’t think it is feasible by the way. Because of the very nature of a principle is that you stick to it and don’t just bend with the wind.
#22 by Aidan Skinner on June 30, 2011 - 4:00 pm
My point is really that the SNP are funding higher education by taking advantage of the different attitude south of the border by charging full-cost fees to rUK students. That won’t be possible post independence.
Other EU countries tend to charge low-ish tuition fees, but also have lower enrollment rates so it costs less.
I don’t agree that free higher education is a fundamental right. I think the principle should be that everyone has access to the appropriate form of education.
But that’s not the same thing and I accept that there are real choices to be made about providing a sufficient quantity of quality university places, appropriate means of supporting people financially while studying there and other calls on the education budget such as FE colleges and vocational qualifications.
#23 by Indy on June 30, 2011 - 4:22 pm
We are funding higher education the best way that we can in the circumstances that we are in and using the policy levers we can control.
Clearly, with independence, circumstances will change and we will have much greater control than we do now.
It is fair enough if you don’t agree with free access to higher education to make that case but that is a somewhat different argument to the one you have actually made.
#24 by Aidan Skinner on June 30, 2011 - 11:06 pm
I wasn’t attempting to make a point about free access to higher education as a point of principle – that’s a total side issue, let’s leave it there.
I was pointing out that the current plan for funding higher education has a big plank that cannot possibly be maintained post-independence. The answer to this seems to be “don’t worry about it, in a post-independence Scotland Scotland will be independent”.
Which is true, but doesn’t really answer the question in any meaningful way.
#25 by Alec Macph on June 30, 2011 - 12:53 pm
Given that this wasn’t considered when Russell was suggesting ‘following’ [1] the Irish model, I’ll wait until a definite answer has been given before I accept that legal challenges won’t be raised.
Such as , how is an England domiciled student defined? Will this extend to Wales domiciled students?
But, yes, this should be pressed as a Cleggish moment. Scottish students attended the protests in London, so you can guarantee they have a better sense of loyalty than Salmond.
And I say this as someone who largely approves of student fees in the current climate which won’t be offset by continuing to exempt the majority of students at Scottish institutions from them.
An independent Scotland’s taking on her proportion of the national debt would make this a moot point.
~alec
[1] In the sense that what was being proposed wasn’t like the Irish model
#26 by Rev. S. Campbell on June 30, 2011 - 9:21 pm
“An independent Scotland’s taking on her proportion of the national debt would make this a moot point.”
Er, how? Assuming Scotland did take on a share of the debt – and that’s by no means a certainty – how would it be any different to every other country in the West that runs a budget deficit, ie all of them?
#27 by Alec Macph on June 30, 2011 - 1:00 pm
Soz, Aidan not Adrian.
#28 by Angus McLellan on June 30, 2011 - 1:49 pm
Perhaps we should inject some facts into the debate? That’ll be a job for Google.
In Austria, the government website HELP.gv.at states that fees for Austrian & EU students are around 360 Euro a term, say 1000 Euro a year. The website of DAAD, the German Academic Exchange Service, tells us that fees are typically around 500 Euro a term for undergraduate degrees, so around 1500 Euro a year. In Belgium students pay a registration fee and tuition fee, combined cost around 1500 Euro a year. French tuition fees for undergraduate degrees are very low and there aren’t any fees for EEA students in Denmark or Sweden. In Ireland, tuition fees are paid by the state and the only charge is a 2000 Euro annual registration fee.
Only in the Netherlands of the countries I looked at do tuition fees in some cases approach English levels, although for many courses they are at German levels.
Unless I’m missing the point somehow, I think we’d be forced to conclude that, as is so often the case, everybody is out of step except John Bull. How does Ireland cope with the vast influx of English students in search of low-cost degrees, or Denmark, or Sweden? And if there is no great tidal wave of English students flooding those countries, why exactly should there be one in Scotland?
#29 by James on June 30, 2011 - 2:13 pm
Er, because there’s always been lots of cross-border studying, and because we speak the same language. Agree about the out-of-step-ness being with the UK govt. though.
