Scotland's Uni Funding System Faces Legal Challenge

[Meister Jag]

Apologies for my garbled response - tried to be all clever and can't quite master the multi-quote option; which doesn't seem to work on my laptop for reasons unknown. I'd ask you for a tutorial, but you'd probably want a consultancy fee then then not declare it when fiddling your latest student loan application. Okay, the family accountant or tax advisor probably does that for you...

 

What bit of the following didn't you understand?

 

1. That the simple fact is that our society can afford to send all the students who currently want to go to university to enjoy the benefits of the education they desire. A great many of them are already going and there is significant unemployment in our society meaning we have no alternative use for the net labour; so why not pay to educate people? The alternatives are that we end up with the feral children recently referred to in the tabloid press. Your free-market goddess Thatcher used such measures to mask unemployment for years.

 

2. As I mentioned but you failed to grasp, the process of teaching and learning is ephemeral. Of course it creates human and social capital, both of which is of enormous value to society. Okay, at outset the benefits of education may be hard to quantify; but value comes in many forms. personal and societal spin-offs are plentiful.

 

3. The economic reality is that university education on the scale we have enjoyed it is possible, and it appears sustainable. But to me you seem to wish what is possible and at risk of appearing rude (I'll attempt to do that later in my post ) could this not be because you're from a generation that has only known that to get anything you've got to pay? I find that really quite sad and it shows no belief that we can benefit each other for the common good. we all know there's massive fiscal waste in this country so why not divert money to tackle root and branch problems and try to educate our people. Education is for life and it's not all about who can gain most qualifications to make the most money.

 

And for the record, it's incredibly unlikely that I will go on to run my own business. I have absolutely no desire to do that and am not remotely entrepreneurial. I'm a bourgeois academic who will live a comfortable but far from executive lifestyle at best!

 

Woody son... Kaboom - that worked, the old guy scores with a volley now it's game on. Is there nothing this old guy can't do? Anyway, I've not met many poor lawyers so would imagine that you'll qualify and make a nice living. In so doing and supposing that you'll not go into corporate law, then you may even come into contact with the great unwashed and flotsam and jetsam of society. I think you're in for a rude awakening my young friend; it may even be life changing. (And I promise I'm not trying to patronise you by suggesting that you've come from a good postcode area so have never known misery. You go to Firhill so will have known pain.)

 

But and this is a serious point, if you don't use your 1st class honours degree, are you not guilty of defrauding the tax payer? I mean, by your reckoning, we will all have paid for you to have a great time at your finishing establishment of choice, but with no pay back. I don't work to carry loafers, so I'm expecting big things; including a political conversion along the way. The other option is to send you to the army but they'd probably just cut their losses and use you for bayonet practice! (Joke... before you send your man round!)

 

All this and I haven't given you a Marxist analysis of the education system. But watch this space... that will send you over the top!

 

P.S. Good to see that you and your mum are close. My concern was that boarding school had screwed with your head. Please remember that a mother is a person who seeing there are only four pies for five people, promptly announces she never did care for a pie! She's obviously experienced the Firhill catering then?

Edited August 23, 2011 by Meister Jag

[Lambies Lost Doo]

Education is a devolved issue, and the Scottish electorate (rightly or wrongly) have chosen how they want higher education to be financed. If England didn't want higher 'tuition fees', they shouldn't have voted for the Conservatives - why should the Scottish Government assume the cost of educating any English student who wants to avoid tuition fees?

 

The demonisation of the English. It's an acceptable type of racism in effect. Europe = Good. England = Bad. Ridiculous and shows how petty and narrow minded the Nationalists really are. And to think the Education Minister was born in England. It's madness.

[Meister Jag]

P.P.S. As I've taken this way off topic (sorry Blackpool Jag) I promise no more from me on this one. But feel free to start up an anti-coalition thread as I'm at a loose end tonight and am happy to spout all sorts of p***!

[Vladimir Putin]

The demonisation of the English. It's an acceptable type of racism in effect. Europe = Good. England = Bad. Ridiculous and shows how petty and narrow minded the Nationalists really are. And to think the Education Minister was born in England. It's madness.

 

It's not about demonising anyone, and it certainly isn't racist. It just isn't practical for the Scottish Government, while education is devolved, to assume the cost of educating English students. How many English students would apply to St Andrews, Edinburgh and Glasgow if it was free to them here while knowing they would have to, later in life, pay £27,000 for their education in England?

[Woodstock Jag]

Education is a devolved issue, and the Scottish electorate (rightly or wrongly) have chosen how they want higher education to be financed. If England didn't want higher 'tuition fees', they shouldn't have voted for the Conservatives - why should the Scottish Government assume the cost of educating any English student who wants to avoid tuition fees? It's also completely impractical - if it was free for English students in Scotland, how many English students do you think would apply to St Andrews, Glasgow and Edinburgh? Thousands upon thousands, many of whom would have top grades. The Scottish Government's responsibility is to Scottish students, and in this sense they have no choice. The law firm making an issue of this is just seeking publicity.

