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.

The mess of student funding within the UK had another murky splurge added to it over the weekend with the news that human rights lawyer Phil Shiner is to challenge the Scottish Government’s plans to charge English students tuition fees. According to Phil, these plans breach the European Convention on Human Rights as they charge students from other parts of the UK to study north of the border while students from other parts of the EU won’t pay.

I really, really hope that this legal challenge fails.

Education is a devolved matter. That means that all Westminster control is rescinded to Holyrood and it also means that a different path is permitted to be taken. Encouraged even.

English students and their parents, as part of the wider English population, voted for a Tory majority that stood on a platform of students paying fees. Just this year, Scottish students and their parents, as part of the wider Scottish population, voted for an SNP majority that has remained steadfastly opposed to students paying a single penny for their education. Both sides have made their beds and should now lie in them.

A recent poll showed that 80% of British people believe that it is unfair that while universities in Scotland do not charge tuition fees to Scottish pupils or other EU nationals, students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland studying at Scottish universities do have to pay tuition fees. That propertion drops to 53% in Scotland only, still a majority.

Had I been asked the same question as this poll, I would also have said that it was unfair. Nonetheless, I still think that the Scottish Government is absolutely right to charge English students a certain level of fees. You have to fight fire with fire.

What this YouGov poll did not include was a question on whether charging English students £9,000/year (I think we can safely remove the “up to”) to study further education was also unfair. You can be sure that more than 53% of Scots would say Yes to that.

So, as a result of Tory/Lib Dem policies, the Scottish Government is faced with English student refugees, fleeing over the border to avoid paying a small fortune to George Osborne and intent on taking up as many of Scotland’s free spots as possible. This would inevitably be to the detriment of Scottish students, quite probably specifically to the detriment of Scottish students who would have just scraped into university and would have needed that opportunity the most.

People claim that this is unfair. Why should Swedish and Maltese and Hungarian students be allowed to study in Scotland for free while English students can’t? Three reasons. (1) There are less students coming to Scotland from continental Europe than there are from England, (2) the Tory/LD coalition has created a problem that it is not for Scotland to solve and (3) member states must treat other states fairly but can arrange its own affairs as it pleases.

Let’s just imagine what would happen if Scotland was forced to let English people pay nothing for their Scottish university places and had to treat all applications equally:

There are circa 50million people in England and circa 5million people in Scotland. That presumably means that Scotland can expect up to ten times more applications from England than it does from within Scotland and, if total fairness is applied and standards are assumed to be even across the UK, that means ten times more places for English students in Scotland.

What happens to all of those students that don’t make it into Edinburgh or Glasgow or, goodness, the English Oxford/Cambridge-reject ghetto that is St Andrews? Practically speaking it means Dundonians/Glaswegians/Edinburghians/Aberdonians paying £9,000/year fees in Liverpool or Exeter or Kent, all because English people voted for a Tory/Lib Dem Government that rammed through what is effectively an English policy. That surely is unfair and surely cannot be allowed to happen if we’re serious about devolution being a lasting settlement for the United Kingdom.

So, for me, from a fairness perspective, the Scottish Government’s decision is both fair and unfair, but, crucially, more the former than the latter.

And from a political perspective, the SNP might just be onto a winner here. It now has a UK-wide audience to whom it can show that it is the sole governing guardians of free tertiary education, a significant faultline between what the UK is and what an independent Scotland could be.

There does seem to be a swell of annoyance that the SNP has not made clear its position on how it shall fund tuition fees when/if Scotland is independent. For me, this is a separate concern for a separate time and, indeed, conflation of the immediate concern of whether the Scottish Government can proceed, now, as it intends with the imagined scenario of what Scotland would look like ‘if’ Scotland votes Yes in the referendum is an admission that an argument has been lost.

Fair is worth fighting for was the green slogan from the last UK election and it’s a motto that the SNP has thankfully taken right to the heart of its policy on further education. Scotland should be proud of the imagination and tenacity shown by Mike Russell and the Scottish Government at large and should be hopeful that Paul Shiner’s legal challenge fails.