#30 by Angus McLellan on June 30, 2011 - 4:03 pm
I feel that you’re teetering on the edge of the exceptionalism trap that Aidan fell into. Languages often straddle state frontiers in Europe and so on.
And in Aidan’s hypothetical future, if we can take studies of Czech-Slovak trade patterns as being at all relevant, the “mental distance” between England and Scotland may increase and increase rapidly. (Or maybe not. There is a study out there by Fidrmuc and Fidrmuc called ‘Disintegration and Trade’ that Google will find for you which is worth a look.) And it would be very useful indeed for would-be fortune tellers to know how the number of Slovak students studying at the Charles University in Prague – if not the most prestigious university in the old Czechoslovakia then the oldest and the only one I could name without guessing – changed after the Velvet Divorce.
Whatever the evidence from elsewhere may be, it is not necessary that Scotland should be perceived as being as foreign as France by English students – which is never likely to happen on grounds of language and culture – for Aidan’s argument to be rendered suspect, but only that it should be comparable to the way that Ireland is seen today.
#31 by Aidan Skinner on June 30, 2011 - 4:35 pm
You’re forgetting that there’s also a big differential in the level of fees, it’s not just a cultural issue. I don’t think I’m relying on any exceptionalism here.
And even if there isn’t a big change in the number of people from rUK coming here, even if it stays the same, that removes a big source of funding the SNP just brought in and means we spend 1/3rd of our HE budget on non-Scots students. That’s surely something that would need to be addressed…
#32 by Rev. S. Campbell on June 30, 2011 - 9:15 pm
Last I checked we speak the same language as Ireland too.
#33 by Aidan Skinner on June 30, 2011 - 3:17 pm
There were 30,000 English students paying fees in Scotland in 2010. Those fees are being ramped up and the money used to plug the funding gap, which can’t happen after independence. That’s the problem I’m trying to get at.
#34 by Angus McLellan on June 30, 2011 - 7:06 pm
English universities get to increase fees and as a consequence Scottish universities are complaining. Scottish universities have the same money as before, adequate or not, but now instead of a 67 million shortfall the Guardian reports that universities claim a 200 million shortfall. How does that work again? Are Scottish universities really only adequately funded if they have the same money as English ones? That doesn’t make any sense to me.
I’m not defending free university places for all. I share Tom Harris’s view expressed on LabourHame that it is very hard to justify when essential services are being squeezed. But I am deeply skeptical as to many of the claims being made about costs, and find many of the related arguments being made to be unconvincing. Does anyone seriously think that EU students are coming to study in Scotland, at considerable trouble and expense, just to save a couple of thousand Euro a year, at most, in fees at home?
An alternative explanation would be that more EU students may be coming to Scotland because England is now too expensive for many seeking to study in an anglophone country. If so, that would suggest that the problem doesn’t lie with decisions taken in Scotland, which is following a conventional enough policy in providing free university education, but with those taken in the one country in Western Europe whose government doesn’t follow the standard model.
#35 by Steve on June 30, 2011 - 1:50 pm
Genuine question – would Scotland be allowed to introduce fees (lets’s say of up to £9K for argument’s sake) but introduce full grants for “Scottish” students to pay those fees, thereby allowing them to charge fees to students from rUK and Europe and also allowing Scottish students more choice of where they study?
#36 by Daniel J on June 30, 2011 - 2:36 pm
I believe there is definitely scope for this. For example it would be possible to charge Scottish students tuition fees and then have extremely generous student support for Scottish residents. It would be against the spirit of EU law but I’m not sure if it would be illegal.
#37 by Steve on June 30, 2011 - 3:08 pm
Daniel, if Scotland gave the same financial support to Scottish students regardless of where they studied in the world, then I don’t think it would be against the spirit of EU law.
The principle would be that Scottish universities charge fees to all their Students equally, and the Scottish Government gives the same financial assistance to students from Scotland regardless of where they study.
Seems fair to me.
#38 by Nconway on June 30, 2011 - 2:03 pm
The Republic of Ireland came to an agreement with the EU so that they could charge fees to EU students.
