Scotland has a distinctive education system, from nursery through primary and secondary schooling to the tertiary sector. The third sector, encompassing higher education (HE), is also part of a wider UK system that has allowed distinctiveness to develop and, at the same time, been characterised by cross-border flows involving academics and students. Devolution has provided an opportunity for universities to become more distinctive in Britain. Divergence has been most marked between Scotland and England. A report published yesterday, Universities UK, which represents principals and vice-chancellors, examines the impact of devolution on HE and how trends might develop.

Scotland has a distinctive education system, from nursery through primary and secondary schooling to the tertiary sector. The third sector, encompassing higher education (HE), is also part of a wider UK system that has allowed distinctiveness to develop and, at the same time, been characterised by cross-border flows involving academics and students. Devolution has provided an opportunity for universities to become more distinctive in Britain. Divergence has been most marked between Scotland and England. A report published yesterday, Universities UK, which represents principals and vice-chancellors, examines the impact of devolution on HE and how trends might develop.

It highlights areas of concern for the sector in Scotland, most notably in a gap developing between this country and England in overall funding and funding for research. Anxiety about Scotland potentially falling behind in general funding has been expressed since top-up fees for students, levied by almost every English institution at the maximum £3000 annual level, were introduced. Home-domiciled students studying in this country have not paid fees since the SNP government abolished the graduate endowment. The Holyrood administration has provided additional funding for teaching to make up for any likely shortfall but, as the report points out, the challenge to continue doing so will intensify if, as expected, the £3000 cap is lifted and English universities will be able to set their own top-up fees, probably from 2010-11. Such challenges are the price of Scotland diverging from England in the direction of HE travel. The path followed is more inclusive, less elitist and less market-driven. The Herald has believed that this is the correct course to take and has been opposed to top-up fees as a regressive measure at a time when access to HE should be further opened up and participation widened. Top-up fees do not serve that goal, despite bursaries of limited value and maintenance grants for students from low-income families in England.

The report suggests there should be Barnett consequentials flowing to Scotland in recognition of the extra revenue for English universities from top-up fees. The Herald has had major reservations about top-up fees but it is very hard to imagine this, or any other, Westminster government agreeing to provide more cash for Scottish HE on the basis of a market-driven funding initiative that goes directly to individual fee-setting institutions in England.

The report quotes Sir Timothy O'Shea, principal of Edinburgh University, who has pointed out that Scotland receives more than its population-share of research funding. However, it warns that Scotland's share is falling and England's is rising. If so, that too must be addressed, as it is historic strengths in clinical medicine, and potency in newer disciplines such as biotechnology, that mark Scottish HE out as distinctive and worthy not only of protection but also enhancement.