 

The EU dimension is the big one though. If Scotland were an independent state and an EU member, they'd have to extend these privileges to English students to be allowed to give them to Scots.

 

To me it seems wholly irrational that English students should be penalised compared to others by having to pay more for exactly the same education at exactly the same establishment. If the Scottish people have made a political choice to make tuition state-funded, then they have to, well... fund it through the state. If there isn't enough money to provide tuition without surcharge, they'll just have to raise taxes or accept that fees, even if small, will become a part of the system. Don't penalise a specific group on arbitrary lines of domicile.

 

Firstly apologies for my garbled response - tried to be all clever and can't quite master the multi-quote option; which doesn't seem to work on my laptop for reasons unknown. I'd ask you for a tutorial, but you'd probably want a consultancy fee then then not declare it when fiddling your latest student loan application. Okay, the family accountant or tax advisor probably does that for you...

 

You simply put quote tags around each separate bit of a post.

 

Oh, and I don't have a student loan and my family certainly doesn't have an accountant or tax adviser.

 

1. That the simple fact is that our society can afford to send all the students who currently want to go to university to enjoy the benefits of the education they desire. A great many of them are already going and there is significant unemployment in our society meaning we have no alternative use for the net labour; so why not pay to educate people? The alternatives are that we end up with the feral children recently referred to in the tabloid press. Your free-market goddess Thatcher used such measures to mask unemployment for years.

 

Just because "society" can afford to do this (and actually they can't) doesn't mean they should. We should be rapidly cutting the number of university places available. It's simply nonsense that over 40% of school-leavers now go to University. It's supposed to be for an academic elite.

 

We shouldn't mask unemployment. We should just accept that it's a fixed part of any market based system. By all means make training opportunities available so that those who are unemployed can compete for jobs, but that doesn't necessitate subsidising education en-masse. Social mobility works upwards and instead of downwards and as long as those who are unemployed can build their skills sufficiently to force people in work on the dole, we see a positive feedback loop. Unemployment isn't a bad thing as long as you make sure that it's relatively temporary for any one individual; in effect spreading the unemployment around as many people as possible, because then the net period of unemployment is lower, the workforce more competitive, and the efficiency benefits considerable.

 

2. As I mentioned but you failed to grasp, the process of teaching and learning is ephemeral. Of course it creates human and social capital, both of which is of enormous value to society. Okay, at outset the benefits of education may be hard to quantify; but value comes in many forms. personal and societal spin-offs are plentiful.

 

There's no such thing as "social capital". Sure, society benefits from people being qualified as doctors. That's why we... pay doctors a good salary to treat the unwashed masses. Of course society benefits from artists. That's why we... buy their paintings. See? If something has value it will be reflected in society's payment for the service, be that through private enterprise or through state actors like the NHS.

 

3. The economic reality is that university education on the scale we have enjoyed it is possible, and it appears sustainable.

 

No it's not.

 

But to me you seem to wish what is possible and at risk of appearing rude (I'll attempt to do that later in my post ) could this not be because you're from a generation that has only known that to get anything you've got to pay? I find that really quite sad and it shows no belief that we can benefit each other for the common good.

 

I don't believe in a common good. I believe in mutuality. The problem in society these days is actually that people believe they can get something for nothing.

 

We all know there's massive fiscal waste in this country so why not divert money to tackle root and branch problems and try to educate our people. Education is for life and it's not all about who can gain most qualifications to make the most money.

 

We're not going to eliminate fiscal waste *just like that*. It's a permanent reality of humanity's individual and collective imperfection. Simply declaring that lots of tax is avoided and evaded doesn't magically put it in the treasury coffers. Of course education isn't just about qualifications and money, but qualifications are a bloody huge part of it. In England they strike an appropriate balance: they recognise that it's not just about opportunity for wealth, which is why those who earn the least after graduating pay the least back; sometimes nothing at all. If someone has absolutely no stake or entitlement in a government scheme, it's nonsense to expect them to go out of the way to subsidise it, especially if they are poorer than those who stand to benefit from it.

 

Woody son... Kaboom - that worked, now it's game on. Is there nothing this old guy can't do? Anyway, I've not met many poor lawyers so would imagine that you'll qualify and make a nice living. In so doing and supposing that you'll not go into corporate law, then you may even come into contact with the great unwashed and flotsam and jetsam of society. I think you're in for a ruse awakening my young friend; it may even be life changing. (And I promise I'm not trying to patronise you by suggesting that you've come from a good postcode area so have never known misery. You go to Firhill so will have known pain.)

 

I'm not planning to go into legal practice.