#39 by Aidan Skinner on June 30, 2011 - 3:18 pm
Only a relatively small admin fee, they don’t pay tuition fees.
#40 by Rev. S. Campbell on June 30, 2011 - 9:18 pm
This “relatively small admin fee” is roughly the same as what Scottish universities currently charge English students per year now. So it’s not THAT small.
#41 by Alec Macph on June 30, 2011 - 2:33 pm
Nconway, that’s exactly the pickle I was referring to above. The Irish model – of nominally free fees, but charging for paper and room rentals and so on – were means tested to include the better part of _domestic_ students as well.
The desire by Russell to exempt Scotland domiciled students whilst charging EU students was its downfall.
Angus, this aint another opportunity for a boorish sideswipe at “John Bull”. Cursory Googles can give any number of facts which present a biased view of the situation when looked at separately.
Undergraduate insitutitions on the Continent generally are not on the same level as those in Britain for the reasons you think are worth emulating, as well as others. Off-the-top of my head, there are none in the top 50 according to the Jiao Tong ranking system (compared to almost a dozen in the UK, none of which are in Scotland) and only one or two in the top 60.
~alec
#42 by Angus McLellan on July 1, 2011 - 5:01 pm
The UK government have the right and perhaps the duty to impose fees if they think believe that is the proper thing to do. So I’m not thinking that someone in Westminster intended that Scotland should be a more attractive destination for European students but unintended consequences are commonplace.
As for the rest, you’re putting words in my mouth. But you are right insofar as I am not going to lose much sleep over the ranking of Scottish universities on this or that list of arbitrary criteria. And it would seem rather difficult to argue the case that universities in Sweden or Germany or France are not fit for purpose because they do not hire many potential Fields Medal winners.
#43 by Alec Macph on June 30, 2011 - 2:35 pm
>> HT to loveandgarbage for this idea.
Trying to avoid doing a Johann Hari, eh?
#44 by NoOffenceAlan on June 30, 2011 - 2:40 pm
Type your comment here
Good point, Steve – a ‘voucher’ system. I suppose the legal challenge then would be what if the student wanted to ‘spend’ their grant outwith Scotland?
#45 by Steve on June 30, 2011 - 3:03 pm
I’d not have a problem with them being allowed to spend the voucher outside Scotland, it might even save Scottish taxpayers money if they went to England to do a three year degree for example.
I don’t like the idea of Scottish students being put off from applying to the university of their choice (whether it’s in England or elsewhere) simply because they’ll get their fees paid if they study in Scotland but nowhere else.
#46 by Alec Macph on June 30, 2011 - 3:35 pm
Why not also offer housing benefit to claimants who want to live in another country? One point of subsidizing fees is that it ensures employment for Scottish university staff.
~alec
#47 by Steve on June 30, 2011 - 4:28 pm
I’m a dad, and if my daughter wants to go to uni in Scotland, I’ll do all I can to support her financially. If she chooses to study in London, I’m hardly going to say “You’re on your own, I’m not supporting you.â€
I think we all as a society should act in the same way. We should all decide collectively that wherever our kids want to study we’ll support them, because they are our kids.
That’s why I think the SG should give a grant to Scottish students to pay their tuition fees wherever they study.
If we could afford to do the same for the rest of the world’s kids, I’d be up for that too. But we can’t.
#48 by Dr William Reynolds on June 30, 2011 - 5:13 pm
In spite of the league tables of University prestige,I rather think that many countries,including Finland, offer rather good education to students.The argument about who has the best Univeresities,in any case,is irrelevant to this debate.
I do support the idea that education is about ability to learn,not the ability to pay.Any independent nation can decide,if it wishes,to ensure that all who are able, have access to education.Finland offers free education to all of its citizens,and foreigners.What an independent country views as a priority to spend its resouces on, is its affair.A future independent Scotland would have more resources than Finland,and could (like the Finns) support free education for citizebs and foreigners,should the politicians of the day choose to do so.
#49 by Aidan Skinner on June 30, 2011 - 11:11 pm
It could. We would have to pay Finnish levels of taxes to do so though. I’d be fine with that. If that’s the SNPs plan, why not use the post-Calman tax powers to so? Why temporarily charge rUK students such high fees in the interim?
