Work as if you live in the early days of a

Better Nation

A different type of education cut

Jul 12

Posted by Guest Blog in Education | 21 Comments

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.

Are politicians, even now, still too scared to stand up to Murdoch?

Jul 11

Posted by Jeff in Media | 9 Comments

I’m not sure why we at Better Nation haven’t touched on the capitivating shitstorm that is going down at News International. Perhaps the issue is too big to get our little heads around, perhaps we’re already over it and just want some real news or perhaps my unbridled, unapologetic delight at the publication’s demise sits too awkwardly against my co-editors’ more compassionate concerns.

Anyway, there is nothing else really dominating the news agenda (*cough* drought in Africa?) so I’ll pick up the story with where we seem to be today – the political pressure that Rupert Murdoch may or may not allow to bother his designs for a 100% stake in BSkyB. Nick Clegg has joined Ed Miliband’s calls in requesting that Murdoch changes his mind on the deal with a hint of a parliamentary vote in the Commons later this week. One could argue that it’s a Laurel and Hardy version of a carrot and stick approach; others could say that it is the first long overdue steps to the UK political elite standing up to the tabloid media. I’m a generous soul, I’m plumping for the latter but then I’ve never been very good at seeing things in black and white.

For me, there is something very weak about a Cabinet member or leader of the Opposition requesting that a private company does not go forward with a proposed business transaction. Are they asking because it’s polite or are they asking because they don’t know how to say no?

Surely private entities should be constantly straining the limits of acceptable practise to ensure that the dog-eat-dog nature of capitalism can thrive and the UK grows as much as it can? Or have I just been watching too much Apprentice? Either way, it is for the Government to decide what is and what is not best practise, not Rupert Murdoch, so if that involves rubbing powerful people up the wrong way by doling out categorical constraints then so be it.

I would much rather Nick Clegg stated his clear intent to vote alongside the increasingly impressive Ed Miliband on this issue in the Commons vote on Wednesday and effectively message to Rupert that he can do what he likes but he won’t be getting his grubby paws on BSkyB, particularly not when so many strands of News International are facing criminal investigations. To his credit, I believe Simon Hughes did this very thing on Newsnight (or some such programme) over the weekend so the Lib Dems do look set to meet, or even surpass, expectations and remembering their voice despite being sat amongst Tory MPs.

That said, it all seems to be a bit like nibbling around the edges and if the initial reaction from politicians is that they should let business take place simply because private entities have requested it then that is very worrying indeed. And yet, in requesting Murdoch to change tack rather than promising to slap the American down, that is the message that the Deputy Prime Minister seems to be sending as far as I can see. Perhaps Nick Clegg is trying to straddle a wide fence between pro-Capitalist right wingers in the Conservative party that he is in coalition with and the regulation-friendly, anti-Murdoch lefties within the Liberal Democrats (that I would sooner identify myself with). And, hey, he is at least doing better than David Cameron on the issue, who is presumably too busy trying to find a way to save his own hide in amongst all of this to worry about piddly BSkyB.

There is something dangerously self-indulgent about this news story though. It fills the silly season hole very nicely indeed when there is little other news to discuss (*cough cough* gas prices are up 20%) and there is a risk that NoTW headlines and Rupert Murdoch pictures in newspapers will outstay their welcome. If there is any serious consideration to come out of it, other than to be disgusted at some of the operations that have taken place at the newspaper, it is that even in the immediate aftermath of such a disgrace and with public sentiment behind them, politicians still find it understandably immensely difficult to stand up to the powerful moguls that control these islands and send out a clear ‘No!’.

That needs to change, and the politicians (and public) can help by weaning itself from the tempting, titillating teat of a tabloid press, but it won’t be easy.

After all, as Tony Blair said: ‘We are the servants of The People, and we must never forget it”.

Major calls for Devolution Max is of minor benefit to unionists

Jul 10

Posted by Jeff in Constitution | 16 Comments

It is a shame that there is no direct link to the speech that John Major gave recently in which he made his arguments for Scotland having more powers. It is not really clear from the various reports whether the calls are a positive strategy for Scotland or rather negative tactics for the United Kingdom.

Major’s intervention comes hot on the heels of the two political leaders sitting side by side at Wimbledon in what is surely (surely?) a mere coincidence. Mind you, had Rory McIlroy been sitting one seat further forward, perhaps the golfing complex at the Menie Estate might have had a new, more popular, figurehead (albeit with as dodgy a hairdo as the current leader).

But it is John Major’s points that are of most interest and two of them stick out for me; one in which the former PM makes a lot of sense and one which has long frustrated me, and continues to do so, as unionists seek an alternative argument to the SNP’s persuasive overtures.

Part of Sir John’s speech includes the lines:
“The present quasi-federalist settlement with Scotland is unsustainable. Each year of devolution has moved Scotland further from England. Scottish ambition is fraying English tolerance. This is a tie that will snap – unless the issue is resolved. The union between England and Scotland cannot be maintained by constant aggravation in Scotland and appeasement in London. I believe it is time to confront the argument head on.”