 

But and this is a serious point, if you don't use your 1st class honours degree, are you not guilty of defrauding the tax payer? I mean, by your reckoning, we will all have paid for you to have a great time at your finishing establishment of choice, but with no pay back. I don't work to carry loafers, so I'm expecting big things; including a political conversion along the way. The other option is to send you to the army but they'd probably just cut their losses and use you for bayonet practice! (Joke... before you send your man round!)

 

The contract I entered into stipulated no compulsory action on my part as to how to utilise my degree when I graduate. More fool the taxpayer. That is an entirely separate issue to what the situation *should* be. I've stated on record here and elsewhere a number of times that if state-funded tuition ended in Scotland, I'd have had no qualms about making the same educational choice and paying back the student loan along an ability to pay based system. The state provides me with education when I cannot cover the costs myself, so I repay the state when I can. That seems to me to be a fundamentally fair approach.

 

All this and I haven't given you a Marxist analysis of the education system. But watch this space... that will send you over the top!

 

 

P.S. Good to see that you and your mum are close. my concern was that boarding school had screwed with your head. Please remember that a mother is a person who seeing there are only four pies for five people, promptly announces she never did care for pie! She's obviously experienced the Firhill catering then?

 

I never went to boarding school. I went to two state primary schools and an independent secondary school.

 

If there were four pies and five people, my mother would give everyone 4/5 of a pie. Because in the real world we have tools to make the most of our finite resources. Unlike socialist utopias who pretend there's more bread when there isn't.

[Woodstock Jag]

It's not about demonising anyone, and it certainly isn't racist. It just isn't practical for the Scottish Government, while education is devolved, to assume the cost of educating English students. How many English students would apply to St Andrews, Edinburgh and Glasgow if it was free to them here while knowing they would have to, later in life, pay £27,000 for their education in England?

 

As opposed to an independent Scotland in the EU which would suddenly be completely able to cover the cost of the education of these English students. Oh wait.

[Vladimir Putin]

As opposed to an independent Scotland in the EU which would suddenly be completely able to cover the cost of the education of these English students. Oh wait.

 

Yes, but that's not the issue in question here. Scotland is not, and may well never become, an independent EU state. As the situation stands now, when education is devolved, it's just not realistic to expect the Scottish Government to fund higher education for any English student who wants to study here in order to avoid tuition fees.

[Woodstock Jag]

Yes, but that's not the issue in question here. Scotland is not, and may well never become, an independent EU state. As the situation stands now, when education is devolved, it's just not realistic to expect the Scottish Government to fund higher education for any English student who wants to study here in order to avoid tuition fees.

 

Why is it not realistic? Do they or do they not have tax powers to cover the cost of English students' education? Do they or do they not have the requisite powers to introduce a fees system instead of discriminating against one group?

 

It doesn't make a difference if lots of English students want to come to study in Scotland. If anything it creates greater competition for places, meaning that instead of Scots scraping the barrel to fill up spaces we get the brightest Scots and some of the brightest English. It doesn't cost more money to educate an English student competing for the same space as a Scottish one.

 

Make no mistake, this disparity is not a necessity. It's very acutely politically driven.

Edited August 23, 2011 by Woodstock Jag

[Norgethistle]

Simple answer to a simple problem: tax the rich until you hear their a***s squeak. They have a moral obligation to give something back to those they've exploited for so long... Successive governments have not had the balls to make them pay - and I include the SNP in that rant.

 

 

Does this include all the people (and i know a few) who have basically came from nothing and through sticking in at school working hard and studying hard have became successful in some cases very successful... what moral obligation do they have, and who have they exploited in comparrision to some of the bone idol that dont want to work??

[Meister Jag]

Does this include all the people (and i know a few) who have basically came from nothing and through sticking in at school working hard and studying hard have became successful in some cases very successful... what moral obligation do they have, and who have they exploited in comparrision to some of the bone idol that dont want to work??

 

Err, yes! We're in danger of going back over old ground but I obviously have nothing against anyone who has tried to better themselves; without going into personals I'd like to think I've been fortunate to get on a bit; although I'm not super rich (or even, come to think of it, rich!). To me paying my taxes has never been an issue and happy to pay a bit more if for the common good - health, education, pot holes etc.

 

Defining the true bone idle has always been a problem and the current government have adopted an "all welfare claimants are scroungers approach"; which I'm happy to pontificate on all day... and night. But I'll always steer back onto tax avoidance and the country recouping what in law should be paid to the treasury. Plus the poor have always been good cover for the real crooks to fiddle taxes, expenses and do their insider dealings etc. But probably another thread and I said no more. However, I thought I owed you the courtesy of a response.

