Maybe we should write to the Prime Minister of England so that the government of England can discuss it and then the English parliament can vote on it.
Shame that no such institutions actually exist.
The government started charging an absolute fortune for fees when there were about 50 Scottish MPs on the government benches and the chancellor was a Scot representing a Scottish constituency.
No the government started charging an absolute fortune for fee's when England decided to elect the Tories in 2010. True Scottish MP's helped the English force through the lower tutition fee's when Labour first got back into power and that is unforgiveable as far as I'm concerned, however the problem still lies with England because of the fact Labour had to abandon everything they stood for and become a centre right party in order to become elected in England and if there was still any form of left wing government electable in England today it would not have been pushing for fee's in the first place. English voters have demanded centre right government since Thatcher so don't blame Scotland for that.
If the Scots want to have no university tuition fees that is up to them as they are paying the cost. I see you ignore the real problem with this which is the EU.
Actually it's a restriction on EU rules that is the problem. The EU wants free movement within its borders but "some countries" wanted restrictions on what their own citizens could do with those freedoms.
Cool, thats my daughter heading North then when its Uni time
Trying to persuade mine to do it too, as under Polish nationality laws, she qualifies for a Polish passport - even though neither she nor her mother have ever been there.
What ought to happen is making university education free and tightening up on entry requirements, while at the same time removing what's almost a stigma from apprenticeships and vocational courses and get businesses involved with funding them in a long-term sense, so say a company pays for your vocational training then you work for them for at least five years etc.
How would you define "tightening up on entry requirements?" IMO far too many people are passing through universitites who shouldn't really be there. I think uni's should be for the elete, not the financial elete, but those with the appropriate skill base.
With that in mind I don't see why they can't then be expected to pay for that leg up the job ladder somewhere through their careers. One could argue I suppose that they would by possibly ending up in jobs in a higher tax bracket but that assumes that they don't use those skills to emmigrate (he says acknowledging the fact that even under the current system they'd escape paying if they did so).
Five year contracts sound like a good idea but again their is a potential spanner in the works. You don't finish uni until you're nearly 22 years old. I forsee that raising an inequality amongst the gender of those potential graduate contracts on offer because a company would be mindfull that an 18/19 year old female might decide to become a full time mum before she's 30 and they won't see a return.
Cool, thats my daughter heading North then when its Uni time
Picking a university based on fees alone is a very bad start. The principle concern should be what someone wants to study and what university offers the best course options for this.
If someone wants a degree, any degree, preferably the cheaper the better then perhaps university is not for them.
Trying to persuade mine to do it too, as under Polish nationality laws, she qualifies for a Polish passport - even though neither she nor her mother have ever been there.
Better to allow her to select the university she wishes to attend based on course and not cost.
If England were to do the decent thing and back free education it would solve a lot of problems. They could pay their students fee's when one of their students is studying in Scotland and our government could pay our students fee's if we chose to go down south to study. This whole argument started because the English elected a government that wants to charge an absolute fortune for fee's. The problem and solution lies in England.
If you want underfunding for universities in Scotland, that's your choice. However in England the idea is that further education will get the funding it needs to be world class and unfortunately that can't be wholly funded by the taxpayer.
If you want underfunding for universities in Scotland, that's your choice. However in England the idea is that further education will get the funding it needs to be world class and unfortunately that can't be wholly funded by the taxpayer.
There is no increased funding to English universities. The change is who pays - government or student.
Actually it's a restriction on EU rules that is the problem. The EU wants free movement within its borders but "some countries" wanted restrictions on what their own citizens could do with those freedoms.
Afaik there is nothing stopping students from say England going to a Scottish university they just don't get the cost of their education there paid for so there is no restriction of movement.
If you want underfunding for universities in Scotland, that's your choice. However in England the idea is that further education will get the funding it needs to be world class and unfortunately that can't be wholly funded by the taxpayer.
We're not talking underfunding though. The Tories didn't bring in tuition fee's to provide a superior service than was already had. It was just the burden for university to students was moved onto the students. You'll end up like America where if your poor you just don't go to a decent uni.
Afaik there is nothing stopping students from say England going to a Scottish university they just don't get the cost of their education there paid for so there is no restriction of movement.
Also in many cases Scottish univeristy's will charge them less than what the universities in England would charge them.
Maybe we should write to the Prime Minister of England so that the government of England can discuss it and then the English parliament can vote on it.
Shame that no such institutions actually exist.
The government started charging an absolute fortune for fees when there were about 50 Scottish MPs on the government benches and the chancellor was a Scot representing a Scottish constituency.
50 seats equates to about 8% of Westminster votes.
There is nothing Scotland and its MP's can do to prevent English MP's passing whatever bill they see fit.
50 seats equates to about 8% of Westminster votes.
There is nothing Scotland and its MP's can do to prevent English MP's passing whatever bill they see fit.
