Implications of Scottish Independence

[Architect]

You one-eyed lot really are selective in what you read, aren't you? Why didn't you quote this one, where I acknowledged that you were partially correct, but that the West Lothian question had cost my daughter £8000? Eh? Didn't quite suit your agenda, did it?


Maybe you didn't quote that because on the same page you scurrilously, and without any cause, accused me of racism.

"One eyed lot" - a reference to Gordon Brown, I assume. Classy.

Let's be clear here.

- You have never, as far as I can see, pointed out that the original vote to introduce tuition fees did affect the whole of the UK and was voted on by Westiminster. The West Lothian was not an issue there.

- Likewise you apparently ignore the fact that £22k of that debt your daughter incurred was due to English politicians at Westiminster deciding to raise the cap on fees. Scottish votes didn't make a difference there.

- You ignore the fact that our (i.e. the Scottish) government pays the fees out of its own block grant. In other words, we're just paying for it through general taxation. Moreover we study for four years here, not three, something Westminster blithely ignored when it introduced fees in the first place.

So come on, if you're not racist then why are you only whinging about one-eyed "scumbag Scottish Labour politicians"? Where are the complaints about Westminster shafting your daughter and the other youth of England?

 

[Architect]

Be fair. I actually agree completely with that entire rant. The bit as quoted by you, at least.

Rolfe.

That many Labour politicians are scumbags? No argument there.

That the crippling debt burden his daughter is suffering is solely due to Scottish politicians? Bollocks.

Still, his "one eyed" comment proves the mettle of the man, I think.

 

[MikeG]

"One eyed lot" - a reference to Gordon Brown, I assume. Classy.........

Absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Gordon Brown. Why on earth would you think that? It is a standard expression meaning seeing things from a very narrow point of view with no perspective.

Care to withdraw your sneering comments "classy" and "the mettle of the man" in the light of your error?

 

[MikeG]

- Likewise you apparently ignore the fact that £22k of that debt your daughter incurred was due to English politicians at Westiminster deciding to raise the cap on fees. Scottish votes didn't make a difference there.

Which bit of:

Yes, and you are perfectly correct, of course. I should have been more careful. The West Lothian question is only responsible for £8000 of her debt (4 year degree course x [£3000 - £1000] = £8000).

are you finding so terribly difficult to understand? I acknowledged that my initial post was wrong months and months ago. And again today. £22k of my daughrter's debt was not due to the West Lothian question. But £8000 was, and for that portion of it, I say again, those Scottish Labour MPs who voted that way are scumbags.

You ignore the fact that our (i.e. the Scottish) government pays the fees out of its own block grant. In other words, we're just paying for it through general taxation. Moreover we study for four years here, not three, something Westminster blithely ignored when it introduced fees in the first place.

Nothing whatsoever to do with your continued abuse of me for using the term scumbag in relation to those Scottish Labour Politicians who voted in top up fees.

So come on, if you're not racist then why are you only whinging about one-eyed "scumbag Scottish Labour politicians"?

Nauseating.

When did you stop beating your wife?

Where are the complaints about Westminster shafting your daughter and the other youth of England?

Here for the third time(you even linked to it earlier today):

I heartily condemn all of those who were involved in the most disgraceful example of one generation pulling the ladder up after itself that I can recall in this country in the last 100 years. What this generation has done to our kids' generation in terms of university funding is dispicable. I have said that eslewhere on the forum a number of times.
Mike

Why didn't you bother reading this the first or the second time I posted it? The very personification of one-eyed.

 

[Francesca R]

I heartily condemn all of those who were involved in the most disgraceful example of one generation pulling the ladder up after itself that I can recall in this country in the last 100 years. What this generation has done to our kids' generation in terms of university funding is dispicable. I have said that eslewhere on the forum a number of times.

I know it's not really the topic, but reducing state funding of university tuition is the removal of what was a regressive transfer. As such it is a good thing from a progressive point of view. Last time I looked the lifetime earnings of graduates were on average more than 50% higher than non graduates so having non graduates pay less (than they did) in tax to put students through uni is a progressive change. And opposing it is hardly liberal policy IMO.

