Warning Scotland's education system 'teeters on edge of collapse'
The letter to Scotland's minister for higher and further education Graeme Dey MSP has been written by NUS Scotland president Sai Shraddha S Viswanathan and is signed by representatives from the STUC, Unite the Union, EIS, UCU and Unison.
They say that the Tertiary Education and Training (Funding and Governance) (Scotland) Bill, which was published at Holyrood in February, is a critical opportunity to reshape the future of post-16 education in Scotland and demand to be at the heart of shaping it.
It comes as some Scottish universities are coming under financial pressure from rising costs and reduced income from international students.
READ MORE:
Councillors agree new name for relocated high school
Study suggests children being let down by knowledge gaps around opioids
Attainment gap widens but 95.7 per cent of school leavers in 'positive destination'
The letter says that the country's institutions have been forced to rely on 'precarious international student fees' for too long and calls for a sustainable funding model.
Ms Viswanathan said: 'The Scottish Government must use the opportunities ahead to address the serious crises being faced by both universities and colleges across Scotland, which are a result of systemic underfunding.
'The livelihoods of dedicated educators, researchers, and support workers are being put at risk and students are paying the price, with learning conditions deteriorating and support services being slashed.
'This is not just about numbers on a balance sheet – it is about people's futures, their jobs, their education, and their lives.
'It is about Scotland's ability to be a world leader in education.
'It is about whether we believe in an accessible, high-quality, well-funded education system or whether we are content to let it collapse in front of us.
'We refuse to let our universities and colleges be decimated by inaction and political neglect.
'Education is the backbone of our society. Without it, we all suffer.'
The Tertiary Education and Training (Funding and Governance) (Scotland) Bill aims to simplify the funding system for both college and university students and apprentices.
The letter comes as the Scottish Government prepares to announce its 2025 Programme for Government next week.
Edinburgh University is one of those which has been facing financial difficulties.
The institution announced earlier this year that it would have to cut £140 million from its budget to plug a black hole, with job cuts likely.
Principal professor Sir Peter Mathieson last month announced that the university's voluntary severance scheme had concluded and around 350 staff had opted for voluntary redundancy.
Staff at the institution are being balloted over strike action.
Elsewhere staff at the University of Dundee have backed industrial action after the employer said there could be up to 700 redundancies as it struggles to deal with a £35 million deficit.
The Scottish Government has been asked for comment about the letter.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
31 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
'It shouldn't be illegal for men to buy sex' Ash Regan bill won't work
The details of his crimes are harrowing and heartbreaking. The case exposed just how deeply seated the police's systemic bias towards sex workers was. Just how vile and entrenched its institutional racism towards Indigenous people was – many of the missing women were Indigenous. Read more The failures in this case made one thing crystal clear. To the police in Vancouver, sex workers had no value. Pleas from families and the community to trace missing women were ignored over and over again. To say the results were devastating is an understatement. It is for this reason that I do not think sex workers or the people (men) who buy sex should be criminalised. Because the involvement of police with prostitution historically does not bode well for the women involved. It also ignores the agency of women in sex work and ensures the industry remains stigmatised. And marginalises those within it further. This week, Alba MSP Ash Regan introduced her 'Unbuyable Bill'. The Prostitution (Offences and Support) (Scotland) Bill would see the buying of sex criminalised and the selling of sexual services decriminalised. It hinges on the principle that prostitution is a form of male violence against women. The Bill would also quash historic convictions and create a statutory right to support for those in and exiting prostitution. Essentially following the Nordic model. Though, will those statutory support services be funded properly? If not, they are redundant. Right now, in Scotland, the sale of sex is not illegal, but it might as well be. Running a brothel and soliciting or loitering in public to sell sex are against the law. In Canada after the Robert Pickton trial concluded, outrage over the way the way the missing women were ignored led to the Missing Women Commission of Inquiry. A direct result of the inquiry was a new policing strategy in Vancouver that effectively decriminalised sex work. Alba MSP Ash Regan (Image: free) The result was meaningful change, and sex workers were safer for it. But despite recommendations to replicate the Vancouver approach nationwide, in 2014, Stephen Harper's Conservative Government introduced Bill C-36, which followed the Nordic model. Buying sex became illegal. Advertising someone's sexual services was criminalised. So was accepting money to place those ads and profiting from someone's sexual services. It has been more than ten years since the Nordic Model was introduced in Canada, and sex workers have argued that it still polices sex work, and they still face harassment from the force. They also say that it makes it more difficult to screen clients, which pushes the industry further into the shadows. The other issue is that the model does not recognise the autonomy of sex workers. Not all sex work is survival sex work, and no abolitionist policy will be able to control the fact that consensual sex work does exist. Bill C-36, like the 'Unbuyable Bill', is rooted in radical feminist and abolitionist views. The law claims to address gender inequality and coercion, but it paradoxically limits women's ability to choose sex work, keeps their circumstances