Are you following Scotland's upcoming vote on independence?
Sep 19th, 2014, 09:18 AM
#141
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 20,920
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I blush, annhig.
(Actually, I believe Scotland does quite well from a substantial financial sector, but it's bigger than Scotland's economy on its own could currently sustain, which may well be one reason why Edinburgh voted 61/39 for No; mind you, one has to wonder whether the UK's dependence on jiggling money, and over-inflated expectations on property values is all that sustainable)
(Actually, I believe Scotland does quite well from a substantial financial sector, but it's bigger than Scotland's economy on its own could currently sustain, which may well be one reason why Edinburgh voted 61/39 for No; mind you, one has to wonder whether the UK's dependence on jiggling money, and over-inflated expectations on property values is all that sustainable)
Sep 19th, 2014, 10:20 AM
#145
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 7,763
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<i>As someone mentioned, this discussion is more appropriate for the lounge. It has no place on a board devoted to travel.</i>
Actually, since not everyone has access to the Lounge (thanks, Fodor's!) this thread in the Europe forum is great. It gives an insight into the culture.
Again, nobody is forcing you to click this thread.
<i>On the subject of university funding, don't forget that Scottish students don't pay tuition fees</i>
Not really sure what this is implying.
Actually, since not everyone has access to the Lounge (thanks, Fodor's!) this thread in the Europe forum is great. It gives an insight into the culture.
Again, nobody is forcing you to click this thread.
<i>On the subject of university funding, don't forget that Scottish students don't pay tuition fees</i>
Not really sure what this is implying.
Sep 19th, 2014, 10:35 AM
#146
lauren, not all posters have access to the Lounge. Some newer posters may not know what you're talking about.
"Scotland has traditionally done better per capita than some other parts of the UK eg Cornwall. They could not have continued to afford that if they were on their own without increasing taxes. It's worth remembering that the population of Scotland is only 5 million or so - half the population of london - with nowhere near the economic power, except from the oil, and goodness knows how long that will last."
So back we go to the insults and put downs. No change. If Scotland is such a drain, why on earth did all the elites in Westminster want the Union to continue? They never did really say. Couldn't have anything to do with the oil that will not exist soon, could it? (Let's not mention the stuff off the West coast of Scotland.) Couldn't have been that the loss of that soon-to-be-non-existant commodity would have seriously affected the rUK? Of course not.There may be significant changes all over the UK. The country needs to be less London-centric.
"Scotland has traditionally done better per capita than some other parts of the UK eg Cornwall. They could not have continued to afford that if they were on their own without increasing taxes. It's worth remembering that the population of Scotland is only 5 million or so - half the population of london - with nowhere near the economic power, except from the oil, and goodness knows how long that will last."
So back we go to the insults and put downs. No change. If Scotland is such a drain, why on earth did all the elites in Westminster want the Union to continue? They never did really say. Couldn't have anything to do with the oil that will not exist soon, could it? (Let's not mention the stuff off the West coast of Scotland.) Couldn't have been that the loss of that soon-to-be-non-existant commodity would have seriously affected the rUK? Of course not.There may be significant changes all over the UK. The country needs to be less London-centric.
Sep 19th, 2014, 12:04 PM
#147
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 20,920
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>> If Scotland is such a drain, why on earth did all the elites in Westminster want the Union to continue?<<
By virtue of its size, Scotland isn't a financial drain; but many feel it's been getting a better crack of the whip than other parts of the UK, though of course the Scottish government would dispute that. By the same token, its place in the Union isn't just some commercial transaction; it's not like some company deciding whether or not to axe a subsidiary. The Union matters because it's what we (not just the "Westminster elites") are. And disrupting it would have caused enormous upset to all parties, for an independence that wouldn't have been independence and depended on the rest of the UK and the EU falling in with what the SNP proposed simply because the SNP expected them to.
>>On the subject of university funding, don't forget that Scottish students don't pay tuition fees<<
The issue in question was research funding, which comes from a separate pot and is not supposed to involve any cross-subsidisation with student funding anyway. Granted, any sort of accounting can be a bit on the creative side.......
By virtue of its size, Scotland isn't a financial drain; but many feel it's been getting a better crack of the whip than other parts of the UK, though of course the Scottish government would dispute that. By the same token, its place in the Union isn't just some commercial transaction; it's not like some company deciding whether or not to axe a subsidiary. The Union matters because it's what we (not just the "Westminster elites") are. And disrupting it would have caused enormous upset to all parties, for an independence that wouldn't have been independence and depended on the rest of the UK and the EU falling in with what the SNP proposed simply because the SNP expected them to.
