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?

[Dolcelatte]

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).

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.

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

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.

Excuse my poorly written post please

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

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.

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