The above passage is excellent, Sir John couldn’t really have phrased it better. The referendum that resulted in a Scottish Parliament is as good as ancient history as the political parties position and posture over what powers should and should not sit either side of the border. With no meaningful constitution or agreement to work with, it is a bit of a free for all with broadcasting, the Crown Estate, gun control, speed limits and countless other policy areas up for grabs. It is an ongoing and endless dialogue that the public don’t ever really get a say in (was the May 2011 result a mandate for Holyrood to have broadcasting powers? Discuss).

The second reading of the Scotland Bill on the 8th of September is no doubt the next opportunity that these issues will get a formal hearing and, as Sir John recommends, a reduction in the number of Scottish MPs coupled with a transfer of powers to Holyrood is the best move in this election-less window up to the independence referendum expected around 2014 as it will provide a more robust Scottish Parliament and a better equilibrium between Scotland and the UK.

However, what Sir John does not explain is why these moves are necessary other than to suggest that they will be a successful way to head off the supposedly inevitable destination of independence. Much like Calman, the thinking seems to be that it makes sense to give Scotland a little more in order to stop them wanting a lot more. This is at odds with Major’s strategy when he was in Number 10, opposing devolution for Scotland as he saw it as a stepping stone towards independence, so it is to the SNP’s momentum’s credit that this position has changed so significantly.

The two problems that I have, and have had for quite some time, are these:

1 – What, presicely, makes the union so precious that politicians have to give goodies that they don’t want to give in order to protect it?
2 – Which Parliament do the leaders of each of the main parties believe is best placed to make fiscal, broadcasting, speed limit, gun law decisions and other areas that remain reserved at Westminster?

John Major is making welcome proposals but for all the wrong reasons, he doesn’t even really believe what he is proposing but is rather just trying to find a way, any way, to block independence from happening. The funny thing is, down here in London, it is quite easy to exaggerate what Scotland’s appetite for independence is, even I’ve been guilty of it when I should really no better. A majority SNP Government with a minority of the votes and many, many voters supporting them at the ballot box but not being in favour of independence does not add up to the freefalling towards independence that many down here believe to be the case. Recent polling has suggested that the appetite for Scottish independence is as strong south of Gretna as it is north of it.

The SNP will, of course, bank any extra powers and any moves towards fiscal autonomy that it can get and it is no wonder that it is so delighted with John Major’s unnecessary intervention over the weekend. The unionists have inexplicably put themselves over a barrel when really all they need to do is wait for this coming referendum, campaign in a positive manner for the union, win said referendum and then go about their business as they so please without worrying about the supposed SNP thorn in their sides. Unfortunately, they are struggling to put even one strand of this simple strategy into operation.

Sir John Major is a respected politician either side of the border and is in a position to speak his mind without fear of reprisal so, for me, it is telling that his thinking on the subject is do depressingly shallow and what he proposes (more powers) does not, according to him, have merit in itself but is merely a way to block something else (independence). I really don’t mind either way whether Scotland is independent or part of the United Kingdom but the sheer absence of an argument from the unionist side can only lead me, and presumably others, into that Yes vote in 2014.

Indeed, going back to the supposedly random seating arrangement at Wimbledon, I daresay Northern Irishman Rory McIlroy could make a better fist of explaining why Scotland should stay in the UK but that’s another story and probably not even for any another time.

Wanted: more burdz for business

Jul 9

Posted by The Burd in Economy, Europe, Society | 22 Comments

From recent events, you might think my timing is awry.  But we need more women in business.

Because more women means fewer Rebekah Brooks.

This week, the European Parliament voted in support of quotas for women in business and if voluntary measures do not work, for EU legislation to be used.

Currently, women make up 10% of directors and only 3% of CEOs at the largest listed EU companies.  Progress is painfully slow, only half a percent per year.  At this rate, the European Parliament predicted that it would take another fifty years for women to have at least 40% of seats in the biggest boardrooms.

Scotland is no better.  A recent survey for the Herald found that there are only 29 female directors in the 30 largest listed companies in Scotland.  Ten have no women directors at all, including major companies like A G Barr (Irn Bru manufacturers), Robert Wiseman dairies, Aggreko, Scottish Investment Trust and the Wood Group.

It is truly depressing stuff, but not nearly as depressing as the views of women who have made it to the top.   Progress has been made in recent years, you need to look at other sectors too, there are more women there in equivalent positions, merit must always come first, and the hoariest chestnut of them all.  That old faithful – women are too busy juggling careers, children and partners (!) to find time for extras like non-executive positions.

