Readers' letters: Higher education needs a major rethink

At the same time, a report by Professor Sir Anton Muscatelli reveals a £200 million funding gap for Scottish universities. Our current model is struggling financially, but the problem goes deeper than money.

The problems are threefold. First, there is too much pressure: we push teenagers to choose a strict career path before they are ready. In our rapidly changing world, few people in their twenties – let alone teenagers – have a clear idea of a long-term career path; yet the pressure is on them to go to university. Second: rigid structures: unlike the US system, which lets students explore different subjects for two years before choosing a major, the UK system forces deep specialisation from day one. Finally, outdated goals: A four-year Scottish degree locks students into one track immediately.

As universities try to fix their financial troubles, they should also question their educational goals. A flexible approach might serve young people much better in a fast-changing world.

Doug Clark, Edinburgh

Second homes

I read the article by Brian Monteith about second home owners in Edinburgh (25 August) with interest. The 300 per cent premium to council tax will apply to both second and empty homes. As a second home owner in Edinburgh, I made my position known to the council. I appealed against the 300 per cent surcharge, citing various reasons why exemption might be considered. Several months later I was phoned and informed that my application was refused.

I was told that the decision to make the surcharge was democratic and had the support of the city council and the Scottish Government. I mentioned that I knew people who also had a second home in Edinburgh. They receive a standard council tax demand and continue to pay the standard rate. “Oh yes” I was told, “Quite a lot of people said the same. Some also reported them, anonymously, of course. You will understand that if someone has a main residence in London or Leeds, we have no way of knowing that.”

When Margaret Thatcher introduced the hated poll tax, it was by a democratically elected government and the people being charged were identified and billed. Edinburgh Council does not even appear to have a reliable method of identifying owners of second homes and empty homes. There was no guidance in the government document sent to councils, concerning the need for a (reasonably) comprehensive list or how that might be compiled (I was provided with a link to the document).

The rights and wrongs of high council tax rates can be debated. The need for a complete list of those liable for the tax should self-evident, but appears to have been glossed over. In this situation, being told to respect democratic decision-making can wear a bit thin.

Andrew Muirhead, Ayr, South Ayrshire

Wise words

I give the strongest possible support to the opinions expressed by Nigel Orr (Letters, 3 September). The public inquiry of which he was solicitor showed that merging health boards is a very complex task, and that getting it wrong can have very bad consequences for patient care. And it only involved two boards, with the one being dissolved in 2006 previously managing the Vale of Leven hospital, where systemic failures after the dissolution of the health board led to 34 patients dying in 2007 and 2009 from Clostridium difficile, a preventable hospital-acquired infection.

I declare an interest in that one of my daughters was born at the Vale when it was a small but well run hospital, and that in September 2008 I gave microbiological advice to those pressing for further inquiries and attended a Holyrood debate about the Vale outbreaks and deaths.

Hugh Pennington, Aberdeen

Fighting talk

How stirring to read the fighting words from Downing Street after the news that the “Leader of the Free World” is considering a change to the US position on the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. A spokesman said that the Falklands are “British with a right to determine their own future”, adding that “the right to self-determination is paramount”.

This will I am sure come as welcome news to the 3,500 human inhabitants as well as the half a million sheep. How unfortunate that the same generosity of spirit is not applicable to Northern Ireland, Wales, or indeed ourselves!

Marjorie Ellis Thompson, Edinburgh

English nationalists

Reform UK is essentially a right-wing English nationalist party yet it does not campaign for an independent England. Perhaps not surprisingly, the question never asked by the BBC and the media in general (although over recent years disproportionately, based on electoral performance, persistently platforming Mr Farage), is why?

Surely if the national fervour that drove the majority in England to vote for Brexit has any economic rationale then Reform should now be clamouring to shed the shackles of Scotland’s supposed “dependency”? Or is it the truth that England actually depends on Scotland’s resources but none of the UK political parties wish to openly admit that fact?

Stan Grodynski, Longniddry, East Lothian

Proud legacy

Apparently, the UN thinks that Britain should build statues of Africans to atone for slavery. What an interesting idea. However, I have an alternative suggestion.

I would suggest that African countries should build statues of white men like Wilberforce and Dundas who jointly helped stop the slave trade conducted by African chiefdoms enslaving and selling fellow Africans.

For many decades, the Royal Navy’s West Africa Squadron (at a cost in present-day billions and in many lives) in the face of international hostility captured slavers and freed slaves, employing African sailors. In east Africa, Britain ended the Arab slave trade too and, together with France, we destroyed the North African slavers who had preyed upon Europeans for centuries.

A legacy to celebrate.

Andrew HN Gray, Edinburgh

Max headroom

With inflation still running above the Bank of England’s 2 per cent target, real growth remains elusive for Chancellor John Healey.

Assumptions about long-term productivity remain central to the ongoing debate about the UK’s lack of growth and our falling living standards.

The most recent statistics produced by Office for National Statistics (ONS) indicate weak productivity weakened further post-Covid to around 0.4 per cent per annum.

The Resolution Foundation, however, just recently produced new estimates showing, not a fall, but a rise in productivity to 1.1 per cent per annum.

This was attributed not to the AI boom or labour shake out in hospitality and retail but broad-based improvement across the private sector: encouraging, given the prevailing gloom.

This new estimate is seen as “more reliable” as the calculation uses HMRC payroll data for 30-million plus employees rather than data derived from a flawed Labour Force Survey.

But does 0.4 per cent vs 1.1 per cent matter when the UK economy remains trapped within the spectrum of relatively low productivity growth.

It does: relatively small changes can make a big difference in both the meaning and significance of these statistics.

For example, “Rule 70” is one tool of analysis used by the likes of the ONS, IMF, OECD, World Bank etc to demonstrate this. This rule gives a proxy measure for the number of years it takes for a productivity constant to double the size of an economy.

At 0.4 per cent per annum it would take 175 years for the UK economy to double in size, compared with 64 years at 1.1 per cent.

And, according to a 2026 forecast from the Fraser of Allander Institute, at its current estimate of 1 per cent productivity growth per annum it would take 70 years for the Scottish economy to double in size.

The key question that arises for us from all of this is which productivity assumption will the OBR use in its pre-budget forecast for the Chancellor?

With the cost of government borrowing soaring, his headroom for manoeuvre and related tax plans will greatly depend on it.

Ewen Peters. Newton Mearns, East Renfrewshire

Anyone for Denis?

Our new chancellor Healey is the second Labour Chancellor called Healey The first was Denis in l974, and many of us can recall his famous comment that he would “soak the rich till the pips squeaked”.

That’s what he did – he raised to 75 per cent top rate of income tax to 83 per cent. Some people paid 98 pence in the pound tax. He spent money he did not have and had to go cap in hand to the IMF begging for a loan.

How like our present chancellor.

He has begun to spend money he does not have and has raised the national debt to it’s highest ever level. Hence my feeling of déjà vu.

Alastair Paisley, Edinburgh

Write to The Scotsman

We welcome your thoughts – NO letters submitted elsewhere, please. Write to [email protected] including name, address and phone number – we won't print full details. Keep letters under 300 words, and in the body of the email – no attachments – and avoid ‘Letters to the Editor/Readers’ Letters’ or similar in your subject line. If referring to an article, include date, page number and heading. No poems.