So how about English voters electing 8% of the Scottish Assembly? Seems eminently reasonable to me. Then they can vote on matters that don't concern them at the orders of their party whip.
So how about English voters electing 8% of the Scottish Assembly? Seems eminently reasonable to me. Then they can vote on matters that don't concern them at the orders of their party whip.
I see that you realy do not understand what is meant by a British Parliament and a British Government;)
Can the Scottish government actually pay for this and the free prescriptions? What do they know that England doesn't know? Are we gonna end up in a Greece situation further down the line? I live here.
I see that you don't understand the meaning of reciprocity.
As i said you do not understand the concept of "British".
MPs from Scottish constituencies do not sit in an English parliament they sit in a British parliament. What you are advocating is English MPs sitting in a Scottish parliament. See the difference;)
So how about English voters electing 8% of the Scottish Assembly? Seems eminently reasonable to me. Then they can vote on matters that don't concern them at the orders of their party whip.
To paraphrase - shame that no such institution actually exists.
Can the Scottish government actually pay for this and the free prescriptions? What do they know that England doesn't know? Are we gonna end up in a Greece situation further down the line? I live here.
As i said you do not understand the concept of "British". MPs from Scottish constituencies do not sit in an English parliament they sit in a British parliament. What you are advocating is English MPs sitting in a Scottish parliament. See the difference;)
You haven't been following this thread very carefully, have you?
You haven't been following this thread very carefully, have you?
So how about English voters electing 8% of the Scottish Assembly? Seems eminently reasonable to me. Then they can vote on matters that don't concern them at the orders of their party whip.
Today 13:30
Comments
I do.
I couldn't care less.
No the government started charging an absolute fortune for fee's when England decided to elect the Tories in 2010. True Scottish MP's helped the English force through the lower tutition fee's when Labour first got back into power and that is unforgiveable as far as I'm concerned, however the problem still lies with England because of the fact Labour had to abandon everything they stood for and become a centre right party in order to become elected in England and if there was still any form of left wing government electable in England today it would not have been pushing for fee's in the first place. English voters have demanded centre right government since Thatcher so don't blame Scotland for that.
Trying to persuade mine to do it too, as under Polish nationality laws, she qualifies for a Polish passport - even though neither she nor her mother have ever been there.
How would you define "tightening up on entry requirements?" IMO far too many people are passing through universitites who shouldn't really be there. I think uni's should be for the elete, not the financial elete, but those with the appropriate skill base.
With that in mind I don't see why they can't then be expected to pay for that leg up the job ladder somewhere through their careers. One could argue I suppose that they would by possibly ending up in jobs in a higher tax bracket but that assumes that they don't use those skills to emmigrate (he says acknowledging the fact that even under the current system they'd escape paying if they did so).
Five year contracts sound like a good idea but again their is a potential spanner in the works. You don't finish uni until you're nearly 22 years old. I forsee that raising an inequality amongst the gender of those potential graduate contracts on offer because a company would be mindfull that an 18/19 year old female might decide to become a full time mum before she's 30 and they won't see a return.
Picking a university based on fees alone is a very bad start. The principle concern should be what someone wants to study and what university offers the best course options for this.
If someone wants a degree, any degree, preferably the cheaper the better then perhaps university is not for them.
Better to allow her to select the university she wishes to attend based on course and not cost.
If you want underfunding for universities in Scotland, that's your choice. However in England the idea is that further education will get the funding it needs to be world class and unfortunately that can't be wholly funded by the taxpayer.
There is no increased funding to English universities. The change is who pays - government or student.
Afaik there is nothing stopping students from say England going to a Scottish university they just don't get the cost of their education there paid for so there is no restriction of movement.
We're not talking underfunding though. The Tories didn't bring in tuition fee's to provide a superior service than was already had. It was just the burden for university to students was moved onto the students. You'll end up like America where if your poor you just don't go to a decent uni.
Also in many cases Scottish univeristy's will charge them less than what the universities in England would charge them.
50 seats equates to about 8% of Westminster votes.
There is nothing Scotland and its MP's can do to prevent English MP's passing whatever bill they see fit.
So how about English voters electing 8% of the Scottish Assembly? Seems eminently reasonable to me. Then they can vote on matters that don't concern them at the orders of their party whip.
I see that you realy do not understand what is meant by a British Parliament and a British Government;)
I see that you don't understand the meaning of reciprocity.
I have no knowledge just wondering.
As i said you do not understand the concept of "British".
MPs from Scottish constituencies do not sit in an English parliament they sit in a British parliament. What you are advocating is English MPs sitting in a Scottish parliament. See the difference;)
To paraphrase - shame that no such institution actually exists.
The SNP government has fully costed all policies.
You haven't been following this thread very carefully, have you?
Maastricht University only charges EU students only €1,713 a year, and does courses in English.
Get a job for 32 hours a month while you're studying, and they give you a grant worth €265 to cover costs.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2012/feb/09/british-students-maastricht-university-lower-fees
You did say this , didn't you:D