I don’t know whether it is legal or not, but it is certainly immoral. Why should students resident in Scotland benefit from free tuition at their local universities when English students at a Scottish university have to pay as much as they would at an English university? Maybe even more as Scottish courses are often of four years’ duration. European students choosing to study in Scotland also get the benefit of free tuition because Scotland cannot discriminate against other European nations, but, so it is alleged, is free to discriminate against other nations within the UK on the grounds of residence.
Let us consider this from the point of view of social mobility, an issue of great concern to the government, and especially so in the context of higher education. The effect of the Scottish tuition fees regime – http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Education/UniversitiesColleges/16640/financial-help – is that most Scottish students are encouraged, almost forced, to stay at home for higher education, whereas wealthier Scottish students who can afford the fees are free to study wherever they choose. So for a start there will be this division based on parental income. Moreover, one of the ways in which university studies traditionally fostered social mobility was by enabling students to leave home and go somewhere else in the UK with the benefit of a maintenance grant. Studying away from home changed one’s outlook, ambitions and circle of friends forever. Indirectly, Scottish students will be denied that chance too. History would have been different if Tony Blair, Lord Falconer and others had not left Scotland to study in England; or if indeed Kate Middleton and Prince William had not gone to St Andrew’s!
Imagine the rumpus if the position were reversed, and Scottish students studying at English universities were charged higher fees than English students on the same campus. Equality of opportunity in higher education in the UK demands that students from all parts of the country be treated the same in relation to fees when it comes to choosing the right course (albeit that in future there will be differentials in the fees that universities charge).
I still don’t understand how this is legal. It seems it’s the way that the Scottish Executive have interpreted European law, and until now they have got away with it, although there is currently a legal challenge underway. It’s nonsense that EU students have to be treated the same as a student resident in Scotland, yet other UK students can be discriminated against. Either students from England, Wales and NI are EU students, or they are home students, and in the latter case, EU students could be treated the same as them. I can see that the latter could be considered a loophole in EU law. But it surely goes against the spirit of the law if people from one region in the EU can be discriminated against in this way? The idea is that all EU citizens are equal, and in the Scottish interpretation of the law, they are not (the fact that the SNP use this as pro-independence propaganda is another matter).
I believe the challenge is under the Equality Act and human rights law, but (particularly as I dislike the misuse of human rights laws) is this not more a case that should go to the European Court of Justice? We need clarification on how EU law should be applied, and not leave it up to Alex Salmond to decide.
I dislike the notion that students anywhere should require to pay for education. Baroness, surely if social mobility was truly the goal of the present Government, they would not have taken the decision to massively increase the tuition fees chargeable by Universities in England and Wales. Anyone with the faintest awareness of the nature of corporations – non-profit, public companies, those established by Royal Charter, or otherwise – knew exactly what would come next: their fully utilising the maximum chargeable.
Scotland would doubtless face a deluge of English students willing to move a few hours north in return for free education, to the exclusion of Scottish students and to the financial detriment of those in Scotland. To cope with the loss of revenue, the policy of not charging tuition fees to Scottish students (and consequently other British students) may have to be
reversed in such a circumstance.
So is the desire to see the imposition of crippling tuition fees in Scotland not truly the reason for this challenge, and for the usual Scots-bashing where Scotland seems to be doing something beneficial for the Scots, which those in Westminster have chosen not to do.
Perhaps the true problem for those complaining about the Scottish approach lies closer to home. What justification is given by those who advocate the charging of exorbitant tuition fees in England? Education, being a public good, should be free to all who wish to take advantage of it. The fees imposed on English students studying in Scotland are in any case the same as the fees imposed on a Scottish student studying in England.
This all goes back to Tony Blair and his desire to see 50% of UK children go on to get a degree. In one stroke he vastly increased the cost of the degreed class and devalued the qualification they hold.