The older generations have already benefited at the expense of younger ones (and the unborn) from public policy, there is not much that can be done about the sunk inequity of it, other than stop it happening further (such as removing universality of all old-age benefits)

 

[Francesca R]

Hmm. I might be wrong, but I don't believe that anybody (including the United Nations) recognises the Scottish population as an "indigenous people" by the meaning of the term that Rolfe is using here.

The UN doesn't, and I thought I had shown this in this thread a few years ago but it must be another one. Scotland would not have had a claim of self determination under article 1 of the UN charter.

Not that this is particularly relevant to whether it will be recognised as such if the independence referendum goes yes.

 

[LondonJohn]

I know it's not really the topic, but reducing state funding of university tuition is the removal of what was a regressive transfer. As such it is a good thing from a progressive point of view. Last time I looked the lifetime earnings of graduates were on average more than 50% higher than non graduates so having non graduates pay less (than they did) in tax to put students through uni is a progressive change. And opposing it is hardly liberal policy IMO.

The older generations have already benefited at the expense of younger ones (and the unborn) from public policy, there is not much that can be done about the sunk inequity of it, other than stop it happening further (such as removing universality of all old-age benefits)

Yes, it's odd (and economically illiterate, as you point out) that vociferous campaigners for redistribution of wealth have - almost universally - exhibited a knee-jerk opposition to the introduction of uni tuition fees. Next they'll be condemning the removal of tax breaks for high earners

But regardless of what one thinks (or what one thinks one thinks ) about the uni tuition fees legislation, it's still a massively valid and relevant point that MPs for Scottish constituencies were voting on a policy that was highly unlikely to affect their constituents directly in any way.

 

[Francesca R]

Indeed. If you can tax "foreign visitors" then so much the better. Lots of countries charge "overseas" students the full whack, and it would have been highly counterintuitive for MSPs not to have voted this way.

 

[MikeG]

......it would have been highly counterintuitive for MSPs not to have voted this way.

But we're talking about MPs, not MSPs. Scottish MPs at Westminster who voted for a measure that only affected English kids, not Scottish.

 

[Francesca R]

You'll have to fill me in here. What say did Westminster's parliament have in Scotland's student fee laws?

 

[Francesca R]

The economic case heavily favours independence, and all they can do about that is present false-comparison statistics and lie about it.

I think you've admitted that you don't have the wherewithal to validate this statement, so it is to be discarded, even if you repeat it a bunch of times.

 

[Francesca R]

Why not [give a referendum vote to] all UK citizens?

I struggle to recall any independence vote which ever included the voters of the nation being seceded from. Has that happened anywhere? I can see the merit of it but I also think it would result in a no vote in just about every case. (And no votes are more likely than yes anyway)

 

[MikeG]

You'll have to fill me in here. What say did Westminster's parliament have in Scotland's student fee laws?

None. But the Scots had a big say in ours.

It was the Scottish MPs voting on English university top-up fees that was what we were originally discussing. Tony Blair's government got their top-up fee bill through parliament by a handful of votes, and 40 odd Scottish Labour MPs voted for it knowing full well it would only affect English uni students (as education is a devolved matter, and the Scottish parliament had already taken a decision to continue having free uni tuition in Scotland).

 

[Soapy Sam]

I think you've admitted that you don't have the wherewithal to validate this statement, so it is to be discarded, even if you repeat it a bunch of times.

Francesca, are you implying that the statement is false? (And if so , how would you prove that?) - or simply saying Rolfe can't prove it is true?

(I think the latter, but I'm checking).

 

[Francesca R]

None. But the Scots had a big say in ours.

Quite. So Westminster MPs voted through a sensible policy for the UK. Meanshile Scotland's parliament opted for relatively regressive funding of tertiary ed.

The way you write, it sounds a bit like (i) you should support independence and (ii) you should consider moving to Scotland.

 

[Francesca R]

Francesca, are you implying that the statement is false? (And if so , how would you prove that?) - or simply saying Rolfe can't prove it is true?

(I think the latter, but I'm checking).

I am not implying anything. More out-and-out stating that Rolfe has nothing to go on beyond sentiments like "because my priest said so, it must be true"

 

[MikeG]

I do support independence, on balance, mainly because so many Scots seem to hate us so much. I just loath the way the argument is being put in this thread, with endless unsupported assertion and much hyperbole and invective. You can ask for evidence until you are blue in the face in this thread, and you'll get linked to a pro-independence blog if you're lucky. This is why I appear to be on the case of some of the pro-independence bloggers posters in this thread, despite supporting, on balance, their cause.

