CAN THIS BE THE SAME GEORGE OSBORNE AND THE SAME CONSERVATIVES?

DO WE NEED TO OFFER DEGREES IN CIRCUS SKILLS?

The leaders’ debate the other night saw Tavish Scott, Iain Gray and the First Minister in agreement that Scottish education would remain free at tertiary level.

That’s good, and indeed it indicates that unless the parties do a massive U-turn along the lines of Nick Clegg and his bunch of chancers in England, education will remain free in this country.

We heard from the Tories that it is wrong for people who will earn more because of their degrees, to be subsidised by those who will earn less because they have no degrees. That presupposes that people always earn more when they have a degree but I can think of several organisations where under the average wage is the norm and degrees are a prerequisite of the job. It's true too that we ALL benefit from having a well educated, and appropriately educated workforce.

I think Tavish made a good point about there being alternatives to university. Not everyone, and not every job, requires a degree. Many jobs require technical and craft skills that can be obtained on courses at technical or commercial colleges although these too must be funded.

We need somehow to get away from the notion that the only jobs worthy of respect are those which require university degrees. It’s just not true, as you might reflect when your central heating goes on the blink, your car won’t start, your pipes are frozen or your computer goes BANG!.

And it should be remembered that a good plumber can earn an awful lot more than a teacher or social worker...and why not? There are many good jobs which pay excellent money and don’t need a university education.

Perhaps reflecting on whether or not it is necessary to take degrees in sports science or horse psychology, pop music or hairdressing management, cruise management, circus skills or surf science... all of which can be taken at universities in the UK is something that our funders might want to consider.

Surely all these courses could be covered at HNC/D level or as SVQs (NVQs in England)?

It’s estimated that now virtually every university in England and Wales will charge over the £6,000 which Cameron promised would be the norm, with many of them opting for the £9,000 without having shown a valid reason for it. In the meantime the salaries and costs of the management will doubtless continue to rise.

The government in London will be obliged to find a great deal more money, probably around a billion a year, to fund these costs up front, with their degree having cost some students nearly £90,000 by the time they make the last payment (The Independent).

Now that is a situation to be very much avoided. Why does the London government not think out their policies before putting them into practice?

Free Scottish services to go south?

I didn't want to blog on the budget, I'm already sick of hearing about it. But it seems that the coalition that "we in Scotland" (to coin a phrase) did not vote for are going to level the playing field between north and south come what may. After all the thought that scrounging Scots should spend England's money on making life in Scotland better for the poorest must be a genuine threat to their precious Onion (oops, I did that on porpoise!). Oh and services going south is metaphorical not literal.

As a result of the coalition budget Scotland is facing a potential £5 billion-plus cut in spending over the next four years, seemingly throwing into jeopardy a range of benefits, including free personal care of the elderly, concessionary travel and free university tuition.

The warning from a leading economist came as the Scottish government also issued a grim forecast that George Osborne’s measures could pitch the country into “a spiral of decline”, threatening economic recovery north of the Border.

The deepening crisis for Holyrood’s spending plans comes as a result of Mr Osborne’s decision to slash unprotected government department allocations across the UK by 25 per cent by 2015.

Economic experts said that it meant spending in Scotland was almost certain to fall by an estimated 16 per cent over the same period — 4 per cent more than predicted by Dr Andrew Goudie, the Scottish government’s chief economic adviser, in an analysis in April, and bringing the annual block grant from the Treasury down from £30 billion a year to around £25 billion.

The reduction would have been even more dramatic without Osborne’s concesssion that health and education spending in England will be protected. The Barnett Formula, which decides the level of Holyrood’s block grant from Westminster, means that Scotland gets a proportion of all new spending in these sectors south of the Border.

However, Professor David Bell, Professor of Economics at the University of Stirling and adviser to Holyrood’s Finance Committee, said that, despite that cushion, the impact on public services in Scotland would be “dramatic”.

He added: “This is going to be difficult to effect with efficiency savings alone. I just cannot see that happening.

“You either have to cut back on services or you start to charge for previously free public services. “My view is that consideration of whether free personal care, concessionary travel and other free services can continue to be delivered cannot now be avoided,”

Professor Bell pointed out that the Scottish government’s Independent Budget Review Group (IBRG), due to report at the end of July, will have to consider the full implications of yesterday’s package.

Not guaranteed to happen I suppose, but puts things under serious strain.