>>On the subject of university funding, don't forget that Scottish students don't pay tuition fees<<
The issue in question was research funding, which comes from a separate pot and is not supposed to involve any cross-subsidisation with student funding anyway. Granted, any sort of accounting can be a bit on the creative side.......
Sep 19th, 2014, 01:07 PM
#149
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 9,171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Annhig, I said just look at the pictures not the text. That rag is so full of rubbish but must say they did post pics of the Boston Bombers before anyone else. I followed a link to their site this am and saw their pictures. I was surprised at the BCC coverage last night. Kept waiting for the balanced side.
lauren_s_kahn the lounge is closed to many. There are three threads on there about this already but this one is by far the most interesting....
lauren_s_kahn the lounge is closed to many. There are three threads on there about this already but this one is by far the most interesting....
Sep 19th, 2014, 02:03 PM
#150
So back we go to the insults and put downs. >>
Barbara - the Barnet formula is not an insult or put-down, it's a fact. Scotland receives £1,632 pa more per capita than do those in England from the Treasury. It has suited the Labour governments to continue this because many scottish constituencies return Labour MPs, and it has suited the conservatives as they would like some scottish MPs.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...tt-admits.html
no-one cares about Cornwall as we traditionally return liberal/LibDem MPs.
and please don't accuse me of being London-centric - I'm 300 miles away!
Barbara - the Barnet formula is not an insult or put-down, it's a fact. Scotland receives £1,632 pa more per capita than do those in England from the Treasury. It has suited the Labour governments to continue this because many scottish constituencies return Labour MPs, and it has suited the conservatives as they would like some scottish MPs.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...tt-admits.html
no-one cares about Cornwall as we traditionally return liberal/LibDem MPs.
and please don't accuse me of being London-centric - I'm 300 miles away!
Sep 19th, 2014, 02:40 PM
#152
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, in England, Wales and Northern Ireland students have to pay up to £9,000 a year (most universities charge this). You can normally get a loan to cover your total fees, repayable after graduation depending on your income. If you live in Wales, the Welsh Assembly gives you a grant of £5,315. There is a small grant of up to £1,750 if you live in Scotland but this depends on your parents' income. Loan is also available if you come from another EEA country, Switzerland or if your parent is a Turkish worker in UK. So free tuition fees only apply to Scottish-domiciled students attending Scottish universities, or if you are from another EEA country etc attending university in Scotland. Hence the popularity of universities there from elsewhere in Europe.
Sep 19th, 2014, 10:27 PM
#156
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 20,920
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>>Question - what about St. Andrews? Is that school private?<<
All universities are legally "private", and historically most were set up as private ventures. Any could, if they wished and thought they could manage it, simply opt out of government funding, and one or two have toyed with the idea.
Only one has been set up in recent times with the intention of being a wholly independent university, both academically and financially, and it remains pretty small and based on subjects that don't require major capital input (i.e., no science, engineering or medicine). There are plenty of private commercial teaching institutions who have validation/accreditation arrangements with universities' own (commercial) external programmes.
But realistically, most couldn't just opt out of government funding. On the face of it, this government's regime is as close to it as many will come, since nominally the £9000 is pretty close to a full-cost tuition fee. However, for the vast majority of students, it's an accounting device to disguise a graduate tax (which, if treated as a genuine loan, is actually building up a huge future deficit for someone else to sort out), and it couldn't possibly cover capital investment, research funding or the cost of professional/industrial placements (and particularly not medical training placements, which depend on what the NHS budget will support).
I don't know about St. Andrews and its financial position, but (guessing purely on the basis th
All universities are legally "private", and historically most were set up as private ventures. Any could, if they wished and thought they could manage it, simply opt out of government funding, and one or two have toyed with the idea.
Only one has been set up in recent times with the intention of being a wholly independent university, both academically and financially, and it remains pretty small and based on subjects that don't require major capital input (i.e., no science, engineering or medicine). There are plenty of private commercial teaching institutions who have validation/accreditation arrangements with universities' own (commercial) external programmes.
But realistically, most couldn't just opt out of government funding. On the face of it, this government's regime is as close to it as many will come, since nominally the £9000 is pretty close to a full-cost tuition fee. However, for the vast majority of students, it's an accounting device to disguise a graduate tax (which, if treated as a genuine loan, is actually building up a huge future deficit for someone else to sort out), and it couldn't possibly cover capital investment, research funding or the cost of professional/industrial placements (and particularly not medical training placements, which depend on what the NHS budget will support).