#50 by Indy on July 1, 2011 - 6:09 pm
See my earlier anser. We are making use of the policy levers available to us in our current situation. When that situation changes we will adapt. As we have adapted to the changes in policy south of the border.
#51 by Aidan Skinner on July 3, 2011 - 4:48 pm
You didn’t (and still haven’t) provided an answer though. Just “it’ll be be different because we’ll be independent”.
How will it be different? What new levers will you pull in what way?
#52 by Alec Macph on June 30, 2011 - 6:22 pm
Except you wouldn’t be doing much under the system you’re calling for. You’re expecting the State to step in and fund this paternal love.
She not you would be paying for the fees, and would be doing so over years and decades. Any financial contributions which would come from you would be pocket money and housekeeping, just as you would if she were in Scotland.
See how you’re speaking for _all_ Scottish parents? Even the ones who would disagree with you. As well as Scots without kids.
One day the Left will learn to speak about people as individuals, and not assume they have a direct line to everyone’s wishes.
Children already have had primary and secondary education paid for. Where does your generosity – made possible by others – end? Funding post-grads or PhDs?
I see how you’ve doged the question about housing benefit for people wanting to live abroad.
And I think I should have a date with Maria Sharapova. It aint going to happen.
Ah, right. You want to be a nice person and avoid all the tough decisions. Virtue without responsibility.
You could start with your fellow citizens in the UK.
~alec
#53 by Steve on July 1, 2011 - 10:38 am
I’m expecting the state, which I help fund with my taxes to give everyone a similar chance yes, not just those of us who can afford it.
You seem to be implying that I shouldn’t be allowed to hold policy ideas that affect more people than just me, which is bizarre. Clearly I don’t want to force a system on an unwilling electorate, but I do want to argue for all of our school leavers having a roughly equal chance at getting the university place of their choice regardless of the income of their family, and regardless of where they want to study. If a majority want this then those who want their children to be burdened with thousands of pounds of debt will just have to put up with them getting their education for free, they’ll get over it.
I am pretty sure we could afford to pay the fees for any Scottish student choosing to study in rUK if we wanted to, it’s not about virtue without responsibility, it’s about priorities.
Your last comment seems to suggest you think we should offer to pay the fees of of English students wanting to study in Scotland, but not Scottish students wanting to study in England. Why do you think that?
Housing benefit is different to university funding, I don’t think it’s a good analogy, but in answer to your question, no, I don’t think we should pay people to move to England who aren’t going there to work or study. Investing in their future through funding their education is completely different to that though.
#54 by Robert D. Knight on June 30, 2011 - 6:35 pm
This scenario only works if you imagine that the Scottish Government in an independent Scotland would be totally devoid of any creativity, original thought or problem solving capabilities.
Solution: don’t vote Labour.
Problem solved.
#55 by Alec Macph on June 30, 2011 - 6:53 pm
Yeah, Robert! That worked at the General Election!
And that assumes one would be able to do things, as opposed to wish really hard. Ah-ha! You didn’t think of that, did you?
I really wish those who blather on about “negativity” – soon to be replaced by the new catchphrase “vested interests” – would cotton onto the fact that otherwise empty phrases like this are just as negative.
Change is not intrinsically good.
~alec
#56 by Alec Macph on June 30, 2011 - 7:33 pm
Gotta love comments like this. What do compilers of the Jiao Tong system know? It’s only considered an industry benchmark across the globe. I mean, this is about SCOTLAND.
It’s rather more than prestige… it’s about ability to attract funding, cutting-edge research, status “on the world stage”. In fact, pretty much everything Salmond says he wants for Scottish universities.
So, if you had a choice between the University of Wales and Oxford University – all expenses paid in both – you’d be torn between the two?
Mostly the ones who speak Finnish and/or Swedish. Similar would apply for other regional EU universities.
British universities, because of their Anglophone delivery medium, are more likely to attract foreign domiciled applicants.
No it’s not, for reasons I explained above.