Once upon a time, the number of undergraduates was small enough that it was worth the country investing in them in the form of subsidies, cheap loans and even grants (for those of us who are old enough), because most of that investment was returned in the form of graduates who were good at doing things the country needed. This meant they paid more in taxes because they earned more, and often were necessary to enable other, lower-skilled, jobs to be carried out, thus providing benefit to many others. However, because the standards were set high, it was viewed as elitist. The small number of obscure degrees that had no real use outside academia could be carried by the rest, and provided a means to transfer knowledge such as history to the next generation.
What we have now, post-Blair, is an explosion in degree provision, where it is possible to get a degree in a much wider range of subjects. This comes at a cost, because the number of students means more staff and more facilities, all of which have to be paid for. The UK government has decided that providing funding for degrees is no longer cost effective, because the vastly increased level of investment is not matched by an adequate return and the result is a net drain on government finances, exacerbated by the debt crisis. Too many of the degree courses on offer are of no practical use to the country. They provide satisfaction to those achieving the degrees, but should the country be paying all this money when that is the only result in most cases?
Scotland is taking a calculated risk at the moment, having presumably done some sums and decided that the number of non-UK students they’ll have to fund is quite low, but if they offered English students free tuition, they’d be swamped. I suspect they’d give the Welsh free tuition if they could work out how to do it without opening the floodgates to English applications.
The real injustice is that the people that set this up were Brown, Falconer, Reid, Darling, Blair, Dewar and the rest of the Raj.
Most have signed the racist document the’Scottish Claim of Right’
If we want fairness then a parliament for England and the end of the cash conveyor belt of flowing north.
Independence for Scotland whether they want it or not!!
I dislike the notion that students anywhere should require to pay for education.
Who do you think should pay? The person on minimum wage?
The real problem isn’t students being asked to pay for education.
1. It’s the cost. The cost for education isn’t 9K a year. Far from it. That’s profit gouging by universities so as they can cross fund other activities.
Proof – Cost of the OU.
2. The Heads we win, tails you lose attitude by the government.
If you want students to take the risk, you can’t then tax the proceeds of that risk.
If you want the proceeds, then you take the risk.
Self fund + lower tax
or
Free education + higher tax.
The second is wrong, because the higher tax then applies to all those who didn’t receive the secondary education, but due to hard work did well.
Why’s this happening?
Very simple. Governments run by people like Deech have borrowed vast sums (mostly off the books) to fund their pet projects and to keep themselves in the style to which they have become accustomed.
PS. I’ve had another FOI request to the Lords refused on grounds of National Security. There’s a lot they want to keep secret about their little scams.
The Open University is charging £5K next year and of course that experience is not like a face-to-face HEI. Universities certainly do not make a profit from £9K fees – the real cost of teaching students is far higher and they need contributions from their alumni and from conference rent to subsidise it. The government has taken away from the universities the funding they used to receive for humanities teaching, and the higher fees are designed to replace this government funding by contributions from the students. The Scottish government is presumably paying for the tuition there and has decided it can afford it, despite the deficit. We all benefit from higher education, whether we received it or not. Don’t you want doctors, dentists, architects, engineers, scientists etc, working for the entire country?
So we could have an arrangement whereby students doing medical, scientific and engineering degrees get their fees paid?
That would go a long way to fixing the problem, but the outcry from the arts side would be deafening. You could upset all the left-wingers by requiring prospective students to get high-enough grades (and making sure the grades really mean something again) before qualifying for the funding, thus ensuring that we’re investing in the best.
It depends. They currently charge 5.5K for 3 years.
No explanation as to why the extra is being charged. Mainly, in my opinion because they can.
So lets see about face to face. We’ve the nutters who want to set up the new Uni for philosphy. One’s a neighbour of mine.
Why charge so much when you don’t need the rooms? For tutorials go to Starbucks. For lectures, have a large room somewhere.
ie. Not a single university is looking at why they are charging so much.
Do some rough costings. Lecture hall? Cheap.
Tutorials. How much an hour? How many a week. How much marking a week per student?
I’ll give you the times for a maths degree.
16 units of course work, and 4 exam papers.
Marking time, generous, at 1/2 hour for each, gives 10 hours of work. 50 quid an hour?