[Woodstock Jag]

Err, yes! We're in danger of going back over old ground but I obviously have nothing against anyone who has tried to better themselves; without going into personals I'd like to think I've been fortunate to get on a bit; although I'm not super rich (or even, come to think of it, rich!). To me paying my taxes has never been an issue and happy to pay a bit more if for the common good - health, education, pot holes etc.

 

And virtually all of the affluent pay their taxes. Instead of trying to tar them all with the same brush, join in support of tax reformers who want a much simpler, slimmer and fairer tax system, rather than one which ducks and dives around everything everyone does until the government ends up with more than half someone's paypacket.

 

Defining the true bone idle has always been a problem and the current government have adopted an "all welfare claimants are scroungers approach"; which I'm happy to pontificate on all day... and night.

 

That is a barefaced lie.

 

But I'll always steer back onto tax avoidance and the country recouping what in law should be paid to the treasury.

 

If it was tax avoidance then it shouldn't have been recouped by the treasury! That's the definition of tax avoidance!

[Vladimir Putin]

Why is it not realistic? Do they or do they not have tax powers to cover the cost of English students' education? Do they or do they not have the requisite powers to introduce a fees system instead of discriminating against one group?

 

It doesn't make a difference if lots of English students want to come to study in Scotland. If anything it creates greater competition for places, meaning that instead of Scots scraping the barrel to fill up spaces we get the brightest Scots and some of the brightest English. It doesn't cost more money to educate an English student competing for the same space as a Scottish one.

 

Make no mistake, this disparity is not a necessity. It's very acutely politically driven.

 

So the Scottish Government should raise taxes to cover the cost of tuition for English students who want to come here and study (because they won't have to pay anything for tuition), only for most of them to leave Scotland upon completion of their degrees and head for the City? How is that a good use of Scottish taxpayer money?

 

I don't happen to think free higher education is sustainable in the long-term, and the SNP will have to introduce some sort of graduate tax that isn't called a 'tuition fee', although I wouldn't expect it to be close to £9,000 a year. But it was a Westminster decision to raise fees to £9,000 - why should Scottish students lose out on a place at university because of that, which is what would happen if tuition was free in Scotland for English students? Also, it wouldn't necessarily be those who are 'scraping the barrel', as you so condescendingly put it, who lose out. I'm sure medicine/law at St Andrews or Edinburgh, without the £27,000 of future repayments, would be very attractive to English students.

[Woodstock Jag]

So the Scottish Government should raise taxes to cover the cost of tuition for English students who want to come here and study (because they won't have to pay anything for tuition), only for most of them to leave Scotland upon completion of their degrees and head for the City? How is that a good use of Scottish taxpayer money?

 

Why the assumption they'll leave? Even then so what? Scottish students leave too. Most EU students won't stick about after getting a degree courtesy of the Bank of Hoots and Mon.

 

I've stated several times on this thread that I would not favour tertiary education being paid for out of general taxation and that graduates should meet the cost. But if the SNP insist on ideological levels that it's so important that the state fund this education, they should do so for everyone on equal terms, irrespective of background or domicile. If that means higher taxes then that means higher taxes. We don't charge immigrant families to use our state schools just because they haven't met Scottish domicile requirements, do we?

 

I don't happen to think free higher education is sustainable in the long-term, and the SNP will have to introduce some sort of graduate tax that isn't called a 'tuition fee', although I wouldn't expect it to be close to £9,000 a year.

 

The fees don't mean anything. I thought you said as such earlier! It's the repayment (i.e. the graduate contribution) that counts and it's nothing like £9k a year. It's a 9% tax on 30 years of earnings over £21k (rising with inflation) for graduates. Those who earn around the median national income will pay virtually nothing back. I agree with you that state-funded education is not sustainable in the long term.

 

But it was a Westminster decision to raise fees to £9,000 - why should Scottish students lose out on a place at university because of that, which is what would happen if tuition was free in Scotland for English students?

 

Because they're not the most worthy applicant. If an English domiciled applicant is better than them, tough. Meritocracy in action.

 

Also, it wouldn't necessarily be those who are 'scraping the barrel', as you so condescendingly put it, who lose out. I'm sure medicine/law at St Andrews or Edinburgh, without the £27,000 of future repayments, would be very attractive to English students.

 

Well Law wouldn't because they're radically different north and south of the border both in structure and content and I don't think St Andrews even do the LLB. Even then, it's not as though you don't have multiple choices when you apply to University. If you're not as good as other applicants for highly competitive courses then you're not good enough. It doesn't matter where you come from.

Edited August 23, 2011 by Woodstock Jag

[jaggybunnet]

It's not about demonising anyone, and it certainly isn't racist. It just isn't practical for the Scottish Government, while education is devolved, to assume the cost of educating English students. How many English students would apply to St Andrews, Edinburgh and Glasgow if it was free to them here while knowing they would have to, later in life, pay £27,000 for their education in England?