That’s good because the means of funding tertiary education which is under discussion will result in repayments over an extended period, starting only when a bottom-level salary has been reached.
Parity of access will – in theory at least – remain. It’s not as with tuition fees for public schools.
Why must you compare Scotland to other countries? Don’t you think she’s good enough on her own terms?
Also, I encounter many doctors – PhDs and medical doctors – on blogs. You perhaps are the first who feels the need to remind others of his status through choice of posting handle.
~alec
#57 by A Cairns on June 30, 2011 - 7:34 pm
Aidan makes some interesting points.
Personally there is a danger that there is a growing funding crisis for scottish universities and although the 9K fees policy down south is a dogs dinner/ the worst of both worlds some sustainable solution has to be found for scottish universities.
This seems like a very protectionist/short term sticking plaster policy from the SNP.
What is starting to happen is that universities are using Chinese students etc as cash cows and places for scottish students will gradually decline if something isn’t done.
I’d probably support a moderate contribution perhaps like on the continent but publicly funded.
#58 by cameron on June 30, 2011 - 10:12 pm
“null:
Genuine question – would Scotland be allowed to introduce fees (lets’s say of up to £9K for argument’s sake) but introduce full grants for “Scottish†students to pay those fees, thereby allowing them to charge fees to students from rUK and Europe and also allowing Scottish students more choice of where they study?”
Would that not be broadly the situation as it stands now? Scottish institutions DO charge fees just those fees get paid for Scottish and European students by SAAS.
#59 by Steve on July 1, 2011 - 10:25 am
Yes, having looked in to it a bit more you’re right, it is the same apart from the fact that we don’t fund Scottish students to study elsewhere (not even rUK)
#60 by GMcM on July 1, 2011 - 9:59 am
What has to be looked at is not how much other EU countries charge in fees but what proportions of their students move from secondary to FE/HE.
Aidan has hit the nail on the head here; in an independent Scotland we would have to provide the same deal to rUK students that we do our Scottish students. If the SNP are committed to free HE then rUK would go from £9000 pa to £0 pa. This leaves a massive black hole and to continue a policy of free HE we would have reduced places at our universities. Not a very good idea if you want to create a nation of thinkers.
However there is a problem with the current policy the SNP are driving through. If rUK student numbers fall the funding gap will remain and university places will reduce, limiting social mobility. If rUK numbers remain at current levels they will be given priority by universities as they will be paying £9000 pa for their courses while Scottish students will be paying approx £3000 pa.
Whatever way you look at this policy the SNP have messed up and instead of basing the education system on ability to learn it will in fact result in ability to pay.
One of the worst decisions the SNP made was to remove the graduate endowment – this provided vital funds for students who would otherwise be unable to attend HE. With the graduate endowment removed hardship funds have been squeezed. Rather than liberating people from poorer backgrounds during periods of economic downturns this will lead to a reduction in the numbers of students from lower socio-economic backgrounds.
This policy is a slap in the face of social justice.
#61 by Alec Macph on July 1, 2011 - 11:49 am
In which case, those tax payers who disagree with you also would be entitled to direct policy… possibly as far as withdrawing that proportion of their taxes which go on services they don’t support.
You are well served by a wide-ranged of State-funded schemes, such as the NHS and primary/secondary education and water and public transport/roads. To imply that you’re being taken for granted if changes to just one of them are discussed reminds me of this little fellow.
It doesn’t matter how many times you repeat this canard, tuitition fees would not be re-payable up front; and when it does commence, it will be based on the individual’s income.
No. Try harder.
Then suggest the business model for it.
#62 by Alec Macph on July 1, 2011 - 11:54 am
Fiddlesticks, reposting with the correct tags. Mods, feel free to remove the previous effort.
In which case, those tax payers who disagree with you also would be entitled to direct policy… possibly as far as withdrawing that proportion of their taxes which go on services they don’t support.
You are well served by a wide-ranged of State-funded schemes, such as the NHS and primary/secondary education and water and public transport/roads. To imply that you’re being taken for granted if changes to just one of them are discussed reminds me of this little fellow.