That’s 500 gone.
Tutorials. 20 hours a unit, shared between 6 (I’ll use the figures for today), round up to the nearest 100, and its 200 pounds.
Lectures, if you have then (OU doesn’t), then you are amortising over a large number of students. Cost per student per hour, is then very cheap.
So where’s the rest of the 9,000 quid going?
Care for little Johnny when he’s completely pissed and a danger to himself?
Don’t you want doctors, dentists, architects, engineers, scientists etc, working for the entire country?
You want them to take the risk with funding, and you want their taxes when they earn more.
I do want them, but the current set up is you ripping them off.
For a more general point. I want my taxes going on services. I don’t want my taxes going on debts run up by incompetent and fraudulent politicians.
Do you want money going on services, or do you want the money going on other things?
I agree with Daniel’s opening comments and wish that tuition was free, as it used to be. But whatever the situation, it should be the same for all students in the UK. Scotland could extend its free tuition regime to English students, without being swamped, because there is a limit on student numbers at each university. Each Scottish university could accept the best of those who apply, regardless of their origin, and they would all get free higher education.
Each Scottish university could accept the best of those who apply, regardless of their origin, and they would all get free higher education.
=============
Who pays for it? The tooth fairy?
Baroness Deech,
Perhaps you are imitating us. In our federal system in the US there is in-state and out of state tuition although the formula for acquiring the former varies. At least these are equitable among all states usually. However, Last week in Alabama I found forty-eight states paid one out of state fee for shining licenses and Louisiana and Florida paid higher fees.It is part of the cost of federal values (you are not federal). British inequalities include the Monarchy and the established church. The question is are you willing to accept the inequalities devolution will create and then seek to regulate them or will you make devolution less real by refusing that cost?
Lord Falkoner sounds like a Somerset man to me but no matter.
European students choosing to study in Scotland also get the benefit of free tuition because Scotland cannot discriminate against other European nations, but, so it is alleged, is free to discriminate against other nations within the UK on the grounds of residence.
The meaning of the word nation here may need to be clarified. Scotland is a region of the
EU, and not a nation or nation state of it.
If the baroness is right, there would seem to be a case for an English student wanting to pay equal fees as anybody from any other European state, to take to the European court.
Students who are applying to Scottish University from England should make a mass application to the European Court on Human Rights grounds, claiming, discrimination against another European state memeber. And seeking compensation and costs from the Scottish Parliament in full.
That should bring it to a head.
discrimination against another European state member.
Scotland may have a legislature but it is not a nation state of the EU, or even a state of it.
It is a region, the same as Wales, Northern Ireland and the 8 regions of England.
I suspect that it would be a case for the European court, in a convoluted way, as one region of the EU discriminating against eight others (or 10 if Wales and NI are included),
especially since other regions of the EU are ALSO apparently getting it free.
If they were not, then it would more likely be a matter for the Supreme court,of the UK if they are asked.
Then a case would be made, and at the European court.
discrimination against another European state member.
Scotland may have a legislature but it is not a nation state of the EU, or even a state of it.
It is a region, the same as Wales, Northern Ireland and the 8 regions of England.
I suspect that it would be a case for the European court, in a convoluted way, as one region of the EU discriminating against eight others (or 10 if Wales and NI are included),
especially since other regions of the EU are ALSO apparently getting it free.
If they were not, then it would more likely be a matter for the Supreme court,of the UK if they are asked.
Then a case would be made, and at the European court.
I doubt Frank Summers is right. The in-state, out-of-state distinction in the US only applies to state-owned universities, and there is a rational basis for the state providing cheaper educational services to its own residents, but to force private universities to do so would be considered discrimination against interstate commerce, and therefore unconstitutional.
But then it’s not entirely clear to me how free tuition works. How do the universities get paid? Does the Scottish Executive give the universities a grant and require free tuition for its population, or does it pay a per-Scottish-pupil grant? I suppose legality may be in how it’s structured. Even if Scotland can’t legally eliminate tuition for its populace, perhaps it can provide the funds to students as a benefit to pay for tuition.
