Labour urged to confirm if student tax applies to Scotland
Scottish universities have been 'left in limbo' regarding the levy, with education being a devolved power but immigration still controlled by Westminster, and further education officials have joined the growing backlash against Labour's proposed immigration reforms.
READ MORE: SNP file formal complaint over 'race-baiting' Reform UK ad
Claire McPherson, Director of Universities Scotland, said: 'We urge the UK Government to think carefully about the impact that a levy on international student fees will have on universities, and the attractiveness of the UK as a study destination.
'We'd hope to see the UK Government defer a decision on the applicability of any levy in Scotland to the Scottish Government, reflecting the fact that university funding is devolved.'
The SNP continues calls for a Scottish Graduate Visa, which would allow international graduates from Scottish universities to work and contribute to the economy for two years whilst working towards a Skilled Worker Visa
SNP MSP Bill Kidd said: 'Last week we had the unedifying spectacle of Keir Starmer dancing to Nigel Farage's tune on immigration as he announced plans which are completely out of sync with Scotland's needs and values.
'Labour's damaging migration plans are a direct threat to Scotland's NHS, our economy and our universities.
'The UK Labour Government has already slapped our universities with a £30 million bill with their reckless decision to hike employer National Insurance contributions.
'Our universities have now been left in limbo not knowing if they are faced with a further bill of £85 million directly due to Labour's political choices, whilst they also face the prospect of finding it harder to attract international students.
'Keir Starmer must urgently provide clarity on whether this proposed tax on international students will apply in Scotland, whether he will look again at introducing a Scottish Graduate Visa, and whether he will listen to experts from across various sectors and ditch his damaging anti-immigration agenda.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
11 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Former polytechnics face job cuts over ‘unfair' staff pensions
Former polytechnic universities could be forced into redundancies due to the spiralling cost of staff pensions, vice chancellors have warned. Around 80 universities created after 1992 have to pay almost twice as much into workers' pensions as older institutions, costing some over £5m more each year. The Universities and Colleges Employers Association (UCEA) said the situation was driving redundancies across the sector, while leaders described it as 'unbelievably unfair' and 'a severe competitive disadvantage.' They are calling for the option to offer staff more affordable schemes, but the Government has not confirmed any changes. Staff at universities created before 1992, such as red bricks, are offered membership of the Universities Superannuation Scheme. It offers a hybrid defined benefit and defined contribution scheme, providing generous payouts for life. As a fully funded scheme, the employer contribution rate can be reduced if its investments perform well. After recording a healthy surplus in 2023, the rate was lowered from 21.6pc to 14.5pc in January last year – offering substantial savings for universities. However, this did not apply to around 80 former polytechnics that became universities after 1992, as they are required to offer membership of the Teachers' Pension Scheme to most staff, the Financial Times reported. The employer contribution rate for that scheme has soared over the past few years due to rising costs, culminating in a rise from 23.7pc to 28.7pc last April. The post-1992 universities paid around £700m into staff pensions last year, up from £300m in 2017-18, according to UCEA. The latest increase will force Manchester Metropolitan University to spend an extra £5.1m on pension contributions this year, while Andy Long, of Northumbria University, said moving all staff into the Universities Superannuation Scheme would save £11m annually. Graham Galbraith, vice chancellor of the University of Portsmouth, said it was an un-level playing field and 'unbelievably unfair' on pre-1992 universities. Chief executive, Raj Jethwa, said: 'The obligation to offer staff the Teachers' Pension Scheme, which has seen employer contributions virtually double over the last five years, is putting significant strain on institutional finances and driving redundancy exercises across the sector. 'Higher education institutions are determined to offer competitive, sustainable pensions as part of an attractive and affordable reward package, but they need the flexibility to offer better value alternative pension schemes. 'This will help alleviate the financial strains on employers and meet the needs of an increasingly diverse workforce.' However, University and College Union general secretary, Jo Grady, said it was an attempt to cut pensions. She said: 'It would be completely unacceptable for vice chancellors to attempt to slash staff pensions. The Government should make clear that the Teachers' Pension Scheme is an integral part of nationally agreed terms and conditions, block any attempts to leave it and match the support given to schools and colleges by funding the increase in employer contributions.' The increased employer contribution rate for the Teachers' Pension Scheme has already cost taxpayers an extra £1.9bn in additional pension contributions across the education sector. There are also fears that contributions could rise further if more private schools abandon the scheme, which they are not legally obliged to offer. Unions have previously warned that Labour's VAT raid on fees could push some private schools to withdraw in a bid to cut costs. A Department for Education spokesman said: 'While universities are independent from the Government and must make the necessary decisions to ensure their long-term sustainability, we are taking action to restore their status as engines of growth, opportunity and innovation through our Plan for Change. 'We appreciate the impact of the increased Teachers' Pension Scheme employer contribution rate on some higher education providers and are working closely with the sector.'