It doesn’t matter how many times you repeat this canard, tuitition fees would not be re-payable up front; and when it does commence, it will be based on the individual’s income.
No. Try harder.
Then suggest the business model for it.
Nope. It’s a common tactic in arguing to speak in your opponent’s voice or ask rhetorical questions – and commonly misunderstood by those who think their approach aint just right, but that disagreement is inconceivable – to highlight flaws in the argument. I was responding to your self-professed expansive humanity in wanting to help all the kids of the world.
If a parent has five kids to care for, and 10 units of Care, then it makes sense to provide two units to each kid. If there now are 10 kids, but still the same number of units, then it would make sense to ration it to one unit per kid.
Yet you want to keep providing two units for each original kid, whilst the new ones go without. But it really pains you, and you really wish you could do otherwise.
Except you can. A good parent would find a way.
I’m quite sure you don’t, because it shows just how arbitary your criteria are. ‘Investment in education’ is damn well near useless if the recipients cannot then get a job.
It really is beholden on you to explain why you don’t consider the State-funding of primary and secondary education – after which lots of people manage to get a job – is not sufficiently caring.
“Would you like a muffin?” said the elephant.
“Yes,” said the bad baby.
Funding Scottish students to study at non-Scottish universities should be seen in the same light as a graduate tax, which wouldn’t stop the recipients simply moving out of Holyrood’s jurisdiction and tax reach.
~alec
#63 by James on July 1, 2011 - 12:08 pm
Alec, there’s no need to be this confrontational.
#64 by Steve on July 1, 2011 - 12:44 pm
I get your point about tuition fees not being payable up front, I still think though that given the choice between racking up £27K of debt and studying in Scotland for free, a lot of Scottish students will prefer the latter, even if that means compromising on the best course for them.
And I rather suspect that if you have wealthy parents who are prepared to put down a large deposit for your first house/flat once you graduate, or support you in other ways financially then you’ll be less put off by the £27K debt than someone with no such support.
#65 by Aidan Skinner on July 1, 2011 - 3:51 pm
It’s not so much a question as to the rights and wrongs of tuition fees, it’s more a simple “where is the money going to come from after Independence blows a gaping hole in the budget to the tune of £180m” question.
#66 by Alec Macph on July 1, 2011 - 12:16 pm
What, what, where? You should see me when I’m really at it.
Presenting oneself as a fond of compassion and being imbued with an expansive humanity, as Steve is doing, is itself a form of passive aggression; as the implication is that those who disagree don’t fully care for ‘our’ kids.
~alec
#67 by James on July 1, 2011 - 12:18 pm
I’m serious. Play the ball, not the man. I’m determined to start trimming or deleting comments that don’t follow that rule.
#68 by Alec Macph on July 1, 2011 - 12:30 pm
It’s your blog and your rules, but a rule has to be consistently applied. Steve chose to bring in others and state that he spoke for them; and argument – in the classical sense of the word – definitely does involve divining personal motivations.
One of the curses of the Internet is the presumption that an ad hominem personam is always unacceptable.
Besides, I could easily find examples of comments directed at me which out-strip anything in this thread.
~alec
#69 by James on July 1, 2011 - 12:36 pm
Well, if I happen to notice someone being rude to you I’ll be sure to say the same.
#70 by Steve on July 1, 2011 - 12:40 pm
It seem to me there are two issues here, principle, and affordability.
To get back to Aidan’s point, he’s saying that under independence (within Europe) Scotland would have to give students from rUK free tuition in Scottish Universities along with people from the rest of Europe.
Some have said that’s fine, we can afford to do that, and in principle we should.
My gut feeling is that even if we wanted to in principle, allowing students from rUK to study here for free would create a large influx that might either be unaffordable or simply squeeze out Scottish students from being able to get places.
Aidan seems to be suggesting that this will inevitably lead to tuition fees being paid by Scottish students studying in Scottish universities.
I was trying to explore an alternative option, of charging fees to all students, including Scottish Students, but giving Scottish Students a grant to pay their fees, and allowing them to spend this grant in any European universities they like, rather than just restricting them to Scotland.
