by Sheila Riddell, Centre for Research in Education Inclusion and Diversity, University of Edinburgh
Higher education may not be the most salient issue for voters in the independence debate. Nonetheless, it is of great importance economically, socially and culturally and highlights issues with much broader significance and reach. The latest policy document on higher education is the report of the House of Commons Scottish Affairs Committee (Report: The Referendum on Separation for Scotland: the impact on higher education, research and tuition fees), published on 16th March 2014. The Scottish Affairs Committee paper draws heavily on the Scottish Government’s White Paper on independence (Scotland’s Future: Your Guide to an Independent Scotland) and the BIS paper on Science and Research (Scotland Analysis: Science and Research), which is part of the UK Government’s Scotland analysis series. Both of these papers were published in November 2013 and set out different views of the pros and cons of independence for Scottish universities. Unsurprisingly, the Scottish Affairs Committee paper is trenchant in its view that ‘separation’ would have largely negative consequences for Scottish universities. It is highly critical of the post-independence vision presented in the White Paper, arguing that ‘higher education is one of the policy areas where the divergence between the assertions of the Scottish Government and the reality are at their starkest’.
For a discussion of the arguments in the BIS paper and the White Paper, see my earlier blog (White paper reflections - Higher Education). Whilst the former paper emphasises the benefits to Scottish science and research of being part of a wider UK framework, the latter emphasises the benefits of independence for Scottish universities.
The Scottish Affairs Committee paper disputes many points made in the White Paper and its tone is noticeably more combative than that of the earlier BIS paper. The paper notes that Scottish universities ‘receive over 50% more in research grants from the UK Research Councils than they would if allocation of funding was based on population share’, although of course the allocation of Research Council funding for institutions and facilities favours English universities (e.g. the Appleton Rutherford laboratory near Oxford receives significant funding from the Science and Technology Facilities Council). Whereas the BIS paper suggests somewhat circumspectly that the continuation of a common UK research area could not be guaranteed post-independence, the Scottish Affairs Committee paper makes this point rather more bluntly: ‘…the rest of the UK would carry on with its Research Councils and Scotland would not be part of that structure’ (evidence from David Willetts, UK Minister for Universities and Science). Professor David Raffe, University of Edinburgh, makes the point that funding from Research Councils is second to the need to preserve the ‘academic eco-system’ including cross-border collaboration and the sharing of facilities. This argument, however, is dismissed by the Scottish Affairs Committee on the grounds that ‘ease of collaboration, access to shared services and assessment systems may be put at risk if Scotland opted to become a separate state’.
Interestingly, the Scottish Affairs Committee paper appears to be more sympathetic to the argument in the White Paper that an independent Scotland could develop an immigration policy which was more supportive of international student recruitment. Referring to evidence presented by Alastair Sim, Universities Scotland, the Scottish Affairs Committee paper notes the reduction in the number of international students across the UK since the introduction of tougher visa restrictions in 2011. The paper recognises that if Scotland were to become a separate state, it would not be able to pursue a wholly independent immigration policy whilst remaining within a common travel area. However, it is noted, separation might provide scope for marginal changes which might be beneficial to the recruitment of foreign students, such as the provision of a post-study work visa and permission to bring a spouse whilst studying for a Masters degree. The Committee calls on the UK Government to explain whether such changes could be accommodated within the frameworks and objectives of existing immigration policy.
The Scottish Government’s belief that fees could be charged to rUK students post-independence is contested not only on grounds of legality, but also because such arrangement would contribute to the erosion of good-will which is essential to the functioning of cross-border arrangements. David Willetts, UK Minister for Universities and Science, told the Committee: ‘You cannot put up a new barrier aimed specifically at keeping out students from Manchester, at the same time as saying that your aim is to be a single integrated research area with Manchester’ .
Overall, whilst all three policy papers point to genuine differences and tensions in higher education policy north and south of the Border, they are also highly politically charged. The White Paper emphasises differences in substance and values within English and Scottish higher education policy, overlooking many areas of policy convergence. For example, in the quest for research funding and the recruitment of international students paying the market rate, universities across the UK compete within, and are shaped by, a global higher education market. Arguably, the global higher education market is becoming more influential in both systems, yet the White Paper does not acknowledge fully these common pressures and shared policy agendas. By the same token, the Scottish Affairs Committee paper emphasises the disruption which would be caused by a ‘yes’ vote, maintaining that many, if not all, cross-Border arrangements would be unsustainable, creating what David Willetts describes as a ‘lose-lose situation’. Throughout the paper, the positive language of ‘independence’ is replaced by the negative connotation of ‘separation’.
Clearly, a vote for independence would necessitate negotiation between Scottish and UK Governments, as well as EU institutions, on a whole range of issues affecting higher education, ranging from the fee-status of rUK students, the funding of Research Councils, immigration policy and the ownership of buildings and networks associated with research infrastructure (such as the UK Research Office in Brussels and access to CERN in Switzerland). According to the Scottish Government, these negotiations would be easily concluded with an eighteen month period between the referendum and Independence Day. The UK government, on the other hand, emphasises the complexity of these negotiations, suggesting that every area would be hotly contested and the barriers to common arrangements could be insurmountable. The reality probably lies somewhere in between these polarised positions.
Sheila Riddell
21.03.14