Yes, consider the situation was truly reversed. This would mean that Westminster had chosen to abolish fees.
A moment’s casual reflection would lead to the prediction that Scotland would do likewise. Consequently, there would be no disparity. Further, many people would say the moral imperative to provide university education as a public good was fulfilled.
Baroness Deech therefore launches into her sermon having ignored two rather fundamental questions: what is the cause of the problem, and what should be the solution? Arguably it was caused by England introducing (and then hiking) fees, and could be solved by abolishing them.
The article has a number of rather curious implications. Once one governing body has made a decision, is the second obliged to make the exact same decision (lest a disparity arise)? Is it better for everyone to suffer equally rather than one group to avoid a certain pain? Should the smaller party always obey the edicts of the larger? Should one nation be forced to treat its people as a secondary concern to its ability to provide services to another nation (ten times its size)? Do people have a right to expect perfect equality in all things?
As a professional ethicist, she should be aware that her argument is incomplete. Indeed, it is little more than sputtering indignation regarding one piece of a larger puzzle. I hope it is laziness, and not outright prejudice, that has produced this opinion of the problem as a purely Scottish creation.
I’d like to point out that this comment isn’t by me! I realise there is no ill intent, and indeed the URL and avatar are different, but I first read the comment by e-mail where these are not shown, and was surprised to see a comment in the name I’ve used on this site for the last few years that I didn’t remember writing!
When I thought of this last night in bed, I realized how I had been taken in by spin and the acceptance of British people to expect and submit to paying for education.
We follow this line at our peril. It is an outrageous act in the first place. Scotland has discriminated on the grounds that this circumstance should not have been introduced at all.
Both houses should be ashamed at having allowed this to pass. Education has been a fundamental right of the our people for a very long time. And this ‘Blair creature’ comes along and removes it to ape the Americans in their immorality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_education_in_England
If you think £9,000 is too high, wait until next year and the year after. Look at the fees they are wanting to charge, but haven’t yet, found the balls to do so.
http://hms.harvard.edu/admissions/default.asp?page=costs
http://www.gsas.harvard.edu/prospective_students/costs_tuition_and_fees.php
Do you think these fees for education enables the brilliant ‘poor’ to rise to great heights in America, or, do you feel it’s the rich idiots who cheat and play the game that get a degree?…. Well, you only have to look at the Bush family. Which one of them had a brilliant mind? Any?
And to Blagger, the banks can pay. The wealthy and the Kings, as they did before they had as much as they do now.
And collectively we already pay. If the treasury didn’t waste billions on funding arms profligacy, aid to foreigners, and on and on, it would be a piece of cake.
It’s the choices of politicians with narrow minds that has created this disgrace.
We cannot fund the world and look after our own people. And we should not be asked to do so. It is discriminating against the tax paying public to deny the nation free education they rightfully pay for through taxation.
Out taxes must be used to benefit ‘our nation’ not the nations of the world. For that, as has been shown, is a fraud.
Additionally, were the public advised of this policy ‘in full’ prior to election? Did we all know students were going to end up illiterate dolts by design? For that is what we have and it permeates throughout the government across every party. No matter what they tell you. It is designed to make money for the already wealthy. Another pop into our social fund they are growing so well accustomed to.
Should one nation be forced
Region
In view of what Rich and Jonathen suggest, it is only because most people understand the difficulties of equality between the nation regions(not least the euro-speak ones)that nobody bothers to take the Scottish region to a European court for discriminatory regulations.
The only way the English will get fairness within the Union is by threatening to break it up, as the Scots do.
Until then we’ll be underfunded, we’ll have Scottish MPs and ministers meddling in English domestic affairs (including the imposition of top-up fees), and we’ll be denied democracy in the shape of an English parliament and government.
The thing that has made me most resentful towards devolution, and the Union itself, is how English cancer patients are denied over a dozen cancer drugs freely available to patients on the Scottish Health service (there is no “the” NHS any longer).