 

 

so why pay for all the euro ones then???

[Vladimir Putin]

so why pay for all the euro ones then???

 

Does putting multiple question marks at the end somehow add importance to your post?

 

We're legally obliged to pay for EU students. As was pointed out in the second post, Scotland is not an EU state, neither is England, therefore the EU laws that apply to EU states don't apply to Scotland and England, which is why the legal challenge, if it goes ahead, will probably fail.

[Woodstock Jag]

Does putting multiple question marks at the end somehow add importance to your post?

 

We're legally obliged to pay for EU students. As was pointed out in the second post, Scotland is not an EU state, neither is England, therefore the EU laws that apply to EU states don't apply to Scotland and England, which is why the legal challenge, if it goes ahead, will probably fail.

 

Ask yourself why we and all other EU countries agreed to treat fellow member-state students as domiciled for the purposes of University education. There's an important principle at stake here.

[jaggybunnet]

Does putting multiple question marks at the end somehow add importance to your post?

 

We're legally obliged to pay for EU students. As was pointed out in the second post, Scotland is not an EU state, neither is England, therefore the EU laws that apply to EU states don't apply to Scotland and England, which is why the legal challenge, if it goes ahead, will probably fail.

 

 

so there for if scotland is not a EU state why does it have to do this?????????????????????????????????????

 

 

and yes it does

[Vladimir Putin]

 

I've stated several times on this thread that I would not favour tertiary education being paid for out of general taxation and that graduates should meet the cost. But if the SNP insist on ideological levels that it's so important that the state fund this education, they should do so for everyone on equal terms, irrespective of background or domicile. If that means higher taxes then that means higher taxes. We don't charge immigrant families to use our state schools just because they haven't met Scottish domicile requirements, do we?

 

 

It is the SNP's right to insist that higher education be state funded - but surely you can't expect that to apply to people who don't live in Scotland? Scottish higher education was devolved to Holyrood in order for the Scottish Government to control higher education in Scotland - if that now included a very large number of English students (and I think we would see a large number in the scenario in question) then the Scottish Government, be it SNP or whoever, would be entitled to ask for an increase in funding from Westminster to cover the cost.

[Woodstock Jag]

It is the SNP's right to insist that higher education be state funded - but surely you can't expect that to apply to people who don't live in Scotland?

 

Why not? The cost of educating them instead of another Scottish student is zero. Further these students aren't commuting from England ffs. They will be living in Scotland while they study. Why should an accident of birth have any bearing on the cost of the place at a University?

 

Scottish higher education was devolved to Holyrood in order for the Scottish Government to control higher education in Scotland - if that now included a very large number of English students (and I think we would see a large number in the scenario in question) then the Scottish Government, be it SNP or whoever, would be entitled to ask for an increase in funding from Westminster to cover the cost.

 

Why? Where students go to University is their business. A Scottish student is no more inherently valuable to the Scottish government than an English one if they are at a Scottish University. The principle is the principle. If the SNP don't believe in state-funded tertiary education, they should have the balls to admit it instead of weaselling fees onto one group of non-domiciles.

 

If Scottish Universities were taking on English students in addition to their existing intake (i.e. not to the exclusion of anyone who would have got in but for the extra applications) you might, just might, have a point, but that's not what's happening.

[Vladimir Putin]

 

 

Why? Where students go to University is their business. A Scottish student is no more inherently valuable to the Scottish government than an English one if they are at a Scottish University. The principle is the principle. If the SNP don't believe in state-funded tertiary education, they should have the balls to admit it instead of weaselling fees onto one group of non-domiciles.

 

 

I would argue that they are more valuable in some cases. To take the medicine example again - Scottish students studying medicine are more valuable to the Scottish Government than English students, as they are far more likely to go on to work in Scottish hospitals. Of course some would stay, but many more would go home.

 

The Scottish Government gets funding from Westminster to run Scotland. A large increase in English students studying here would mean a large reduction in Scottish students - what would they do instead? They certainly wouldn't just walk into private sector jobs, and the chances are that many of them would require government support, be it in the form of job training, government-funded apprenticeships, benefits etc.

 

'Where students go to University is their business' - it becomes the business of the government if it is being funded from general taxation. Should the Scottish Government fund students from the US, Russia and China as well?

[Woodstock Jag]

I would argue that they are more valuable in some cases. To take the medicine example again - Scottish students studying medicine are more valuable to the Scottish Government than English students, as they are far more likely to go on to work in Scottish hospitals. Of course some would stay, but many more would go home.

 

You have very little evidence to support that assertion. Further, there is a finite capacity for global employment, and that includes England. If they go back to England, they're only assuming a job that would otherwise have been filled by a graduate from an English University. And guess where they're going. That's right. Back up to Scotland because there's no job down south for them.

 

Your point doesn't follow.

