Readers' letters: Free tuition for Scottish students is nothing new

With regard Paul Wilsons excellent article of 18 January, it is worth remembering that Scottish students have never had to pay university fees – I would not have been one otherwise.

In my day we had to apply (via our school) to the county authority and if the application was successful (as it invariably was if one had at least the minimal university entrance qualification) then our county paid the fees and also provided students with a means tested maintenance grant .

In some areas there were also endowment grants for the most qualified students in certain subjects such as, for example, veterinary medicine. Post-devolution, the Scottish Government did not introduce free tuition but simply centralised it.

A McCormick, Terregles, Dumfries and Galloway

Scottish university students are entitled to free tuition

Setting standards

In his article on Humza Yousaf (Scotsman, 15 January), Brian Monteith said Scottish pupils are not meeting “international education standards”. What these are he did not say.

I do not know of any official organisation responsible for deciding these standards or which countries comply with them. There are, no official international standards for health, housing religion or parenting, all of which greatly affect education. Why should there be such for education, since ideas on it vary hugely?

What form this takes depends on the kind of society involved. If it is one which does not allow criticism of authority, press freedom, and an independent judiciary its education system will reflect that.

Pupils and students will not learn to think for themselves, be denied access to information their government does not wish them to have, and be indoctrinated rather than educated. In a majority of countries this is the case.

Mr Monteith opposed remaining in the EU because he did not think that foreign governments should decide what happens here . It is then odd that he thinks that our educational policies should be influenced by unknown people in a few other countries.

What does it matter if pupils in Scotland gain lower marks in certain subjects than those in Singapore, which is richer, healthier and much more totalitarian?

Einstein said that imagination is more important than knowledge. Does Mr Monteith agree? If so, does he think there should be international standards set to allow comparisons of levels of creativity to be made between countries?

John Munro, Glasgow

Smart thinking

Every month I hear from my energy suppliers asking to have smart meters installed. I have always been of the opinion that giving a company or the government a key to my private world rather foolish. Horizon springs to mind – so keeping power companies out seems right.

If the power company can read the meter what else could it do? If I had suggested this BH (Before Horizon) some would think "paranoia”! So if they can read the meter then maybe they could speed it up a little, who'd notice that? A couple of quid every month from a few million users. That would be good for the bottom line, wouldn’t it? What else?

In any case, who would have thought the Post Office would use their might to thwart the little people. No one.

Stan Hogarth, Strathaven, South Lanarkshire

Bain’s ratio

In 1760 the jurist, William Blackstone, published what has become known as Blackstone’s ratio: “It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.”

It appears that the Lord Advocate (Scotsman, 17 January) takes a contrary view – it is better that many innocent sub-postmasters remain charged with a crime and uncompensated than that one guilty person escape conviction. And the wheels of justice grind slowly and painfully on.

Barr y Hu ghes, Edinburgh

Help needed

I see that our First Minister has invited the President of Turkey to Scotland (Scotsman, 19January). I do hope Mr Yousaf will remember to ask for a few tips on how to build ferry boats on time and within budget whilst Mr Erdogan is here.

Bruce Proctor, Stonehaven, Aberdeenshire

Big boys do it

First Minister Humza Yousaf seems to have ruffled a few feathers in Westminster by inviting Turkish President Erdogan to Scotland without reference to the UK Government, under whose remit foreign affairs falls.

Humza Yousaf and his wife may be on cordial terms with the Erdogans after COP28 but straying into the international political arena is a dangerous game for our naive First Minister to undertake.

The Turkish President is a shrewd political operator who seeks to maintain relations both with the West and Russia and has been brutal in dealing with the Kurds in Syria. Mr Yousaf should stick to his responsibilities under the Scotland Act and leave dealing with foreign matters to ‘the big boys’.