But let’s not rehearse the old arguments – and invite the usual comments – of equality and opportunity.  Except briefly to allow the EU Vice President  Rodi Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou, (Christian Democrat MEP from Greece) whose resolution on the report on Women and Business Leadership was adopted by the European Parliament, to comment:

“Europe cannot afford to leave talent untapped! Empowering the role of women on management boards of companies is not only about ethics and equality, it is also essential for economic growth and a competitive internal market. With the adoption of the report on Women and Business Leadership, the European Parliament has sent a strong message to governments, social partners and enterprises in Europe”.

The resolution urges the European Commission to “propose legislation including quotas by 2012 for increasing female representation in corporate management bodies of enterprises to 30% by 2015 and to 40% by 2020”, if voluntary measures do not manage to increase the proportion of women.  The report and debate pointed to the success of similar quota legislation in Norway and welcomed the threshholds already set in France, the Netherlands and Spain.

In the UK too, there have been moves to increase women’s representation in leadership roles voluntarily, through the establishment of the 30% club and in Scotland, the current and soon-to-be chairs of CBI Scotland are women.  Indeed,  the new CBI chief, Nosheena Mobarik OBE, has already called for women to be given more senior roles in Scottish boardrooms.

It’s all good but it’s not enough.  So let’s encourage business to meet these potential quotas voluntarily by focusing on the only arguments that matter to them, the ones that affect the bottom line.

Studies have shown that companies with a higher percentage of women tend to perform better commercially and financially.  Women have just as many skills and as much experience to offer as men.  Indeed, their different experiences and perspectives could help create a much needed cultural shift in the way in which business is approached and conducted.  And there is evidence – cited by David Watt, Director of the Institute of Directors in Scotland – that shows that companies with a diverse and gender balanced boardroom make better progress and have better returns than all-male boards.

So more women directors and in senior leadership positions, more moolah.  For us all.  And if that doesn’t appeal, then I don’t know what might.

Oh this.  More women, fewer Rebekah Brooks.  Because we’ll get more women of better quality, whose morals and ethics are more sound, and with a shift in culture, there will simply be no room for the likes of Brooks who got to the top by playing men at their own game.

 

 

Tags: , , , , ,

Better FED than TED.

Jul 7

Posted by James in Housekeeping | Comments off

A cross-post from our pal Peter Geoghegan’s blog, this. What are you doing on Saturday?

Next Monday, Edinburgh plays host to the second UK conference of TED (that’s Technology, Entertainment and Design to you and me). When I mentioned this to a friend in town recently, she was delighted. ‘I’ll definitely be there. Where do I book my ticket?,’ she asked excitedly.

Like millions of others around the world, my TED-loving friend regularly downloads talks from the TED website and follows the discussions on their forums and blogs. She won’t, however, be attending the Edinburgh conference – because it costs $6,000.

TED – with its tagline of ‘ideas worth sharing’ – is a modern phenomeon. Since its first conference in 1984, TED has become remarkably popular and influential. Previous attendees have included both David Cameron and Gordon Brown; scientists Richard Dawkins and Craig Venter; biomimicry guru Janine Benyus and singer Annie Lennox; adventurer Bertrand Piccard and “soft power” theorist Joseph Nye. Last year’s event was addressed by Wikileaks founder Julian Assange.

This year’s TED Global conference at the EICC is estimated to be worth £6.7 Million to the local economy. over 4500 delegates will listen as Philip Blond waxes lyrical on the Big Society, Niall Ferguson presents his version of history and vie for the chance to grab a drink with Alain de Botton.

But what if you don’t have six grand spare to mingle? Or would rather participate in a space that radically rethinks – and influences – how we live our lives today?

Presented by myself (as Realpolitik) and the ever-excellent Bella Caledonia, ‘FED – Ideas Worth Sustaining’ is a homegrown alternative to the increasingly corporate TED model. This one-day event takes place at Inspace, University of Edinburgh on July 9 and will feature talks, discussions, videos and, most importantly, ideas for a sustainable future for both humans and the planet.

Just like TED, the line-up of speakers is inspiring, including Robin McAlpine, Lorna Waite, Kevin Williamson, Gerry Hassan and Kevan Shaw.

And like TED, there will be an artistic angle, with the afternoon’s deep thinking and talking finishing with poetry from Elspeth Murray. And of course a few drinks and a stimulating blether once it’s all over.

But unlike TED there will be an opportunity for members of the audience to have their say and pitch their ideas and views. Also, while TED costs an austerity busting £3,700 to attend, a day at FED will set you back an altogether more modest fiver.

As blogger Kate Higgins, who will be speaking on the day, says, ‘Without hearing a single pitch or presentation, without even stepping over the door, I’m prepared to go out on a wing and declare that FED beats TED.’ (BN Eds: yes, that’s the same Kate Higgins, so yes, this is self-promotion of a sort)

FED starts at 1.30 pm, Saturday July 9 at Inspace, University of Edinburgh. The full line-up for the day is available here and you can book tickets here.

You can also follow FED on Twitter, if that’s your kind of thing.