criminalised and fails to provide viable alternatives. A paper published in the Melbourne Journal of International Law found that if you separate Bill C-36's rhetorical claims from its actual effects, the law in reality 'is exposed as little more than a moralising condemnation of female sex workers, designed to limit their freedoms and capacity for self-determination, in order to induce their exit from sex work, in a manner which is wholly irreconcilable with the pursuit of 'gender equality'.' Legislating sex work is inherently difficult. It's crucial to make sure that the most vulnerable are protected, but it's contentious to paint everyone with the same brush. In Ireland, where buying sex was criminalised in 2015, sex workers reported that demand actually increased following the introduction of the new legislation. A report on the new law by the Department of Justice published in 2019 found that the law had a 'minimal effect' on demand. Sex workers also reported a heightened fear of crime, and it contributed to a climate where they felt even more marginalised and stigmatised. READ MORE MARISSA MACWHIRTER Scotland has a history of institutionalised abuse of working-class women and girls that is intertwined with its view of the 'social evil' of prostitution. The Glasgow System of the mid-nineteenth century saw the systemic policing of women and girls. Aged from seven to 39, they were plucked off the streets by police officers at will and taken to places like the Magdalene Asylum or the Lock Hospital for brutal and intimate examinations (often carried out by men) and barbaric treatments for venereal disease that often killed them. The Lochburn Magdalene Institution closed in 1960. Not that long ago. The case of Emma Caldwell, a 27-year-old woman murdered in 2005 by serial rapist Iain Packer, highlights how stigma against sex workers remains a serious issue in Scotland, just as it does in Canada. Failures in the police investigation have led to a forthcoming independent public inquiry. It took 19 years for Packer to be brought to justice. Regan's Bill is good in the sense that it has sparked fresh debate about the rights of sex workers. Though the reality of it becoming law before Scottish Parliament elections in 2026 is pretty unlikely. As in Canada, decriminalising sex work does not win as many votes as clamping down on it. And the Nordic model, as far as I am concerned, is still a crackdown. Shifting the burden of criminality does not constitute gender equality. Marissa MacWhirter is a columnist and feature writer at The Herald, and the editor of The Glasgow Wrap. The newsletter is curated between 5-7am each morning, bringing the best of local news to your inbox each morning without ads, clickbait, or hyperbole. Oh, and it's free. She can be found on X @marissaamayy1
Glasgow Times
an hour ago
- Glasgow Times
Clyde Metro possible routes and cost known by 2027
Consultants are currently developing a case for investment which is seen as an 'essential' step towards providing a 'mass transit' system. Glasgow Labour has claimed the Metro scheme is a 'stalled plan dressed up as progress' — with no start date and no funding committed. READ NEXT:Glasgow's drug consumption centre is working says health secretary Transport spokesman Cllr Saqib Ahmed said: 'Clyde Metro should be Glasgow's next great infrastructure revolution — but right now, it's just another SNP soundbite.' A spokesman for the city's SNP group said the cross-party Glasgow City Region cabinet has allocated £12m to advance the business case, which Strathclyde Partnership for Transport (SPT) is progressing. 'That's a considerable amount of spend and effort for a soundbite,' he added. The funding, which will support the development of the case for investment (CFI), is from the City Deal, a more than £1bn infrastructure programme funded by both the UK and Scottish governments. Council officials have said the CFI will identify the funding strategy for 'subsequent stages of the Clyde Metro programme'. READ NEXT:'Don't blame us': Taxis hit back in Glasgow city centre transport row They also said 'one of the key objectives is to improve the sustainable transport access to Glasgow Airport' and this will 'continue to feature as a key priority in all the options we are exploring.' At a council meeting on Tuesday, Cllr Kieran Turner, Labour, asked whether there would be potential routes and costs at the end of the CFI process. An official said: 'Yes, absolutely. At the moment, as part of the initial engagement, we have four network options which were presented. 'Those network options will then get synthesised into a preferred network.' The process will involve deciding on which modes of transport will be included, such as heavy rail or tram, as well as a recommendation on 'what the first move needs to be'. Cllr Turner added: 'Until people start to see something that is a little more concrete, even in terms of option selection, there are still going to be questions in our constituents' minds around if any of this is ever going to happen. 'Is lots of money just getting spent on consultants? And will anything come of this?' The official said there will be answers at the end of the case for investment, including potential timelines. It will be 'absolutely critical' for securing 'a commitment from government to give funding', he said. Public consultation on the project could be held in spring or summer next year. After the meeting, Cllr Ahmed said: 'Communities have waited too long for transformation. Instead, they've been left behind by a government more focused on branding than building. 'Glasgow Labour will keep fighting for real investment in our transport network.' Labour want a commitment from the Scottish Government to fund phase one of the Metro project and a 'clear, costed and deliverable' construction timeline. The SNP spokesman said Clyde Metro is 'an agreed national transport priority'. 'Labour's failure to deliver the type of modern transport system developed by our peers during their time in power in Glasgow is why we have decades of missed opportunities to catch up on. 'If Labour councillors want to start being constructive perhaps they can insist from their party colleagues that we received a share of the £15bn the Chancellor is allocating to English cities for major transport projects.'