I don't know about St. Andrews and its financial position, but (guessing purely on the basis th
Sep 19th, 2014, 10:32 PM
#157
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 20,920
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(oops wrong key again)
...on the basis that it's not best known for expensive science and engineering and has a solid and well-established reputation among the well-heeled) it might be able to make a go of it. On the other hand, there are intangibles, like its position in Scottish social and cultural history, the separate Scottish educational tradition of education for the less well-off, and so on, that make it highly unlikely.
...on the basis that it's not best known for expensive science and engineering and has a solid and well-established reputation among the well-heeled) it might be able to make a go of it. On the other hand, there are intangibles, like its position in Scottish social and cultural history, the separate Scottish educational tradition of education for the less well-off, and so on, that make it highly unlikely.
Sep 20th, 2014, 01:37 AM
#159
"As someone mentioned, this discussion is more appropriate for the lounge. It has no place on a board devoted to travel."
<b> lauren_s_kahn </b> - Seriously, we get your point, we just don't agree with you. Saying the same thing over and over again is unlikely to change anybody's mind.
The advantage of having this discussion here is that everybody can participate, not just those still allowed into the ghetto that is the lounge.
<b> lauren_s_kahn </b> - Seriously, we get your point, we just don't agree with you. Saying the same thing over and over again is unlikely to change anybody's mind.
The advantage of having this discussion here is that everybody can participate, not just those still allowed into the ghetto that is the lounge.
Sep 20th, 2014, 01:46 AM
#160
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 17,268
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"All universities are legally "private","
But for most reporting purposes, virtually all universities in the UK able to award their own degrees (apart from the University of Buckingham and a couple of almost unheard-of recent experiments) are treated as if they're in the public sector.
Virtually every academic in Oxford or Cambridge, for example, is recorded by statisticians as working in the public sector - even if they get paid by a college whose entire income comes from endowments. All English universities anyone on this board is likely to have heard of are, in effect, subject to the government-determined cap of £9,000 pa on the maximum tuition fee they can charge undergraduates based in the EU, and the regional legislature in Scotland has similar control over the undergraduate fees Scottish universities can charge.
For the overwhelming majority of Britons, the distinction between "public" and "private" universities is meaningless and incomprehensible. It's invoked, intermittently, by some academics in relatively arcane (to the rest of us) disputes about sources of funding "Oxford is a globally renowned university, thanks to 800 years of altruistic benefactors," fusty professors will thunder, "but it lets itself be dictated to by bureaucrats a if it were some public community college in Nebraska".
The distinction, though the terms aren't generally understood, does emerge in one rather odd way. Of the academic institutions Mrs F & I have attended since we were 10, some continue to inundate us almost daily with communications ultimately geared to soliciting donations: others haven't sent either of us anything since the day we left.
All the cash-grabbers are institutions Americans would class as "private" Almost all those leaving us alone Americans would probably regard as "public".
But for most reporting purposes, virtually all universities in the UK able to award their own degrees (apart from the University of Buckingham and a couple of almost unheard-of recent experiments) are treated as if they're in the public sector.
Virtually every academic in Oxford or Cambridge, for example, is recorded by statisticians as working in the public sector - even if they get paid by a college whose entire income comes from endowments. All English universities anyone on this board is likely to have heard of are, in effect, subject to the government-determined cap of £9,000 pa on the maximum tuition fee they can charge undergraduates based in the EU, and the regional legislature in Scotland has similar control over the undergraduate fees Scottish universities can charge.
For the overwhelming majority of Britons, the distinction between "public" and "private" universities is meaningless and incomprehensible. It's invoked, intermittently, by some academics in relatively arcane (to the rest of us) disputes about sources of funding "Oxford is a globally renowned university, thanks to 800 years of altruistic benefactors," fusty professors will thunder, "but it lets itself be dictated to by bureaucrats a if it were some public community college in Nebraska".
The distinction, though the terms aren't generally understood, does emerge in one rather odd way. Of the academic institutions Mrs F & I have attended since we were 10, some continue to inundate us almost daily with communications ultimately geared to soliciting donations: others haven't sent either of us anything since the day we left.
All the cash-grabbers are institutions Americans would class as "private" Almost all those leaving us alone Americans would probably regard as "public".
