Scotland to charge UK students but not EU ones..
Discussion
Apologies if a repost but didn't spot it under a sensible title.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/jun/29/en...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/jun/29/en...
The Guardian said:
Russell's officials have estimated that EU students "cost" the Scottish taxpayer about £75m a year. Numbers have doubled to nearly 16,000 last year. Under EU law, because Scottish students get free higher education, any student from another member state is entitled to the same privileges.
However, because Scotland is not a member state of the EU, a loophole in European law means the same requirement to treat other UK students equally does not apply. As a result, English, Welsh and Northern Irish students have to pay whatever fee the Scottish government and universities choose.
So unless I've completely misunderstood, if you're from London you can't go to Scotland to benefit from free universities, OK that sounds fair enough, but if you're from Warsaw you can?!However, because Scotland is not a member state of the EU, a loophole in European law means the same requirement to treat other UK students equally does not apply. As a result, English, Welsh and Northern Irish students have to pay whatever fee the Scottish government and universities choose.
And the outcome of this...
Fewer welsh English and Nire will go to scotland universities but EU students may choose to go there thus increasing their education spend. They could draw more eu students who would have gone to say eng into Scotland.
It really is bizarre how they can set laws within a union which is highly discriminatory.
So within Scotland who is paying for the Scottish students? Which govt dept is taking more cuts than England to pay for it? Or is it a case of they are demanding more central govt money to cover it?? So other nations pay for it??
Fewer welsh English and Nire will go to scotland universities but EU students may choose to go there thus increasing their education spend. They could draw more eu students who would have gone to say eng into Scotland.
It really is bizarre how they can set laws within a union which is highly discriminatory.
So within Scotland who is paying for the Scottish students? Which govt dept is taking more cuts than England to pay for it? Or is it a case of they are demanding more central govt money to cover it?? So other nations pay for it??
Welshbeef said:
And the outcome of this...
Fewer welsh English and Nire will go to scotland universities but EU students may choose to go there thus increasing their education spend. They could draw more eu students who would have gone to say eng into Scotland.
It really is bizarre how they can set laws within a union which is highly discriminatory.
So within Scotland who is paying for the Scottish students? Which govt dept is taking more cuts than England to pay for it? Or is it a case of they are demanding more central govt money to cover it?? So other nations pay for it??
Firstly, the Scottish budget is indirectly set by George Osborne. He decides how much to spend on health, education, environment, etc, in England. Scotland then receives about the same amount per capita that is spent in each of these departments. So for example if Osborne decides to spend £100 per head on Health and £50 on Education, Scotland gets £150. Unlike English regions we can then choose whether to £75 on Health and and £75 on Education rather than sticking to Osborne's prioritisation.Fewer welsh English and Nire will go to scotland universities but EU students may choose to go there thus increasing their education spend. They could draw more eu students who would have gone to say eng into Scotland.
It really is bizarre how they can set laws within a union which is highly discriminatory.
So within Scotland who is paying for the Scottish students? Which govt dept is taking more cuts than England to pay for it? Or is it a case of they are demanding more central govt money to cover it?? So other nations pay for it??
Two factors then come into play. Firstly, the Scottish budget is determined relative to the whole of England - that includes London and London with it's higher costs receives considerably more spending than other English regions (especially policing). Yet Scotland is more on a North of England cost base (lower wages etc). So that creates a bit of excess but a not huge amount.
Secondly, the Barnett Formula takes into account how much of the spending is devolved. In some departments, like Education, it was 100% while in other areas like Transport the UK government is responsible for some of the spending in the devolved nations. So the formula goes "change in department spending x comparability factor for that department x population factor" (about 10% for Scotland, 6% Wales and 3.5% NI). It just happens that the areas that are most devolved (Health and Eduation in particular) and also the largest are also the ones that have been ringfenced or slated for reduced cuts by George Osborne. The overall effect is that cuts to the Scottish budget may be slightly lower (because the extra Scottish cuts will appear in the overall UK budget instead).
But anyway what do we spend the money?
We spend more per head on Education and Health overall. Within these areas we do spend less in some parts than England and more in others - for example we spend less on early years education than England even though the overall education spend is greater.