A guest post today from Gary Cocker. Gary is a recent Politics graduate from the University of Dundee beginning his Masters at Queen’s University Belfast in September. He’s also just finished his year as National Secretary of SNP Students and tweets as @garyphcocker.

The funding of higher education has never been higher on the political agenda in all the nations of the UK. As a recent graduate, I can count myself lucky that I was one of those who went to University post-endowment fee but pre-fees/funding crisis; however, my fortunate circumstances have not diminished my interest or indeed frustration at the debate being had on higher education.

The new NUS Scotland President, Robin Parker, has made widening access to higher education a top priority. I don’t think there’s anybody out there who doesn’t wish to ensure that those who may not have a strong family or school tradition of higher education have access to more information and opportunities. In addition, the NUS are pushing for a maintenance of the current number of graduates across the country. However, without a wholesale increase in higher education spending
(currently 1.1% of GDP as opposed to roughly 1.5% across Western Europe), it’s simply unrealistic to expect numbers to be maintained without some sort of student contribution being sought.

Having been involved in student politics (a statement which I was desperate not to make), I know that what I’m about to suggest is almost heresy; however, that nobody has seriously mooted it as at least part of the solution is troubling.

Now, before I begin, I should point out that I’m not one of those people who believe that the sole aim of a University education is to equip yourself for a specific career. Although education can be a means to an end, it should also be an end in itself; the pursuit of knowledge is one of the things that separates us from the animals, and those who have a strong passion and a particular ability for a subject such as philosophy or history should be encouraged to indulge themselves and in turn strengthen the intellectual base of our society.

However, a sizeable number of people on courses such as these have neither the passion or, it must be said, the ability to invest themselves properly in these subjects. This problem is not limited to the Arts, but is instead a nationwide issue. It’s been 4 and a half years since I applied for University, and I can distinctly remember my surprise at just how many people in my year were applying for courses at Universities without a specific career path or any love of education I’d seen on display; instead, it was almost an expectation or, even worse, a “back-up” to give themselves four years’
worth of breathing space and parental pressure to find a job. A notable minority of those who did go to University have since dropped out, putting not only themselves in financial difficulty but also leaving their institutions with no reward for their investment. Many of those who did complete all four years have now emerged with ordinary degrees, Third Class Honours or 2:2s and have simply either signed on or upped their hours in their part-time job.

These hazy memories of high school UCAS applications are backed up by the figures. Nationally,approximately 48% of high school leavers in Scotland continue into higher education, with similar figures in the other home nations. When New Labour set the 50% target about a decade or so ago, they not only ignored the financial implications of such an aim but also the societal impact of implying that the most worthy thing for young people to do post-school is University. Think back to your own high school class; would you consider half of those in your year capable of four years of voluntary, in-depth academic involvement? Or, like me, would you believe that the true figure of those deserving of a continuation of studies is far lower?

It may not be the most popular option and may be labelled as regressive by many, but if we truly want a diverse economic workforce and a University sector free of fees for those who are academically and personally committed to their education, then the first port of call should be a re-examination of student numbers. All of the solutions put forward by politicians and student leaders so far have centred either around government spending or individual spending. To my mind, this is only alleviating the symptoms rather than the root cause of the problem. If University admission grades were to be raised in conjunction with a slight reduction in places, it would not only help to stretch the funding currently available further but would also perhaps make us as a nation re-evaluate the opportunities and advice given to young people as they set off into the “real world”.

Some may claim cutting student numbers would be elitist and cruel; however, to my mind, saddling a young person with 4 years of economic inactivity, crippling debt and an increasingly worthless piece of paper is the more cruel course of action.

In the run up to the 2010 election, the Institute for Fiscal Studies released a compelling report that clearly stated that each of Labour, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats were not being honest about what tax rises they would have to implement and what they would have to cut in order to match the promises they were making during the campaign.