 

The Scottish Government gets funding from Westminster to run Scotland. A large increase in English students studying here would mean a large reduction in Scottish students

 

They'd only not get the place if they weren't as good as their English counterparts. In which case they never deserved it anyway. If they're that desperate to do that particular course that they're not good enough for the highly competitive Scottish University, they'll just have to consider doing it elsewhere. That includes England, but also other countries. And as we've already ascertained, there's actually nothing wrong with the English system. Indeed if Scottish students were to head there where demand hypothetically has fallen, they're more likely to get a better funded education with better funded facilities. At a price if they're subsequently successful? Yeah sure, but it's better than not getting in at all.

 

- what would they do instead? They certainly wouldn't just walk into private sector jobs, and the chances are that many of them would require government support, be it in the form of job training, government-funded apprenticeships, benefits etc.

 

See above.

 

'Where students go to University is their business' - it becomes the business of the government if it is being funded from general taxation. Should the Scottish Government fund students from the US, Russia and China as well?

 

You should either fund students from everywhere or fund them from nowhere. I think it's a total disgrace how we use international students as a cash cow while domestic students aren't expected to contribute anything like as much to the cost of their education.

[Meister Jag]

Woodster

 

And virtually all of the affluent pay their taxes.

 

Eureka, we'll make a Marxist of you yet. Let's round up the ones who don't and make them pay; plus big fines, sell off their art collections and wine cellars etc. oh, and why not arm HMRC staff to make their jobs easier? A few rifles and flame throwers should do the trick. Sorted!

 

That is a barefaced lie.

 

Read the tabloids not the Torygraph or the FT. The Daily Mail is especially poisonous these days. Just don't let your parents catch you with it; they'll think you've bought it for soft porn hand shandy reasons and you've probably wasted enough socks this year!

 

But why not reform the benefits system and have more benefits instead of less. Radical; but it just might work. (Plus this will keep you away from your games console for a few minutes.) Consider the following random ramblings:

 

As I think you've finally conceded, the World’s economy is in crisis because of the profligate and reckless behaviour of the financial sector; basically your mates, school chums and role models have left us in this mess. But does this mean that the tabloid press have the world’s extraordinarily wealthy bankers caught in its cross-hairs? Does it f***! You think they deserve every penny they have stolen and that tax avoidance is to be applauded. Instead the gutter press has declared it ‘shooting season’ upon people claiming state benefits, the overwhelming majority of whom, contrary to what you might have read in The Sun or Daily ‘hate’ Mail, are not living it up in 5 bedroom houses in Jordanhill or Bearsden. (If they were then no doubt your friendly neighbourhood defence league would be leaving a burning cross in their garden; but now I'm waffling.)

 

However, it seems that if unemployment is going to rise dramatically - and even I've conceded that parking young people in universities isn’t an option this time around - then making it nigh on impossible to claim benefits might be the preferred solution of the present government. Time then to set lose the tabloid attack dogs, barking and yapping about benefit cheats, spongers and the undeserving poor. Basically an easy target who generally don't fight back... well until they riot that is. (Not condoning it btw; just making a point.)

 

This is what I like to call the ‘Witchfinder syndrome’, named after Mathew Hopkins who was appointed the Witchfinder General in 17th century England. It was Hopkins’ job to visit towns and villages beset by famine and pestilence, and destroy those evil doers under whose spell the locale had fallen. Hopkins’ victims were almost invariably strangers, beggars or unmarried women. Well, let’s be brutally frank, its easier to blame people of lowly status for a catastrophe than to stride up to the castle of Lord and Lady Muck and lay the blame at their door. At best, they’d probably set the hounds on you; at worst, just hang or flay you for insolence. (That last bit must have been a bit like school?)

 

But the important point is that Hopkins set a precedent that others have followed. Indeed, you might recall that when times got hard under the last Tory administration, it was patiently explained to us by any number of cabinet members that immigrants, ‘squeegee-merchants’ and single mothers were undermining the fabric of British society.

 

Let’s be serious. There are many things that might bring the UK to its knees, but people cleaning your windscreen or claiming a bit of benefit are not among them. In fact, it is more likely that dismantling the benefits system will do more damage to the national cause than all the immigrants, beggars and single mothers put together. Drum roll and cue an indignant Woodtastic rant.

 

That’s why I say lets be radical and have more benefits and make them easier to claim. And I'm not talking about universal credits (which will fail - mark my words - too many premiums). For example, we could have a return to additional requirements to top up existing benefits - all the extra cash eventually gets spent, businesses profit and liquid cash starts circulating so generating more employment in many sectors; including pubs, clubs and A&E Units.

 

Work with me son and the future could be ours Remember that Marx said: The only antidote to mental suffering is physical pain. If this post doesn't bring on a headache then I'm losing my touch.