We spend considerably less on justice and law and order - despite the various problems we have with alcohol. This is not a particularly good thing as our crime rates are higher. We also spend less on pensions due to lower longevity: parts of Glasgow have a life expectancy below 55 years for men - worse than many 3rd world countries. We also spend less on roads and transport regardless of the greater geographic need.
Unfortunately our lower spending in these areas is not because we use the money more effectively - we simply accepted (or ignored) worse outcomes. Many of the high profile political policies came at the price of worse standards elsewhere - we can afford free prescriptions because we issue fewer prescriptions and therefore have poorer health. Even in Health and Education where we spend more there is evidence that England have used their lower spending more effectively than we have.
And finally, universities. Ever since England introduced top up tuition fees, Scottish universities have received less than English universities; Scottish tuition fees (paid by the Scottish Government) are currently £1,820 comapred to £3,290 in England. We also spend less on research funding. Hence Scotish Universities are always agitating for introduction of English-style fees so they remain competitive with English universities.
The other differences with England are the number of students who go away to university and the structure and size of our Higher Education system. More Scottish students stay at home, perhaps possible due to each of the major cities having a good local university and perhaps because the less generous student loans/grants make it unaffordable to go elsewhere. Secondly, we have the five ancient universities, a couple of second tier universities like Strathclyde and Heriot Watt and a handful of ex-colleges. A much slimmer system compared to all the redbricks, ex-polys and others in England. Edinburgh and St Andrews also attract large numbers of English students - over 40% of Edinburgh's students are from England - as well as significant numbers of international students who pay full fees in the region of £12,000. EU students cost us around £75 million a year seeing as we have to pay their tuition fees for them too.
However, we shouldn't take a short term view of the situation. By charging English students up to £9,000 the Scottish Government plan to discourage fee refugees flooding Scotland while raising some extra money for Scottish universities to compete with the extra funding English universities will receive once fees go up. Yet if the SNP get their way and we become independent in 2015, English students will come from an independent EU nation - in other words we will no longer be able to charge them tuition fees and all that extra money the Government are raising disappears. With the flood gates then open for fees refugees, Scotland will likely no longer be able to afford free tuition (even though the overall economy might be better off independent).
If I were a Scot in Scotland, which I am not. I'd vote SNP, as it is a vote for me first, someone else's money for me, and my country.
However, here on PH the polls show that we'd rather that the Scots took their canny financial ways and bogged off:
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
Self-interest is a very strong motivator, and the Scots seem very adept at preserving and growing their own interests.
Here in England, we pay for others: EU; Ulster; Wales; Scots.
However, here on PH the polls show that we'd rather that the Scots took their canny financial ways and bogged off:
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
Self-interest is a very strong motivator, and the Scots seem very adept at preserving and growing their own interests.
Here in England, we pay for others: EU; Ulster; Wales; Scots.
4Q said:
So in the EU's eyes, Scotland is not only a separate state to the UK but it's also not an EU member..?
So they'll be asking for all the EU grants and stuff back then..?
No. In the EU's eyes Scotland is simply part of the UK. The EU isn't particularly bothered what happens internally - Brittany could discrimate against Alsace and they wouldn't raise a brow. But if Germany tried to discriminate against Italy, they would care. Hence Manchester Council could discriminate against Scousers but they can't discriminate against Poles.So they'll be asking for all the EU grants and stuff back then..?
And it isn't a race issue (or even nationality), it comes down to where you are ordinarily resident on a specific date (and up to three years before that). So a Scot who grows up in London and comes to Scotland age 18 for University would not be eligible whereas an English family who now live in Scotland would be.
All of this just emphasises the complete joke of Scotland being a country for some purposes and not for others. Same goes (in a slightly different way) for Wales and Northern Ireland.
IMO if there's anything on this earth which is a waste of public money it's all the little local politicians and beaurocrats with their offices and parliaments away from London. I'd bring the whole silly nonsense of Scotland and a Welsh assembly to an end right now.
IMO if there's anything on this earth which is a waste of public money it's all the little local politicians and beaurocrats with their offices and parliaments away from London. I'd bring the whole silly nonsense of Scotland and a Welsh assembly to an end right now.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff