Taxi Driver Online

A Scottish Labour MP has refused to withdraw comments he made after he accused the Scottish government of anti-English racism over its decision to charge tuition fees to students from the rest of the UK.

Senior Labour MP Jim McGovern made the claim when speaking at a meeting at Abertay University where education for Scotland’s over 16s was being discussed.

Mr McGovern claimed that the Scottish government’s decision to offer free education to students domiciled in Scotland but not to extend the policy to students from the rest of the UK smacked of racism.

He said: "I've got serious concerns about the Scottish Executive [sic] saying that we will not charge Scottish students to go to university, but we will charge English students,'' he said. ''You know, for me, that does not smack of patriotism — that smacks of racism."

When later challenged to explain his remarks, the Labour MP suggested that the SNP based their policies on a “hatred” of the English.

He said: "What came to mind was that Charles de Gaulle once said that while patriotism is a love for one's own country, nationalism, generally, is hatred of other countries. And unfortunately, this is what the SNP confirm by their policies — that that's what they see."

SNP MSP Joe FitzPatrick who also attended the meeting called the remarks "disgraceful slurs" and called on Labour’s leader Ed Miliband to take action against Mr McGovern.

Mr FitzPatrick, MSP for Dundee City West, said that the accusations of racism and suggestions that the SNP policy is “anti-England [sic]” were completely unfounded.

Mr FitzPatrick pointed out that all Scottish-domiciled students are entitled to free university education “… regardless of their perceived national identity, be that English, Welsh, Irish, Polish, Pakistani or otherwise.”

Mr FitzPatrick continued:

“Jim McGovern’s comments, while disgraceful and offensive, are also blatantly hypocritical. It was the Labour/Liberal Democrat coalition that introduced the Graduate Endowment Fee in 2001 while maintaining tuition fees in excess of £1,000 for students from the rest of the UK.”

“Ideally, no student attending a Scottish university should pay fees. However, with the misguided decision by the UK Government to introduce exorbitant tuition fees of up to £9,000 per annum for students attending universities in England, we cannot risk Scotland becoming the cheap option for students from the rest of the UK.”

Earlier this summer Labour leadership contender Ken Macintosh himself expressed concern over the possibility of a ‘flood’ of education refugees to Scotland’s universities.

Speaking on ‘Brian Taylor’s Big Debate’ in August, the Labour MSP said: “ … we don’t want a flood of what’s called ‘fee refugees,’ English students flooding across the border to Scottish universities to avoid paying the fees down south. Because they would swamp our universities and take all the places. So we want to avoid that.”

In the same programme Mr Macintosh also confirmed that Scottish Labour was not against charging fees in principle for other UK students but would have pegged them at £6000.

Mr FitzPatrick claimed that the Labour party’s policy on education was in utter disarray and added: “This debate should be had in the proper language and all parties should avoid resorting to sensationalist accusations, which are extremely unhelpful and add nothing to the debate.”

However Mr McGovern, speaking to the Courier newspaper, responded by labeling the SNP as “separatists” and suggested they were overreacting to everyday “rough and tumble”. The Labour MP also appeared to mock the recent complaint by Dr Eiledh Whiteford after she complained of having been threatened by Mr McGovern's Labour colleague Ian Davidson.

He said: "The latest strategy by the separatists would seem to be to pick up on a word or expression from a Labour politician then throw their hands up in horror and say that they feel threatened, intimidated or offended.

"If some members of the SNP cannot live with the robust nature of the rough and tumble of everyday Scottish politics then perhaps they should consider whether or not they are in the right job."

Tuition fees were introduced in England by the Tory/Lib Dem coalition who cut funding from central government to English universities. The Scottish government took the decision to fund Scottish universities in order to ensure that students living in Scotland continued to receive their university education free.

However fees were introduced for students from outwith Scotland, with the exception of those from the EU – a solution to this EU imposed anomaly is currently being sought.

The total annual tuition fee average south of the border is estimated at £8,509, which reduces to £7,881 after packages of bursaries and fee waivers etc.

In Scotland total annual tuition fee average for those who pay is £6,841, which is estimated to reduce to £6,375 after packages of bursaries and fee waivers etc.

Northern Ireland

In August it emerged that plans were being drawn up by Northern Irish Assembly officials that will allow universities in the province to charge non NI students up to £9000 per year for university courses.

The move was in response to an expected soaring demand for places from English students.

