Advanced search

To think it is unfair that Scots and Welsh students don't have to pay for university education whereas English students do, even if they attend a Scots or Welsh university?

(132 Posts)
Dolcelatte Tue 26-Aug-14 18:22:26

It just doesn't seem fair at all to me. Young English students are saddled with a mountain of debt at a young age whereas, as I understand the position, the Scots and Welsh don't have to pay. No doubt some wise MNer will correct me if I'm wrong.

I don't have anything against the Scots or Welsh students or begrudge them their good fortune; they are very lucky. And I know that life isn't fair, but even so....
(this is where I would sign off with a suitable emoticon but IT skills sadly lacking by this mother of 2 DC at English universities).

But, the parliament governs Scotland too at the moment. Why should we not have a voice too?

empathetic Fri 29-Aug-14 19:46:32

He he statisticallyChallenged... are you challenging my statistics? wink

It is true that landslide victories would have been unaltered (with reduced majorities if Labour, and increased majorities if Tory) and that all Tory wins would remain as they were. It is narrow Labour wins that would have been different.

So mainly it is the current government, together with the Wilson governments of the 60's and 70's , def the minority callaghan govt of 76 and the Labour victory in 1950 that would have been affected.

Frequency is not really the point though - ONCE is too often and it applies right now. I want a democracy where the people who will be ruled are the only ones to vote and to have representatives in the parliament in question.

isshoes Fri 29-Aug-14 16:54:14

Excuse my poorly written post please hmm

isshoes Fri 29-Aug-14 16:53:22

Just to pick up on your point SelfconfessedSpoon - I appreciate your situation is frustrating but I don't think it's necessarily unfair. Universities interpret the rules differently, but my understanding of the basic rule of thumb is that if the parents have not been paying into the UK tax system for several years, their children don't are not eligible for subsidised fees. As for international students, they would have been having to live in the UK with their family, and their family would have to have been paying UK tax. That seems quite logical to me. There are other caveats but the above is the general rule I believe.

Can you link your source info please, because that doesn't match the info I have seen in various places.

empathetic Fri 29-Aug-14 16:34:14

statistics it's the other way round: it's only the Blair Labour govt that would have held power were it not for the Scots. I WOULD say it about other constituencies if they had THEIR OWN PARLIAMENTs and yet still kept seats in ours! IMO either all of the countries in the Union (Scotland, England and Wales, and NI) should have their own parliaments with an extra one for Union matters, or NONE of them should have their own chambers. It just seems not fair leaving out the English and this unfairness would largely disappear if Scotland went completely its own way.

Dolcelatte Fri 29-Aug-14 07:17:33

Toad, I am bemused that you think that the Lib Dems would have stuck to their manifesto. It took about 5 minutes for Nick Clegg to sell students down the river once it was politically expedient for him to do so, by voting in fees for students, despite previously saying that he would not do so. At that stage, I lost all respect for him and the party which he supposedly represents.

Clegg should have maintained his stance on something as important as this and, if he truly believed in the principle of free education, he should have been prepared to resign over it. But self interest came first, as it always seems to with politicians of all shades and nationalities.

Bambambini Thu 28-Aug-14 23:04:29

Because the Westminster government actually means the english government in many english folks minds. I've heard folk moan in the past at having to have a scottish PM, chancellor etc because of course they should be English.

OldLadyKnowsSomething Thu 28-Aug-14 19:12:28

Oh, you mean tuition fees, of course! blush Sorry, I thought you meant you pay for Westminster, and we don't.

OldLadyKnowsSomething Thu 28-Aug-14 19:10:25

Eh? What don't we pay?

Marmiteandjamislush Thu 28-Aug-14 18:47:50

I also hate the propaganda that the English want to keep Scotland 'yoked', that is just not the case. I also hate that we are not allowed to be proud of being English, but the Scottish are allowed to be Scottish, the Welsh, Welsh and the Irish Irish, but us, no we must be British otherwise we are colonialist or racist. I hate it. sad

Marmiteandjamislush Thu 28-Aug-14 18:38:23

This is why, as an English person living in England I am aching for a yes vote. The Scottish should have no say in Westminster or English politics, that is why we pay and they don't.

Empathetic, scottish votes have not changed the result in the majority of elections. I've seen the full analysis somewhere, but in recent times it is only the current election where the outcome was changed. There have only been, I think, 4 since ww2 where the Scottish result changed the outcome. The only one in recent times was the current government.

Of course, you appear to think that Scottish people are some sort of "other" who have less of a right to a say in the government than English people. Or you could, alternatively, pick 59 other constituencies which tend to never elect the Tories (there's plenty of them, try looking in ex mining towns) and say that they prevent you having self determination...

empathetic Thu 28-Aug-14 18:17:17

Toad yes, english seats dominate Westminster but it is Scottish seats that swing the balance of power between parties, and therefore determine who forms the actual government.

Toadinthehole Thu 28-Aug-14 12:08:41

I don't agree. English seats dominate the Westminster parliament. This parliament (or at least the most important chamber in it) is elected at regular intervals. If that is not self-determination then name me one country that has it.

The English already have the power to govern their own affairs. They cannot be outvoted in the parliament that legislates for their country. Which brings one back to the OP of this thread: the English could have had the same deal as the Scots by electing a party that had the same manifesto commitment: the Lib Dems.

empathetic Thu 28-Aug-14 11:58:30

Cherries true! But it's not really about jealousy, it's about self determination. I am all for the Scottish deciding how they want to spend their money (eg education more than health, if that is what they choose) and for England to do the same.

OTOH, really, I suspect we are "better together", as they say.

Cherriesandapples Thu 28-Aug-14 11:38:02

You may be jealous of fees but you probably have a hospital within a reasonable distance! Debt over life and death....

empathetic Thu 28-Aug-14 11:33:17

Just found this in New Statesman January 2012:

"What is true is that so long as British politics remains "hung", Labour cannot afford for Scotland to go it alone. Were it not for Miliband's Scottish MPs, the Tories would have won a majority of 19 at the last election. The loss of Scotland, coupled with the coalition's boundary changes (which will deprive Labour of 28 seats, the Tories of 7 and the Lib Dems of 11), would stack the odds against a Labour majority."

So we would currently have a Tory govt and not coalition right now if we were really able to self determine (and we could easily have been having a Labour/LibDem coalition right now if Clegg had got into bed with Labour, despite the country having voted by a majority for the Tories). Whatever your personal voting preferences (mine are not Tory), it is def true that we don't currently have the govt we voted for. I would view that situation changing as a real positive if Scotland goes independent.

empathetic Thu 28-Aug-14 11:29:35

A couple of times is maybe 6 or 8 years of government! That is def not self determination.

Toadinthehole Thu 28-Aug-14 11:15:48

We already have self-determination.

Empathetic that's not true re Scotland changing the results, it's only been a couple of times where it has prevented a majority I believe.

empathetic Thu 28-Aug-14 10:58:03

Iamsoannoyed I wasn't thinking so much about being better off economically. I was thinking of:

We could have double summer time (yay!)
We could vote out student fees (yay!)
We could get a govt we voted for, and not have it swung to a different party by the Scottish MPs (a lot of parliaments, excepting Blair's landslide, would have had a different majority party without Scotland)

I suppose I just fancy self determination for the English, really.

TalkinPeace Thu 28-Aug-14 10:17:25

Scotland is not a net contributor to the EU
and what about the University jobs that would vanish ....

OldLadyKnowsSomething Thu 28-Aug-14 03:27:33

Talkinpeace, while it's all very well to talk about the subsidies we wouldn't recieve, you ignore the fact that we are net contributors. So, in the (very unlikely) case we are indeed chucked out of the EU, we would not be paying into the subsides of others and all of that money coild be used to support our own farmers.

Or y'know, land reform.

Toadinthehole Thu 28-Aug-14 00:37:46

Yes, I agree, unless there had been some major political upheaval of some sort. But imagine if in the decade following a no vote, the SNP continued to gain support, polls started to show a pro Yes majority, and the Tories remained both in government and unpopular in Scotland, then I think the argument would succeed. My fear is that this is what will happen.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now