Edited August 23, 2011 by Meister Jag

[Meister Jag]

so there for if scotland is not a EU state why does it have to do this?????????????????????????????????????

 

 

and yes it does

 

Jaggy

 

He's having a bad night tonight. Fighting too many battles on too many fronts. We are now a resistance of sorts. We will win! Shades of the 1926 General Strike; bit of a love-in by all accounts but sometimes needs must.

[Woodstock Jag]

Woodster

 

Eureka, we'll make a Marxist of you yet. Let's round up the ones who don't and make them pay; plus big fines, sell off their art collections and wine cellars etc. oh, and why not arm HMRC staff to make their jobs easier? A few rifles and flame throwers should do the trick. Sorted!

 

You really think they're not trying to catch those who evade tax? Being able magically to click his fingers and collect all that tax would be a political and economic masterstroke for the Coalition, but it's not going to happen because, believe it or not, life doesn't work like that. HMRC is already getting very officious with perfectly law-abiding taxpayers and in the last few years has been litigating against people for anything and everything. You only need to look to the cesspit on the South Side of the River Clyde to see that in action.

 

Read the tabloids not the Torygraph or the FT. The Daily Mail is especially poisonous these days. Just don't let your parents catch you with it; they'll think you've bought it for soft porn hand shandy reasons and you've probably wasted enough socks this year!

 

So "the tabloids" = "this government" now does it?

 

But why not reform the benefits system and have more benefits instead of less. Radical; but it just might work. (Plus this will keep you away from your games console for a few minutes.)

 

Because it would disincentivise work, throw money where it wasn't needed and force hard-working tax-payers to foot the bill for it.

 

Consider the following random ramblings:

 

As I think you've finally conceded, the World’s economy is in crisis because of the profligate and reckless behaviour of the financial sector; basically your mates, school chums and role models have left us in this mess.

 

No, I've conceded no such thing. The world is in crisis because individuals and governments alike have been borrowing more than they can afford in order to live a lifestyle that the Earth's resources simply cannot sustain. We have been binging, and the toxic mix of vested interests and state power has created a system which encourages people to be profligate instead of prudent. The financial crisis happened because of reckless lending, but you've got to ask yourself why it is that the banks recklessly lent in the first place. The answer? They KNEW the government would bail them out. If you were a gambler and you knew that if you lost, you were guaranteed to get your stake back off a 3rd party, you're more likely to take the longer odds: what would have been the bigger risk if you weren't being underwritten. If no-one's underwriting you, if you lose you lose. Tough shit. The current system sees governments fuel the gambling addiction, and what's more it's got one of its own.

 

But does this mean that the tabloid press have the world’s extraordinarily wealthy bankers caught in its cross-hairs? Does it f***! You think they deserve every penny they have stolen and that tax avoidance is to be applauded.

 

You're doing it again Meister. Tax avoidance isn't theft. Deal in facts or get out of the game.

 

The tabloid press are an irrelevance. I wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire. They cannot be used to justify anything. They have no merit and nothing to contribute to the discourse. Until you stop trying to stuff every disagreeable argument to your stance into a Daily Mail straw man, you're not going to see any progress.

 

Instead the gutter press has declared it ‘shooting season’ upon people claiming state benefits, the overwhelming majority of whom, contrary to what you might have read in The Sun or Daily ‘hate’ Mail, are not living it up in 5 bedroom houses in Jordanhill or Bearsden. (If they were then no doubt your friendly neighbourhood defence league would be leaving a burning cross in their garden; but now I'm waffling.)

 

Again, I don't read tabloids and don't care about what they have to say about the benefits system. None of that changes the fact that it's a lot easier to catch benefits cheats than it is to catch tax cheats.

 

And actually, some people on benefits do quite well out of it. Depending on specific circumstances, a family of four can sustain a lifestyle on benefits which is better than if the chief income earner were on the minimum wage. How is that supposed to encourage people into work? Frankly I don't blame these people for making the most of it. If the government are stupid enough to guarantee this level of income for nothing in return, that's their problem. It doesn't mean the system shouldn't change.

 

However, it seems that if unemployment is going to rise dramatically - and even I've conceded that parking young people in universities isn’t an option this time around - then making it nigh on impossible to claim benefits might be the preferred solution of the present government. Time then to set lose the tabloid attack dogs, barking and yapping about benefit cheats, spongers and the undeserving poor. Basically an easy target who generally don't fight back... well until they riot that is. (Not condoning it btw; just making a point.)

 

Utter pish. After the last few months you seriously think that the government control the tabloids?