Currently students at Northern Ireland’s two universities - Queen's and the University of Ulster - pay a flat fee of £3000 per year; this fee is due to rise in line with inflation and the effective cap will lead to a shortfall of £40 million.

If anyone thinks that i am racist because i want my daughters to have free higher education and want Scotland to be independent i would be interested to know why .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=61uBbeDWU7U

I wonder how they come to that statement?

_________________
Grandad,

Wasn't that a labour idea?

_________________

http://wingsoverscotland.com/ http://www.newsnetscotland.com/

I am not sure when tuition fees were introduced in England but I do know that it was before the Tory/Lib Dem coalition.

_________________
Grandad,

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Tuition fees were first introduced across the entire United Kingdom in September 1998 as a means of funding tuition to undergraduate and postgraduate certificate students at universities, with students being required to pay up to £1,000 a year for tuition.[1][2] However, as a result of the establishment of devolved national administrations for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, different arrangements now exist with regard to the charging of tuition fees in each of the countries of the United Kingdom.

In England, developments in the funding of higher education were announced in January 2004 when the UK government increased the level of tuition fees that universities were allowed to charge, to £3,000 a year.[2] By 2010/11, maximum fees had increased to £3,290 .In 2009, further calls for more funding to be made available to universities[3] resulted in the commissioning of a report from the former chairman of BP John Browne to look into the future of higher education funding.[4] The Browne Review was published on 12 October 2010 and contained proposals to remove the cap on tuition fees.[5] The resulting debate on the proposals sparked protests from students opposed to any rise in tuition fees.[6] Despite these protests the government won a vote in the House of Commons which would result in universities eventually being able to charge students up to £9,000 a year for the annual tuition costs of students.[7] Sixty four universities have announced their intention to charge the full £9,000 allowed by the government from 2012.[8]

Following devolution, tuition fees were first abolished in Scotland and replaced with charge after graduation - the graduate endowment - to help pay for tuition.[9] The endowment system itself was later abolished so that all students domiciled and studying at Scottish universities did not have to pay any fees towards their tuition costs.[10] The Welsh Assembly, because of its limited powers in comparison with their Scottish counterparts, remained with the caps imposed on the level of tuition as established by the United Kingdom government. However, whereas the United Kingdom government chose to replace means-tested maintenance grants for living expenses whilst at university with a student loan scheme, the Welsh Assembly re-introduced these for Welsh students either studying in Wales or anywhere else in the United Kingdom.[11][12]

_________________
Grandad,

I think the Scot government need to do their referendum asap. If they want to stay, then great, if they want to go, then so be it.

How long has there been a SNP led government? 5/6 years?

As for the tuition fees issue, it's a disgrace, but not solely the fault of the Scots government.

_________________
IDFIMH

　Scotland pays its way in the Union - it's time the London commentariat acknowledged that.

The notion that Scottish public services are subsidised by English taxpayers has become so commonplace in UK politics that not even David Dimbleby, the supposedly neutral presenter of BBC Question Time, thinks twice about repeating it. During an exchange on a recent show with Liberal Democrat Jo Swinson about her decision to vote as a Scottish MP to impose tuition fees on English students, Dimbleby said, "You voted for England to have fees, whereas Scotland, as we know, with the amount of money that comes from England, doesn't need to have them."
　
This view is based on the discrepancy between levels of public spending per head of the population in Scotland and England. According to the Treasury's latest Public Expenditure Statistics, Scots gets an average of £10,212 spent on them every year by the UK government, compared with around £8,588 -- £1,624 less -- for people in England.