In terms of a funding gap, Labour were 87% short, the Conservatives 82% and the Lib Dems 74%. An abysmal performance at a time when trust in politicians was already at an all time low and a moment that should have sparked national outrage despite a seemingly largely unperturbed electorate.

We have of course seen the Conservatives and Lib Dems have to show their full post-election hands now that they are in power. VAT rises, NHS overhauls, massive cuts and huge job losses are a large part of the gap between the 2010 promises and the 2010-2015 reality. Added to that, of course, is the raising of tuition fees to £9,000/year for many universities south of the border.

As I said in a recent post and will say again, spending decisions that take place at Westminster have a direct impact on spending decisions at Holyrood. How can a block grant taken from an overall budget that does not include free elderly care, free prescriptions, free tuition, billion pound bridges and a bloated public sector stack up against the Scottish political wishlist of freebies, jobs and social security for all? The simple answer is that it can’t. We either have to top that block grant up with more money, rearrange priorities or fall in line with the approach taken down south, including introducing painful tuition fees. So far we have done none of the above to the necessary extent so the remaining option is for the whole devolution process to fall down like a house of cards under the weight of wishful thinking.

One party (the Greens) is saying that education should be free but we’re going to have raise some taxes in order to pay for it, other parties (SNP, Lib Dems, Labour) are saying that education should be free but we don’t have to make any noteworthy sacrifices to deliver this. I’m sorry, but who from the above sound like they have a solid grasp of the financial reality ahead of us? Who makes electorally toxic suggestions of tax rises lightly?

When I wrote the post on tuition costs only yesterday, Labour and the Lib Dems had not made their position on fees clear. They now have, university education will remain free over the lifetime of the next parliamentary term unless there is a Conservative majority in place or, perhaps with a little bit of history repeating, a Conservative/Lib Dem majority.

The funding gap for further education is estimated by some political parties and bodies to be £93m by 2014/15; a gap which NUS has called “clearly bridgeable” and which Scottish Labour said in a reply to me on Twitter was “eminently bridgeable”. (I wonder who composes the feed for @scottishlabour, hey?)

The problem is, that £93m gap is the wrong figure. As the Scottish Government’s report itself shows, that £93m (£97m in the report itself) does not take into account inflation (currently running at 4% and set to increase) and is based on an average English fee of £6,000 which is contradictory to the Treasury’s expected average tuition fee in England of £7,500. The ‘correct’ assumptions state that the funding gap is actually £202m, more than double what Labour, the Lib Dems and perhaps even the SNP are using to quickly pull their manifestos together. This is creating a financial black hole that will no doubt go largely unnoticed until governing parties have to break election pledges to fix it. Why not face up to the challenge now and treat the public like adults is all I’m asking?

Tavish Scott, to his credit, has tentatively mooted doing away with some ‘universal benefits’ in order to pay for free tuition. Although no detail was put forward, free bus passes for the elderly, at £199m a year (and rising), may plug the gap but it remains to be seen how bullish the typically flighty leader will choose to be on this. It’s hard to imagine a party so full of rural MSPs advocating a complete scrapping on free bus passes for the elderly.

Labour, who felt the need to charge students for studying in the good years of ever-increasing budgets when they were in power, now think they won’t need to when sitting in the cold, hard seats of Opposition. The SNP has not yet formally announced its official policy for financing students through their studies but you can bet that the next swirl of this downward spiral of overpromising and under delivering is just around the corner.

The Conservatives and the Greens are the only parties with a credible position on this. Either students pay upfront or back-ended fees in the form of a graduate contribution or other direct payment or we accept that a graduate contribution already exists in the form of income tax and fees are made free for students by raising the necessary funds elsewhere.

I believe in the latter and would vote so accordingly, neatly sidestepping the parties whose arguments simply do not stack up.

We have already been led up the garden path by political parties in 2010, let’s try not to have it happen again in 2011.