 

This is what I like to call the ‘Witchfinder syndrome’, named after Mathew Hopkins who was appointed the Witchfinder General in 17th century England. It was Hopkins’ job to visit towns and villages beset by famine and pestilence, and destroy those evil doers under whose spell the locale had fallen. Hopkins’ victims were almost invariably strangers, beggars or unmarried women. Well, let’s be brutally frank, its easier to blame people of lowly status for a catastrophe than to stride up to the castle of Lord and Lady Muck and lay the blame at their door. At best, they’d probably set the hounds on you; at worst, just hang or flay you for insolence. (That last bit must have been a bit like school?)

 

All of this is boring and irrelevant drivel. Again you're trying to kettle anyone who opposes you into a man of straw who holds a Daily Mail. I have not "blamed" the disadvantaged in society for anything in this thread, nor do I intend to.

 

But the important point is that Hopkins set a precedent that others have followed. Indeed, you might recall that when times got hard under the last Tory administration, it was patiently explained to us by any number of cabinet members that immigrants, ‘squeegee-merchants’ and single mothers were undermining the fabric of British society.

 

Again, a straw man. What the last Tory administration did or did not do in your incredibly biased and warped opinion has less than zero bearing on here and now. You go for another straw man on immigration as you are speaking to someone who advocates unlimited immigration.

 

Let’s be serious. There are many things that might bring the UK to its knees, but people cleaning your windscreen or claiming a bit of benefit are not among them. In fact, it is more likely that dismantling the benefits system will do more damage to the national cause than all the immigrants, beggars and single mothers put together. Drum roll and cue an indignant Woodtastic rant.

 

And I never said it would bring the UK to its knees. The benefits system ISN'T being "dismantled" though. It's being reformed. It's being streamlined. It's being changed so that we get the most bang for our proverbial buck. Have they got it completely right? No. I can speak from my own knowledge of the ATOS tribunal system that it's a total mess and the administration of benefits is horrifically inefficient and fails to direct help where it is most required. But let's have an adult conversation on these issues instead of resorting to childish and ill-informed stereotypes of the true position.

 

That’s why I say lets be radical and have more benefits and make them easier to claim. And I'm not talking about universal credits (which will fail - mark my words - too many premiums). For example, we could have a return to additional requirements to top up existing benefits - all the extra cash eventually gets spent, businesses profit and liquid cash starts circulating so generating more employment in many sectors; including pubs, clubs and A&E Units.

 

That's not radical, that's just going further down the same failed path of the past. We can at least agree that universal credits are a complete waste of money and none of them should exist (not even the state pension; it should be means tested).

 

But the idea that throwing more money at the poorest stimulates the economy is simply absurd. It's not born out by the raw economics. For every pound they spend in the "real economy" you're taking a pound out of the pockets of hard-working taxpayers who would have otherwise spent it in... the real economy. Government spending does not create growth; it just redistributes it.

 

Work with me son and the future could be ours Remember that Marx said: The only antidote to mental suffering is physical pain. If this post doesn't bring on a headache then I'm losing my touch.

 

If you'll cite Marx, I shall cite Hayek: Even the striving for equality by means of a directed economy can result only in an officially enforced inequality - an authoritarian determination of the status of each individual in the new hierarchical order.

[honved]

Ahh f***, I blame myself...

 

This whole debate is not about education or its affordability at all. This debate is about whether or not education should be used as a mechanism for creating another form of financial product that lays burden on those least able to pay to ensure that the owners of capital have enhanced claim on the resources of society, and including the mass of the population, and so control them. That is the argument that I am trying to make here.

 

The simple fact is that our society can afford to send all the students who currently want to go to university to enjoy the benefits of the education they desire. I know that because, firstly, a great many of them are already going and secondly there is significant unemployment in our society meaning we have no alternative use for the net labour of those currently denied the opportunity to learn and those denied the opportunity to teach.

 

In a very real sense this argument is complete, in itself as I have just expressed it. After all, the process of teaching and learning is ephemeral. Of course it creates human and social capital, which is of enormous value and yet unquantifiable in terms of the financial system – so valueless to it.

 

So, the economic reality is that university education on the scale we have enjoyed it is possible, and it appears sustainable. But to me it seems we wish to ignore these deep underlying truths that exist within our society and instead lay over the education process a financial mechanism which appears to make no sense to most who engage with it, and most especially students, their parents and most of those who teach those students. That is, we wish to turn this social and human gain from education that accords with the fundamental premise in society that the knowledge of one generation should be passed to the next without charge being levied in exchange for provision in old age into a financial commodity that has as its underpinning the premise that this education is training from which the sole benefit that arises is attributable to the beneficiary of that training who then has as an obligation not just to pay for it, but to pay for it with interest added over what may be a lifetime of work. (Bit of a long one but there you have it!)

 

That's basically how I see it.

 

Of course there's also been a basic misunderstanding of simple economics by the UK government in relation to tuition fees in England. The market will determine price so the £9k is an upper limit, but of course when demand outstrips supply, the price will increase, in this case, in most institutions, to the maximum.