In line with narrative of the Scottish welfare subsidy, the extra cash allows Scotland to provide its students with free higher education, its elderly with free personal care and concessionary travel, and its sick with free prescription medication, while their English equivalents are forced to go without.
　
This so-called "Union dividend" is also used by many London-based journalists and politicians -- many of whom would describe themselves as social democrats -- who argue that current levels of public expenditure in Scotland would be unsustainable were it to break away and become an independent country.
　
Yet, if the London commentariat took the time to examine the figures a little more closely, they would discover what a large number people north of the border are already know: not only does Scotland more than pay its way in the Union, but its overall fiscal position would actually be stronger as a fully sovereign nation.
　
Lets tackle the subsidy charge first. Scots represent 8.4 per cent of the UK's total population, but they generate 9.4 per cent of its annual revenues in tax - equivalent to £1,000 extra per person. The remaining £624 is easily accounted for by decades of UK government under-spending in Scotland on defence and on other items which are not routinely broken down by region, such as foreign office services.
　
Second, there's the claim that Scotland's "bloated" welfare state could not be sustained outside the Union. This is nonsense. Including its per capita share of revenues from North Sea oil and gas production, Scotland's public expenditure probably does not exceed the OECD average and is almost certainly lower than that of the Scandinavian social democracies. The fact that the Treasury cynically refuses to class those revenues as part of Scotland's overall annual economic output inflates the level of public sector expenditure as a proportion of GDP relative to that of the private sector.
　
Finally, one of the most common -- and least well-considered -- claims made by supporters of the Union is that the 2008 global financial meltdown shattered the economic case for independence. How, they argue, would the economy of tiny, independent Scotland have been able to cope with the burden of debt needed to rescue its financial sector from collapse? It wouldn't, of course, but according to George Walker, professor of financial regulation and policy at the University of Glasgow, Scotland would only have had to take on a proportion of the total cost of the bail-out based on the subsidiaries and business operations of HBOS and RBS in Scotland. This would probably amount to no more than 5 per cent.
　
For the sake of argument, nationalists might also wish to note that Scotland's 2009 - 2010 deficit was, at 6.8 per cent of GDP, a full 3 per cent lower than England's, and that the likely defence expenditure of an independent Scotland would, at around $1.8bn per year in line with Nordic average, be roughly £1bn less than what the UK currently spends on its behalf.
　
But why should Unionists let the economic facts ruin the image they have built up of Scotland as a nation of selfish, indulged welfare "mendicants"?The subsidy myth is too politically useful to be simply abandoned. Of course, if they ever do come to terms with the reality that Scotland could survive on its own - and even prosper - it will probably be too late anyway.


http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-s ... ion-public

Anyone believing that tosh should be institutionalised, the SNP talk p1sh. On one hand the SNP (rather Alex Salmond) say we should leave the Union so as we'll all be better off as a Stand alone Scotland...yet in his next breath he says we'll all be better off when we become part of another union, the EU and become part of its Sh1tty little Eurozone!! the SNP are suffering self delusions brought about by their Big egos, A matter made worse because their single themed brains cannot see that they are going to have less political independance within the EU as a tiny independant state than they will have if they were to stay part of the United Kingdom within the EU (more so now as most want out of the EU).

We'll still need to go cap in hand to England for our Electricity once the Wind stops and the SNP hot air Starts.

The old Saying "Empty Vessels make the most noise" pretty well sums up the SNP, if the SNP would only ask the Public first before it spouts such garbage that the Scots people all want Independance..we dont, 75% percent want no part of it and another 75% want even less to be part of the Eurozone.

Bring it on Alex...a nice simple Yes or NO referendum on Independance..that Will never happen as he knows the the answer will be a big fat "NO"

Our Government are currently spending money, that we don't have, in a way that George Brown would envy.

_________________
Don't dream it ~ Be it.

Bloodnock your rant gives me the impression that you fear they inevitable independence there is nothing to fear. Independence will be more of a political separation rather than a social one.
Scotland is already part of the EU so the only difference will be we will have 15 MEPs instead of 5 representing Scotland’s interests, we would also join EFTA.
Your comments about going cap in hand seem to contradict the experts. They do no question that Scotland would produce enough renewable energy to supply Scotland and have enough left over to export. Their concern was that England would not import our renewable energy but it has been pointed out that England would have to import Scottish renewable energy in order to meet its climate change obligations.
Bloodnock if you think that the percentage of people wanting independence is not growing I think your head must be buried in the sand there is also a growing number of people living in England supporting it. I agree with you that only one question should be on the referendum paper a straight YES or NO but unlike you I think the outcome will be YES .

Blood bought into the "subsidy junkie" argument a long time ago. In fact I think he invented it.

_________________

http://wingsoverscotland.com/ http://www.newsnetscotland.com/

I know i was just being diplomatic about it

The survey by TNS-BMRB found that 33% of Scottish voters backed the option often known as "devo-max".Support for independence was indicated by 28% with 29% backing no further constitutional change.
The critical question for the third of Scots who would like " devo max " and to keep the ties with the rest of the UK in terms of defence and foreign affairs is . What next, if Westminster isn’t prepared to give them "devo max ”. Do they say: "OK then, I was only asking. I’ll dae whit I’m telt.” or “Independence it is then.”

Are the SNP still pointing towards those tiger economies such as Ireland as an example of how Scotland would be?

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

No just how much Scotland would prosper not having our neighbours telling us how to spend our earnings