As somone pointed out, that’s not all that different to what happens now. and I don’t think it’s pie in the sky, as we have to pay for nearly all Scottish Students just now since the vast majority of them currently study in Scotland.
Obviously if you’re against free tuition at uni, as Alec seems to be, you’re going to be against this idea.
But to people who are in favour of free tuition, I thnk it’s worth considering.
#71 by Aidan Skinner on July 1, 2011 - 12:49 pm
I don’t think this idea will work, AIUI we have to offer all EU students the same support we offer Scottish students, including fee assistance. That’s why EU students in Scotland have their tuition fees payed by SAAS.
#72 by Steve on July 1, 2011 - 1:00 pm
Fair enough I think you might be right. Does that also mean that an independent Scotland wouldn’t be allowed to provide funding to Scottish students studying at other EU universities then?
#73 by GMcM on July 1, 2011 - 4:18 pm
Forgive me if I’m picking you up wrong here Steve but are you saying that in an independent Scotland, with a funding gap due to the lack of input from rUK students, we should then increase the pressure on HE budgets by funding Scottish students abroad also?
If that is what you’re advocating can I just ask where the money is coming from?
#74 by Alec Macph on July 1, 2011 - 1:01 pm
There honestly is no need, James. Taking offence for casual remarks is itself a form of passive aggression.
It takes a special sort of weirdo who’s prepared to discuss current affairs on a blog when the sun is shining, so to a great extent, we should take it on the chin.
There are gardening blogs for the delicate sorts.
Returning to the suitibility of an ad hominem personam, imagine someone whose private life involved one night stands and was: a} an office manager involved with stock requisitioning; b} a community stalwart who was seeking to prevent an LGBTI – any more letters added since I last checked? – initiative in their town.
Mentioning the one night stands in both contexts would be an ad hominem personam. It would be of questionable relevance in the first example, but jolly-well pertinent in the latter.
~alec
#75 by DougtheDug on July 1, 2011 - 5:00 pm
It’s the right of residence which allows EU students to take courses in other member countries.
However I found this interesting piece of information on an EC website and I’ve put in bold the relevant part:
http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/areas/industrialrelations/dictionary/dictionary6.htm
Article 39 of the EC Treaty which regulates the issue of mobility, is considered to be one of the most important rights of EU citizens. The concept of a European labour market is underpinned by a right of workers to full mobility and, in the European Union (EU), this right is extended to cover the movement of workers between Member States. Free movement of workers was guaranteed to EU nationals by the Treaty of Rome and was regulated by Regulation 1612/68. The scope of this fundamental freedom was extended by Treaty amendments to provide a right of free movement of citizens of the EU. Free movement rights may also carry rights to remain (worker’s right to remain) and of residence, provided that EU citizens do not become a burden on the finances of the host Member State. This means that Member States are entitled, under the Treaty, to impose public policy limitations on the free movement of workers, for example on specified grounds of public security and public health. However, procedural requirements (Council Directive 64/221/EEC) must be observed when such limitations are imposed.
If the number of EU (rUK) students taking up residence in Scotland becomes a financial burden then Scotland may have the right to revoke their right to residence and right to a university place quite legally.
#76 by Indy on July 1, 2011 - 6:15 pm
Incidentally there is one aspect of this debate that has not been mentioned and that is what the Scottish people actually want.
All the evidence suggests that they want access to higher education to remain free.
That is why Labour changed its policy after all.
So unless and until public opinion shifts radically on this issue whoeveer is in government will need to find a way to deliver this policy, not just the SNP.
#77 by Scottish republic on July 4, 2011 - 12:12 am
Indy
Labour changed all its policies in January after someone said to them they were going to be anihialated (making their Holyrood defeat look like a very good day).
Now the centre-right Labour party in Scotland is anti-tuition fees (among other SNP policies they adopted after 4 years of opposing everything they put forward).
If you want a centr-left party that cares about the people of Scotland and isn’t bending over for big business then you have one, the SNP.
If you want a centre-right Brit nat party that puts Scotland 3rd place after personal advancement and party then vote Labour.
Simple choice.