Tory David Willetts yesterday made one of those flying visits to Scotland so in vogue currently with Westminster ministers to tell us why independence will undermine Scotland's reputation for scientific excellence.
It followed the launch last week of Academics Together, an arm of the anti-independence campaign group Better Together, when respected emeritus professor Hugh Pennington expressed fears for Scottish academia in the event of a Yes vote.
Among Professor Pennington's specific concerns was that independence might curtail the careers of young scientists like myself. I can reassure the professor he need not be so feart.
The No campaign likes to assert Scottish research does very well from the Union. It cites the statistic that Scotland gets 15% of UK research spending while comprising only 8.4% of the UK population.
But the distribution of research funding cannot be measured on a per-capita basis. Funding is allocated to universities using the dual support system of the UK Research Councils and is based on quality, not geographical location.
Scotland currently has seven of the 50 top universities in the UK, representing 14%. So while receiving 15% of funding is highly commendable, it is far from out of proportion and is solely due of the excellence of Scottish research institutions. It is an excellence maintained and improved during the 16 years since higher education policy was devolved.
The Scottish Government has explicitly committed itself to supporting and investing in the contribution of our universities and thus to fund them accordingly. Independence has opportunities for major savings - the removal of Trident, for example, and the implementation of a defence budget commensurate to our size and needs.
Indeed, the fundamental principle that Scotland can and should identify its own priorities, and budget accordingly, is at the heart of this debate. Given the relative fiscal strength of Scotland, it is evident Scotland could at the very least maintain its current levels of investment in research.
Professor Pennington also spoke about his fears Scottish independence would harm research collaboration.
If this concern was legitimate, this would equally apply to the borders that already exist between countries of the world. Indeed, the Westminster Government's assessment of the performance of UK research highlights the dominant international flavour, noting 63% of research staff at UK institutions have published work when working overseas and nearly half (46%) have published with co-authors from outside Britain.
It is therefore evident from the Coalition's own analysis that the free movement of people, ideas and innovation across borders is already taking place.
It is vital that policy, such as immigration, is geared towards maintaining international collaboration and attracting the best research staff.
Finally, on Professor Pennington's fears about a negative impact on the careers of young scientists, it is self-evident that to pursue a career in science a degree is necessary. It is also a well-trodden point that universities elsewhere in the UK charge up to £9000 a year to study.
What is most likely to curtail an embryonic career in science is an individual feeling unable to pursue their potential due to prohibitive debt. This would limit university to those who can afford it, not those with the most potential.
To date the Scottish Government has resisted calls to impose tuition fees, despite the increase in university funding they may bring. Only with the full powers of independence can we take a holistic view of taxation and spending, including that on research, to ensure not only do we continue to fund our universities to an appropriate level, but we do so without imposing punitive fees on prospective students, stifling any potential before it has the chance to be fulfilled.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article