Alison Payne, research director for the think-tank Reform Scotland, believes that independence would put Alex Salmond in a tricky situation regarding tuition fees for students from the UK.
David Willetts, the UK Universities Minister, has warned that free university education is not a ‘long-term viable option’ for Scotland.
This follows on from last week’s reports that the Scottish Labour party has dropped its opposition to some form of deferred fee, with former education secretary Des McNulty saying that a contribution by graduates to the cost of their university education was "inevitable".
Although the SNP appear to remain committed to wholly taxpayer-funded university tuition, it is not clear how this would operate in an independent Scotland.
As I understand the situation, an independent Scotland, which was also a member of the EU, would have to allow students from England, Wales and Northern Ireland access to free tuition fees if that policy applied to people living in Scotland.
They would no longer have to pay up to £36,000 to complete a Scottish degree, as currently. Basically students in the rest of the UK could choose to attend institutions south of the border and face high tuition costs, or come to Scotland and study for free. This would be a totally unaffordable position. It is somewhat ironic that the SNP’s policy with regard to tuition fees is only manageable if Scotland remains part of the UK!
With Conservatives and now Labour apparently open to the idea of deferred fees; the SNP needs to clarify how they would fund higher education in an independent Scotland. Against the current austere economic backdrop, it is more essential than ever that politicians start seriously looking at how we fund higher education.
The first step has to be to dispel the myth that tuition is ‘free’. It is not. Tuition fees are currently paid for by taxpayers.
In an ideal world, higher education should be an option open to everyone who is academically able. However, even under the current system of taxpayer-funded university places, there are school leavers who cannot afford to attend university and instead seek employment. It cannot be right that such individuals, or indeed other non-graduates, have to fully subsidise through their taxes those who can afford to go to university.
While many graduates may earn more and subsequently pay more tax, this should not be seen as payment towards higher education, as many higher rate taxpayers are not university graduates.
We need to move away from the current system which is wholly subsidised by the taxpayer to one where there is a better balance with both graduates and taxpayers sharing the cost, as both share the benefits.
Reform Scotland set out its preferred option of higher education funding in the report Power to Learn. We called for a deferred fee, based on the Australian system, to be introduced.
The deferred fee would cover a proportion of the cost of tuition, with the Scottish government funding a set percentage of the average cost of a degree, broken down by broad subject area.
The existing system for collecting student loans could easily be used for the collection of the deferred fee, once the graduate earns more than the Scottish average salary.
The recent Scottish Social Attitudes Survey also indicated a falling level of support in Scotland for wholly taxpayer funded tuition. In 2000, 38 per cent of respondents said that students should not have to pay towards their tuition, but by 2010 this had fallen to 20 per cent.
This fall in support will of course be influenced by the economic climate. Scotland is facing an austere future, at least in the short-term, regardless of our constitutional future. Tough decisions have to be made because there is less money to go round. Before universal services, such as healthcare, school education or housing are affected, higher education funding must be addressed.
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