The Guardian
11 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Rail fares in England could rise by ‘outrageous' 5.5% next year
Train fares in England could rise by as much as 5.6% next year, as campaigners said passengers could be priced off the railway. Increases in train ticket prices are calculated using the inflation reading for July, which will be announced on Wednesday. The retail prices index – the measure of inflation used for the calculations – will hit 4.6% in July, according to consensus forecasts by City economists. Regulated fares, which account for about half of rail journeys, would rise by 5.6% in 2026 if the increase follows the same pattern as last year. Although the government has not yet confirmed how it will calculate fares for 2026, they last rose by 4.6% in March, which was one percentage point above the RPI reading from July 2024. Bruce Williamson, a spokesperson for the campaign group Railfuture, said such an increase would be 'outrageous'. 'What would be the justification for jacking up fares above inflation? There isn't any,' he said. 'It's ripping off the customer, driving people off the trains and on to our congested road network, which is in no one's interest.' The government is working on plans to bring rail services into public ownership, and Williamson said he would support a government freeze on fares. 'One would hope that there would be some efficiency savings and economies of scale that you get from having a more integrated railway,' he said. 'But of course, I strongly suspect that if there are any savings to be had, they'd be swallowed up by the Treasury and not passed back to the passengers, which I think is wrong.' Almost half of rail fares in England are directly set by Westminster. The devolved Scottish and Welsh governments usually cap fares at a similar level. Regulated fares include season tickets on most commuter journeys, off-peak returns on long-distance routes and flexible tickets for urban rail. Sign up to Business Today Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning after newsletter promotion The prospect of higher travel costs comes amid a broader rise in the cost of living. Economists expect that the consumer price index, the headline measure for inflation, will be 3.7% in July, up from 3.6% in June. The government is expected to provide an update on changes to regulated fares later this year. A Department for Transport spokesperson said: 'The transport secretary has made clear her number one priority is getting the railways back to a place where people can rely on them. 'The government is putting passengers at the heart of its plans for public ownership and Great British Railways, delivering the services they deserve and driving growth. 'No decisions have been made on next year's rail fares but our aim is that prices balance affordability for both passengers and taxpayers.'
The National
12 minutes ago
- The National
A single electoral outcome could open up many routes to independence
The good news for the indy movement is that it should be possible to produce a single electoral result that includes almost all the trigger conditions for all the proposed routes to independence. With the right result we could try the weakest approach first. If that first option failed, we'd have another option available, and if that failed, yet another option. And there's no reason why, as each option becomes 'live', the whole of the indy movement can't get behind the proposal and apply political and civic pressure to help make the case. READ MORE: Mike Small: Beyond Sturgeon, Salmond and the centrist collapse The main desired outcomes I hear are: SNP seat majority, indy seat supermajority, evidence of voter majority and evidence of voter majority emerging in the list alone. The last two require that a vote for a declared party of independence be regarded as a vote for independence. A perfectly legitimate expectation, one supported by international law. And the stronger the result, the more leverage it will have. All the proposals will be there after the vote, but if we don't get a result that allows us to pursue these proposals, we're going nowhere. No matter how inspired or outlandish the proposal, we're going nowhere if we don't have the result we need. The most important objective is to get the indy vote out on the day. Polling of indy electoral voting intentions adds up to 45%. Polling for a straight Yes/No vote has Yes on 55%. Spot the problem? Likely the only proposal that will get its trigger condition met is the SNP proposal. That needs to change. READ MORE: Richard Walker: Nicola Sturgeon's memoir gives plenty of insight but isn't very frank Achieving a seat majority is relatively simple due to the UK's use of a pluralistic voting system. This first-past-the-post plural voting system awards the majority of seats to the largest minority. Scotland uses the identical voting system in the constituencies, and then uses a list system to allocate seats on a proportional basis, which also serves the dual purpose of preventing a party that has done well in the constituencies from winning an even bigger, disproportionate share of seats. Notice I use the word 'party'. Some folk get upset about the indy camp, which is made up of several parties, winning too big a share of seats overall. Don't. The SNP will win more seats than it should, but only for 56% of the available seats, unlike the Westminster version, where a party can win a disproportionate share of 100% of the seats. The other indy parties will win their proportionate share of the list seats based on how many votes each party gets. Though not completely proportionate, 44% of Holyrood seats are distributed on a proportional-representation basis. Which is a much fairer system. Every Scot has two votes. Every Scot has complete freedom about how they use those votes. READ MORE: Are the SNP taking my vote for granted like Labour used to? I say 'go for it'! Get all the results in the bag and let the various route proposers work their magic and achieve us our independence. The best way to win loads of seats and tick all the boxes? Make sure that every indy vote is cast in a way that can win seats for indy. This boils down to the Vote Indy strategy: In the constituencies, everyone indy votes for the SNP. On the list, everyone indy votes for any indy party that is NOT the SNP. This is the ONLY way to achieve the winning or trigger condition for each proposal. Please note the 'list referendum' idea is seriously flawed. First, there is no way to put the voting instructions on the ballot paper or include them in any official communication from the Electoral Commission. But a more glaring flaw is that if the Unionists win the vote in the constituencies, they can claim an equally valid win. It will be a one-all draw. Indy-voter majority needs to emerge in both constituency and list. Everyone indy needs to use both constituency and list votes. Any withholding of votes could wreck the outcome. Alistair Potter via email IN 1979, despite winning the referendum for Scottish devolution, the vote failed to clear the 40% ruling brought in by the Scots-born Labour MP for a London constituency George Cunningham. Because of this gerrymandering, the cause of devolution, never mind Scottish independence, was delayed for decades. History since then, and with no gerrymandering, has seen a devolved parliament established in Scotland, and an unsuccessful independence referendum, in the last 25ish years. READ MORE: SNP councillor hits back at 'lie' he defected to Reform UK One of the lessons learnt was to get the vote out, and that every – yes, EVERY – vote counts. So, why do I see the motion on the SNP conference agenda to only count SNP votes after the 2026 Holyrood election? Have no lessons been learnt? This is, in my opinion, pure lunacy. If we had taken this approach in 2014, we would have never got 45%, we would have alienated every other independence supporter who was not an SNP member, and in doing so received a larger defeat. Surely, as an independence party we want and need to gain the largest possible vote? A large positive vote only lends more power to our demands. As it stands, this motion is a vote for continued devolution and London control. Use the Yes support we have in Scotland or we stand to lose Scotland to London control for decades to come. Mr Swinney, Mr Brown and all who considered this a good idea, think again. Bill Golden Forfar