George King and others tried to gain access these drugs by selling up and moving to Scotland only for the SNP-led Scottish government to introduce a residency rule to prevent “health tourism”.
The SNP cared more about cancer-sufferer Al Megrahi’s welfare than English cancer patients.
This is top of a long list of iniquities heaped upon England by devolution. Such apartheid can only be solved by an English parliament. I’m not interested in arguments about why I can’t have one, it’s about time we English were at least asked about an English parliament in a referendum. We English are as good as the rest, but are certainly treated as inferiors by the British.
Stephen, do you think if there was an English parliament, or an independent Scotland, it would mean English patients would receive the more expensive drugs? Of course not. Having a separate parliament would not mean there was suddenly more money. The Scots only receive better drugs and cheaper university tuition because the Barnett Formula allocates more money to Scotland. This, and not the fact there is a separate Scottish Parliament, is what makes the difference. It has nothing to do with Scots getting those cancer drugs because they want it and English people somehow don’t.
The SNP are using the Scottish Parliament to make both the Scots believe it’s better to be independent, and to turn the English against the Scots. However, if Scotland were to gain full independence, the money would soon run out. But by then, Alex Salmond and the SNP would be past caring, as they would have achieved their aim, which they would work towards at any cost to the Scottish people.
Rather than an English parliament, a better solution is to reform the Barnett Formula and give Scotland more fiscal autonomy, but less money from the UK Treasury. The trouble then would be that all the gimmicks such as free tuition would start to disappear, and the SNP would then blame the UK for their ills – moving from one form of deceit to another.
(And it is me writing this time!)
Another interesting argument for an English parliament, which we do have in practice any way,but to help Gash understand the regional
organisation of Europe and the UK, it would be better to have a number of regional assemblies, and abolish county council all together, as far too small for purpose, in these days of the gigantic machine. I am not suggesting exclusively for the understanding of Gash but it would certainly help him.
We have 8(?)
EU regions in England; Scotland is 1; Wales is 1.
Gareth Howell, I agree that regional assemblies would be preferable to an English parliament. I don’t think people in Newcastle-upon-Tyne consider the Westminster parliament represents their interests any more than the Scots do. It’s certainly how I felt in the past when I lived in both the West and East Midlands. Regional assemblies, along with unitary councils, was John Prescott’s pet project, but died a death after it was rejected in the first referendum. To succeed there would need to be real political will to make it happen, and the assemblies would need to be at least as powerful as the one in Wales.
None of this would address the Scottish funding discrepancy, though, unless you take it as read that an English parliament / regional assemblies would go hand in hand with a change to the Barnett Formula.
I think Baroness Deech is sufficiently intelligent to know that her last comment is nonsense. The large number of English, Welsh and Northern Irish students wanting free education in Scottish universities would lead to most Scottish students being excluded.
It is for politicians to decide how to spend the limited amount of money available. The Scottish government has made its decision. Westminster has decided to spend elsewhere money which might have gone to education. Whilst people in Scotland benefit from free tuition, we suffer from less money spent elsewhere.
If it is equitable for English students to pay no tuition fees in Scotland then surely the converse is also true.
@Charles Darley:
Then the answer has to be to expose where they are spending this tax payers money and find why they choose to do that rather than educate society as the right they sell us when they want to be elected.
Personal accountability for the actions and decisions they take has to be brought into our Democratic process.
As well as the public being made aware that it is imperative to vote away from those who do not give them what they need when in power.
If discrimination is allowed within our borders then why is England flooded with Scots nepotised into top English jobs.
Surely it is legal to exclude them.
Scots students studying at English universities have to pay £9,000 p.a. so why should Scottish universities not charge English students the same?
English universities have set a fee, and that’s what they charge anyone who attends a course. They aren’t going to charge Scottish students extra. The Scottish proposal is discriminatory. Imagine if you went to buy an item from a shop and they said, “You’re Scottish, so you have to pay three times as much for the same item.” That’s what Scottish universities are doing to students from England.
Exactly.
Change Scots to Black or Jewish, and its clear it is discriminatory.