Bob MacDougall, Kippen, Stirling

Sec urity o f supply

The excellent lett er from DB Watson (19 January) clearly shows the danger of relying on renewable electricity to provide security of supply for the grid. Will politicians take note and start listening to engineers?

The privatisation of the electricity industry since 1990 is an illusion as it is is run by the government and the failure to invest wisely in infrastructure has resulted in serious risks to our future supply. DB Watson shows clearly that nuclear is urgently needed for the UK for us to have any chance of meeting net zero by 2050.

The government’s ambitious “Civil Nuclear Roadmap 2050” is totally inadequate in aiming to provide 25GW to for net zero by 2050. In reality, this will require to be nearer50GW which will be an enormous undertaking. It is to be hoped that more articles in your newspaper will provide readers with a better understanding of the engineering design and infrastructure investment needed for our future electricity supply.

C Scott, Edinburgh

Barnett boon

Leah Gunn Barrett’s “understanding” of the Barnett formula (Letters, 18 January) demonstrates precisely why nationalist diehards are so easily taken in by SNP disinformation.

She points out that Scotland’s spending on the NHS has “always been higher than England’s” and consequently a 3.4 per cent increase in England’s NHS budget does not translate into a 3.4 per cent increase in Scotland’s. She does not seem to be aware that since the NHS is devolved then the choice to spend a higher or lower percentage of the total budget on the NHS – or any devolved responsibility – is entirely within the gift of the Scottish Government. It can choose to crow about, for instance, “free” prescription charges which obviously amount to billions of pounds more being spent on the NHS here but it cannot then turn around and demand that the UK Government should foot the bill!

The Barnett formula is a positive boon for the Scottish people, which explains why John Swinney and Nicola Sturgeon were so desperate to ensure it stays in place. Ms Barrett correctly points out population growth is lower in Scotland yet the percentage share allocated by the Barnett formula remains as it was. Consequently 9.2 per cent of UK spending is undertaken for Scotland though the population is 8.3 per cent of the UK’s. This results in over £2,000 more being spent on every man, woman and child in Scotland compared to the UK as a whole.

These figures come from GERS, on which Ms Barrett then turns her fire. Once the “authoritative publication on Scotland’s finances” according to Alex Salmond, the only SNP First Minister to have been an economist, the GERS reports are independently produced by Scottish Government statisticians and are issued by the Scottish Government’s Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Economy. Why on earth, if they are “bogus”, do the SNP publish them on the Scottish Government website!

Colin Hamilton, Edinburgh

Wait for apology

In her piece about Equalities Minister Emma Roddick's continued commitment to the Gender Recognition Reform Bill (Scotsman, 19 January), Rachel Amery writes that the Court of Session ruled that the UK Government was right to block the bill. That is not what the court’s judgement said.

The judge, Lady Haldane, ruled that the UK Government was able to block the bill, using its broad power to block any devolved legislation that it considers impinges negatively on laws reserved to Westminster. The court certainly did not say that the choice to use that power in this case was the right or correct choice. In fact, Lady Haldane said of the UK Government’s decision: “Others may have reached a different conclusion on the same material. This is plainly a situation where another decision might have been made with equal propriety.”

It was the choice of this UK Government to block the legislation, a political choice. Legislation like the GRR Bill has been adopted in more than 30 jurisdictions around the world, and it works well. Only in Scotland has it been blocked.

21 years after the Tories under Margaret Thatcher introduced the homophobic section 28, the same party under David Cameron finally apologised for the harm that law did to lesbian, gay and bisexual people. It may take another two decades, but I expect that eventually the Tories will apologise for the harm they are doing to trans people now.

Tim Hopkins, Edinburgh

Write to The Scotsman

We welcome your thoughts – NO letters submitted elsewhere, please. Write to [email protected] including name, address and phone number – we won't print full details. Keep letters under 300 words, with no attachments, and avoid 'Letters to the Editor/Readers’ Letters' or similar in your subject line – be specific. If referring to an article, include date, page number and heading.

​

​