Why would I consider moving to Scotland? What have I said that even suggests that is a sensible course of action?

I don't agree with your categorisation of the 2 different university funding systems, but that is an irrelevant aside for another day and another thread.

 

[Francesca R]

Why would I consider moving to Scotland? What have I said that even suggests that is a sensible course of action?

Because you apparently favour taxpayer funded tertiary education fees. They do that there (for now). They also have other regressive policies like universal free prescriptions.

 

[Architect]

None. But the Scots had a big say in ours.

It was the Scottish MPs voting on English university top-up fees that was what we were originally discussing. Tony Blair's government got their top-up fee bill through parliament by a handful of votes, and 40 odd Scottish Labour MPs voted for it knowing full well it would only affect English uni students (as education is a devolved matter, and the Scottish parliament had already taken a decision to continue having free uni tuition in Scotland).

A partial and biased view of the position. Let's remind ourselves of what really happened.

Having drank long into the night many a time with the late Iain Crawford, who for obvious reasons might have known a thing or two about tuition fees and loans, this is an area I know a little about. And I'm afraid that you're not correct.

The legislation introducing tuition fees was enacted in 1998, under a Labour administration at Westminster and prior to the 1999 devolution of power to Scotland (or the other administrations, for that matter). It covered the whole of the UK and set an annual fee of £1,000.

But, wait for it, the original authors of the Bill (thanks, Westminster) managed to overlook the fact that Scottish degrees were traditionally 4 years rather than 3. Cue some last minute changes and some expenditure by the then Scottish Office to cover the extra year of money. Out of our own block grant. Nice one, Westminster. I remember all the howls in the English press about how unfair that was on us. Ah, no, wait, there weren't any. Basically, we had to pay up.

Come 2000, the Cubbie Report (you won't have heard of that on the "national" news) recommended the abolition of tuition fees in Scotland but that graduates, once in employment, should be required to pay £3,000 (in instalments) to fund future students. The Scottish Government accepted this, saving for lowering the amount to £2,000.

In 2001, Labour are elected for a second term with a manifesto promise not to introduce so-called top-up fees. Just two years later they reneged on the promise and decided that universities could charge up to £3,000 per annum. There was a major backbench rebellion and the legislation only just passed.In the face of the rebellion, Scottish MPs where whipped into voting for the motion. The SNP and Scottish Liberal MPs voted against.

Now people might feel that they were badly let down, and they're right. They were badly let down by the Labour Party and the Westminster system.

Scotland and the other devolved administrations did not, however, follow suit. And just to add to the controversy, IDS promised that the Tories would abolish the fees.

Of course scroll on a few years to 2010 and the Browne Review, which sets out a number of options including lifting the £3,000 per annum cap. This time its a Tory/Lib coalition. MPs approved raising the cap on tuition fees by a 323 to 302 vote. Now a quick look at the voting record. Well obviously not an issue about Scottish Tory MSPs, and the Liberal cabinet members voted with the Whip.

But wait...the SNP voted AGAINST the proposal, as did Plaid Cymru, the SDLP, and the DUP. As did the Scottish Labour MPs.

That can't be right, can it? Because you claim that your daughter is landed with £30k of debt solely because of the West Lothian Question!

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is what I mean about the narrow viewpoint of some of our southern colleagues. Firstly it was Westminster which used its overwhelming vote to land us Scots with an extra £1k in tuition fees because of our longer degree courses, which we then meet the cost for out of our own block grant from Westminster. It's not like we might have wanted to spend it on anything else, eh?

Then yes, the whip system is shockingly abused to get the cap lifted to £3k pa using Scottish MPs when we're already covering this extra cost for our students from....wait for it.....our block grant. Its not like we might have wanted to spend it on anything else again, eh? Not like we, as in the devolved administration, put its money where its mouth was.

Then, nearly 10 years later, English MPs - look at that list, that's who put it through - decide to move the cap so far up as to cause huge financial pain for the less well off, leaving students with huge debt. Your Tory and Liberal MPs did it all on their own, burdening people like your daughter with anything up to a further £18k debt. But somehow, despite all the SNP and Labour MPs in Scotland coming out against it, it's somehow still our fault.

 

[Architect]

nm