James Mitchell: Scottish universities must face the fees issue

The Russell Group has been at the forefront of making the case for increased tuition fees. It argues that lifting the cap is the "only viable and fair way to secure the future of the UK's world-class higher education".

Like so many areas of public finance, the real debate on funding higher education has only just begun – there is something deeply perverse in our political system that debate on our public services and public finances begins after the election is over. The prospect of increased tuition fees south of the Border draws nearer. Labour was just as likely to have done this as the Conservatives, and the involvement of the Liberal Democrats in the coalition that means that each of the three main British parties is tied into responsibility for the change that is coming.

The Independent Review was launched in November last year under Lord Browne, former chief executive of BP. It was set up to "analyse the challenges and opportunities facing higher education and their implications for student financing and support". It will examine the balance of contributions to higher education funding by taxpayers, students, graduates and employers. Its primary task is to make recommendations to the government on the future of fees policy and financial support for full and part-time undergraduate and postgraduate students.'

This long-winded remit is an evasive exercise in softening up opinion for an increase in tuition fees. When Lord Mandelson announced the establishment of the review, he informed parliament that he had done so after consulting the "Rt Hon Member for Havant", to emphasise its cross-party nature.

The Rt Hon Member for Havant is David Willetts, now minister of state in charge of universities in England.

The seven-member review team contains no-one connected to higher education in Scotland. The distinct position of the Scottish universities simply does not feature. This reflects the nature of the devolved system of government. The Scottish Parliament decided to oppose the introduction of tuition fees from the outset. It took no account of the prospect that difficult times might lie ahead and that a commitment such as this had long-term implications. It allowed the Scottish political community to feel good about itself, convinced that it was more enlightened than its southern neighbours.

But decisions on the funding of higher education in England will have significant implications for Scotland. It is either disingenuous or worryingly ill-informed for universities here to pretend that the Browne Review is only about England.

The financing of devolution is a major flaw in our system of government. Holyrood has the power to set different priorities, allocate money as it likes but without the power to determine overall levels available to Holyrood.

The Barnett formula, used to determine the level of funds available to the Scottish Parliament, ties the Scottish budget to spending levels for England (and where appropriate Wales). A proportion of increased money for English education is allocated to Scotland. Similarly, cuts in English education involve proportionate cuts in Scottish education.

English universities will be able to make up for cuts in their budgets through tuition fees, a funding source unavailable to Scottish universities. Scotland has been caught up in the wake of English policy.

Seven months ago in The Scotsman, I urged reconsideration of opposition to tuition fees with little expectation then or now that there would be rush to do so. But more worrying was the refusal to acknowledge the impending funding problem and failure to come up with an alternative.

Many fears about tuition fees were unfounded but that does not mean we should accept the policy in its entirety. We can build upon and improve the policy. This is more pressing now the election is over. Scotland may be temporarily insulated following George Osborne's decision to defer some of the cuts. But this only buys time.

Higher education has too long been the preserve of the middle classes – even more so during the days of full student grants than now. Any changes in funding should be accompanied by measures designed to open up the system and offer greater rewards to those institutions that have long attracted students from across the social spectrum. The independent review is considering this and Holyrood should take heed.

There has been no social class equivalent over the decades to higher education's improved record in gender balance among the student body.

Changes in higher education funding in Scotland should not be led by the most privileged universities as is happening in England, nor designed simply to fill a funding gap.

The alternatives to tuition fees are unpalatable from a social justice perspective in Scotland. The fiscal crisis means that hard choices will have to be made across the public services.

Opposition to removing the cap on English tuition fees has diminished and we are witnessing steady progress towards that end. Supporters of the current policy have failed to identify which areas of public spending should be cut to protect universities.

Devolution can either provide Scotland with an elected pressure group to argue for more resources within the British system of government or it can be a form of self-government.

Its value as a pressure group has diminished as the UK faces up to its fiscal crisis. Just as universities will have to identify other public services that should be cut to protect their position, so Scotland will need to identify other parts of the UK that should suffer to protect Scotland.

Self-government must involve taking the hard decisions as well as the easy ones. Devolution is inadequate as a form of self-government without fiscal autonomy.

James Mitchell is a professor of politics at Strathclyde University.