College merger - 'A bold vision at a time of pessimism'

The merger of Stevenson and Jewel & Esk colleges offers some grounds for optimism in the Capital at a time when there seems to have been nothing but bad news for further and higher education.

These two institutions have not escaped the funding crisis facing universities and colleges, with their budgets being slashed by a total of more than 3 million this year.

But those behind this proposal say it is about far more than the need to trim costs. In fact, we are told that if it is a success, then the new joint college is likely to expand, rather than cut back.

This is a bold vision at a time of great pessimism in the sector, but it is one which appears to be based on sound principles.

With 1000 staff, three major campuses and a 50m turnover, the new college will boast a formidable array of expertise and facilities. It should be well placed to prepare its 20,000 students for the needs of major employers.

The new college will also be a genuine "big-hitter", able to compete on equal terms with some of the UK's largest further education providers for increasingly vital private sponsorship and valuable fee-paying students from overseas. Over the long term the merger should also bring economies of scale.

Intriguingly, the door has been left open for the city's biggest existing college, Telford, to join too, although its principal Miles Dibsdall has yet to be convinced this is the right move.

And no-one is pretending the merger will be easy - it is imperative that the new, expanded college is not monolithic but instead retains the flexibility required to meet the needs of its many and varied students.

We wish all involved well in their task of forging a new institution for Edinburgh.

Burning issue

some may be offended by the artist David Mach's plans to burn an effigy of Jesus's head as part of a new exhibition in Edinburgh.

But it says a lot about the freedoms that we take for granted in this country that he can do so without any fear of retribution.

That is far more important than the rights and wrongs of whatever statement he is trying to make.

The city council has nevertheless sprung to the artist's defence, insisting that his sculpture burning is not an attack on Christianity but is actually "an act of creation".

That is all fine and well, but does he really need 17,000 of our desperately-needed council taxpayers' money to make his point?