Joan McAlpine: Browned off with unworkable review

Does Scotland need a Lord Browne? Two weeks ago, when Holyrood debated university finance, that was the call of the main opposition party. Labour believes that Scotland, too, should have an independent review of higher education funding similar to that conducted by the former head of BP.

They are useful things, independent reviews. You can stack them with folk whose opinions are already known to get the outcome you desire.

When the final report suggests something unpopular, you throw up your hands and deny responsibility for the unpleasant changes those independent experts say must be made. Politically it is efficient if not exactly ethical.

It was fairly obvious what the Browne report was going to suggest. Lead by a top businessman and stacked with university representatives - and no students - it reflected views of institutions who wish to remain at the top of the global league tables.

The UK government may share that ambition, but has no wish to fund it.

Scotland will not get a Browne, or, heaven forbid, a Broone Report. Instead the education secretary, Michael Russell, will publish a Green Paper after discussions with interested parties, from our gilt-edged research establishments, to vocational colleges, from student leaders to the trade unions of those employed in higher education.

Having laid out options for future he will open the matter up to debate. That particular national conversation will be put into sharp perspective by the spending review. We will know what sort of shortfall universities face; it has been estimated that research funding could be squeezed by 10 per cent.

The Green Paper has the merit of political responsibility. It avoids the buck passing inherent in the independent review route and attempts to find a "Scottish solution". The challenge is achieving a consensus.

Two weeks ago I suggested we should not completely dismiss the American system, where some of the world's finest universities operate a needs blind admissions system.

If Lord Browne's recommendations are implemented, university fees could reach American levels. But there are major differences between Scotland, England and the US. The best universities across the Atlantic have massive endowments to allow poor students access. A bright student from a needy family can go to Harvard on a scholarship. He or she may incur some modest loans, but will not be paying off the cost of tuition for 30 years, which is what Browne recommends.

We don't have the same tradition of philanthropy as America, where individuals and businesses make generous gifts for their alma mater to use as scholarships.Browne recommends tax breaks for those wishing to make such donations - but it will take many decades for endowments on the American scale to accrue.

The other key difference is the tax burden on individuals and businesses. Americans pay less. According to the latest figures published by the OECD, up to 2008 the United Kingdom pays 35.7 per cent tax as a proportion of GDP (a figure that will of course rise as new measures such as the VAT increase kick in). By contrast, the US pays 26.9 per cent tax as a percentage of GDP.

So American families have more money to set aside for fees. Browne seems to be suggesting England imitates all the bad bits of the free market US system, with none of the cushioning it enjoys.

The consensus in Scotland has long been that higher education should be a free-to-all universal benefit like the National Health Service. Those who hold this position point to our European partners. France, Germany, Sweden and Denmark do not charge university fees other than peppercorn amounts.

But the tax burden argument is also relevant here. Using the OECD criteria mentioned above, Denmark's percentage is 48.3, in France it is 43.1, and Sweden 47.1 - all considerably more than the UK. Even so, some of these countries send fewer young people to university than we do.

Their universities do not appear as high in the international league tables, which are heavily weighted towards research achievements. It seems fair to deduce that higher education in much of Europe - while it may meet the needs of students perfectly well - does not drive the economy to the same extent as here.

Scotland's difficulty, of course, is that it is not free to choose its own model. If we wish to send more people to university, continue to offer free tuition and fund our universities adequately, including allowing the best to compete globally, we would need progressive taxation at Scandinavian levels. We will only be able to set our own taxes when we are independent or have full fiscal autonomy inside the UK. This would give us access the revenues raised in Scotland, including oil revenues.

Under the current system, however, we are dependent on the block grant from London, which is about to be slashed, in addition to a squeeze on research grants that has horrified the academic community.

Universities will compete for funding with free personal care for the elderly, subsidised transport and public sector pensions.

It is easy to understand the anger of student leaders who ask why their generation is expected to shoulder the burden of the economic collapse.

But the challenge for all of Scotland's politicians is to find a solution fairer than Browne, which also preserves and enhances the global standing of our ancient universities.

Massachusetts, an American state with a much smaller landmass than Scotland and a slightly higher population, shows that a small state can support several world class educational institutions.During my recent visit it was striking how much this commitment to educational excellence underpins the region's prosperity.

It is likely the Scottish Government will find savings in the system by eliminating duplication and looking at the administration costs of universities. Russell yesterday ruled out upfront tuition fees, said Browne was wrong for Scotland and that the burden of paying for higher education must be borne by the state.

But it is difficult to see how some sort of deferred contribution from students can be avoided. A graduate might take out a medium or long term loan to pay for a car or a house. I am personally of the view that education seems just as worthwhile an investment. A 30-year burden, however, will put many off.

The challenge for all of Scotland's political parties is to find a method of funding that is fair to the most needy - of which there are quite a few in our country. Browne, if implemented in Scotland, might result in our most ancient universities - Edinburgh, Glasgow and St Andrews - becoming out of bounds to all but the most wealthy, many of them from outside of the country. There's not much point in a Heather League if the majority of young Scots are excluded from it.

• Joan McAlpine is an SNP candidate for the Scottish Parliament in the south of Scotland.