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Increasing UK defence spending is worst way to support jobs
THERE are many reasons to oppose the UK Government's push towards increased militarism in an already unstable and increasingly violent world. Adding more bombs – especially nuclear bombs – to the mix is not going to improve matters. The only thing that ever has, has been years and decades longs work by diplomats to de-escalate tensions and to build peace. As Master Yoda once said on being accused of being a 'great warrior', 'wars not make one great'. READ MORE: Douglas Ross accused of 'bullying witnesses' in key Holyrood committee By far the worst reason to support the extra spending is the usual 'enemy-at-the-gates' emotional fearmongering that proponents usually cast about when they want more money for more bombs but the second worst is the claim that such spending will 'support jobs and the economy'. I'm going to make the case that spending the same amount of money on just about anything else would do more good for the UK and Scottish economies. The scale of the UK's proposed militaristic expansion is vast. We don't yet know how much extra they plan to spend but an increase from the current 2.3% of GDP to 3% (the minimum required to finance the proposed fleet of new submarines and nuclear-armed fighter jets) would cost around £20 billion more than is currently being spent every year. Increasing spending to match Donald Trump's demand that the UK spends 5% of GDP would cost £80 billion a year. Bear in mind that this is on top of the UK's already proportionately massive spending on military matters – it's instructive to note that the UK spends more per capita on nuclear weapons alone than any nuclear-armed nation other than the USA and Israel at around £90 per person per year (that's more than I spend on my mobile phone SIM contract!). Trump isn't likely to get his wish of Britain spending 5% of GDP – that's about as much as was being spent during the Falklands War when Britain's GDP was less than half the size is currently is – and it's not a commitment that the UK have made quite yet so we should only talk about that £20 billion increase for now. What do we actually get for that? In economic terms, the material assets are useless. The nuclear submarines and nuclear armed jets don't themselves produce anything or add value to the economy in the way that a factory might. If they're ever used, they have a negative economic value but Britain rarely counts the cost of its wars as applied to the people we're bombing or supporting others to bomb. Even if they're not used, they are likely to have a negative economic impact on Scotland. Military spending is exempt from the Barnett Consequentials that decide the Block Grants given to devolved governments so if the spending comes not from increased taxes (ruled out by Rachel Reeves) or from increased borrowing (ruled out by Rachel Reeves) but from cuts to Barnett spending like education, social security or something similar then that will mean cuts to Holyrood which is far less able to compensate via borrowing or increased taxes. This will have a devasting impact on public services unlikely to be compensated for even by the few jobs that will be 'created or sustained' in Scotland (a number that will likely go up and down in its estimate in line with pro-independence polling, as such UK-backed jobs so often do). How many jobs are we talking? The Government estimates that the £20 billion will buy 31,000 jobs. How many in Scotland? Unknown, but 20,000 of those jobs have been announced for the submarine programme to be based in Barrow-on-Furnace, 9,000 will be dedicated to building new nuclear warheads – most of which will be based in Aldermaston and the remaining 2,000 will be split across '6 munition factories' of which an unknown number may or may not be based in Scotland. £20 billion for 31,000 jobs is £645,161 per job, per year. That £20 billion per year would support far more jobs if it was directed to civilian research and engineering as it would go on to boost the economy further through 'economic multipliers' and the inventions and technology that would come out of that research. It's estimated that every £1 of public spending on civilian healthcare research, for instance, returns at least £2 to the economy whereas defence spending usually breaks about even – less so if the spending comes at the cost of public spending elsewhere. Given that the weapons are economically useless if they're not used and economically negative if they are used, then if the goal is supporting jobs it'd be more effective to pay each of those engineers £645,161 every year to stand by the side of the road and wave at traffic – at least they'd go on to spend that money supporting jobs in the wider economy instead of it sitting there in a bomb waiting to blow up someone else's economy, house and family. Less flippantly, we could give every single person in the UK a £300 end-of-year bonus for the same price – not quite a sustainable Universal Basic Income but that would become a very valuable economic stimulus package on the scale of the similar dividend that residents of Alaska receive every year. There may be legitimate reasons to invest in military spending but stop trying to either frighten us or bribe us into accepting the illegitimate ones instead. Simply put, if your goal is 'jobs' then don't invest in 'defence'. Invest in just about anything else. Maybe even invest in peace. Then you won't need the bombs at all.
