May 2011 Election

[Ad Lib]

Should we therefore retrospectively bill those that received their university education for free in the past? university was as compulsory then as now.

No. Why on earth would we do that? If, as is claimed, their education was paid out of general taxation, there should be no deficit to plug. They have a legitimate expectation that in accepting their University place at the time on clearly agreed terms that they would not be hit with a retrospective windfall tax. What you are suggesting is as ridiculous as the notion of unhanging people after abolishing the death penalty.

Yeah I forgot about other EU countries getting their education free, but students from other countries are still offered a lot more help financially than those here. So many EU students are here because their governments helps them to stay here. I don't see why the same shouldn't apply to Scotland with its own students. To be clear, I'm not talking about tuition fees, I'm just talking about living costs. And most countries in Europe are tuition fee-free.

Why should how other countries decide to fund their Universities and students have a hold over what we are allowed to do? This is simply not relevant. Even then, I can turn around and mention the US and Canadian systems. They produce spectacular Universities that are extremely well funded and which remain accessible to those from disadvantaged backgrounds because of some of the most comprehensive scholarship schemes in the world. The very best Universities are private thus don't receive government support such as here or other European countries.

[sparky88]

If they're not to be compulsory, I think there's a good case for that, yes.

So the government should charge for everything that it deems as non-compulsory?

Does the reverse work. Say you don't put your bins out for a week, should you get a rebate on your council tax?

[Reynard]

Should we therefore retrospectively bill those that received their university education for free in the past? university was as compulsory then as now.

Yeah I forgot about other EU countries getting their education free, but students from other countries are still offered a lot more help financially than those here. So many EU students are here because their governments helps them to stay here. Even from countries where it is far cheaper to live than here - places like Poland. I don't see why the same shouldn't apply to Scotland with its own students. To be clear, I'm not talking about tuition fees, I'm just talking about living costs. And most countries in Europe are tuition fee-free.

Maybe we could wind the clock back to 1997 when the country was providing free education? Pre New Labour.

What proportion of school leavers are taking up a university education in all these countries you speak of anyway? You get your education paid for until you leave school. After that it's personal choice what you do with your life.

[vikingTON]

At what point have I even indirectly referred to "values", let alone those which are "make-believe"?

Your entire shrill parade of outrage, summed in thousands of posts, bailout Latin and a busted-flush blog revolves around a 'principle' of market anarchism that you actually know f**k-all about. This can be seen in your overt cheerleading for unionism as well as the powers of the state (see last week's tear-filled sob about the big bad student protestors).

Stop being such a complete and utter c**t of a human being.

^^^ verge of tears

(this is when you use Latin)

[Reynard]

So the government should charge for everything that it deems as non-compulsory?

Does the reverse work. Say you don't put your bins out for a week, should you get a rebate on your council tax?

I had a deal with a private refuse collecting firm when I had a shop premises. I paid per pick up. It was half the price of what the council charged for their service. They charged whether you used the service or not.

[Swampy]

If they're not to be compulsory, I think there's a good case for that, yes.

That's fucking interesting man, that's fucking interesting.

What are you general thoughts on a coercive government appropriating the rights of parents to teach their children in the first place?

[Ad Lib]

So the government should charge for everything that it deems as non-compulsory?

Does the reverse work. Say you don't put your bins out for a week, should you get a rebate on your council tax?

If the government is to provide things which are not compulsory, those who elect to use it absolutely should be charged to cover the cost, yes.

And yes, the reverse should apply.

Your entire shrill parade of outrage, summed in thousands of posts, bailout Latin and a busted-flush blog revolves around a 'principle' of market anarchism that you actually know f**k-all about. This can be seen in your overt cheerleading for unionism as well as the powers of the state (see last week's tear-filled sob about the big bad student protestors).

Right let's dissect this drivel point by point.

1. There is no moral "outrage" here at all.

2. No Latin used. No reference to my blog either

3. I am perfectly familiar with market anarchism. It is the belief that absence of government removes large swathes of vested interest from the market place, producing equitable solutions based on true supply and demand.

4. I don't cheerlead Unionism. Evidence please.

5. I don't cheerlead the powers of the state - I was supporting private property rights of the University and made it clear that it wasn't the University's fault that their right to forcibly eject people from their property had been appropriated by the state.

^^^ verge of tears

(this is when you use Latin)

Okay, since you asked nicely: Stercorem pro cerebro habes.

[Swampy]

Why should how other countries decide to fund their Universities and students have a hold over what we are allowed to do? This is simply not relevant. Even then, I can turn around and mention the US and Canadian systems. They produce spectacular Universities that are extremely well funded and which remain accessible to those from disadvantaged backgrounds because of some of the most comprehensive scholarship schemes in the world. The very best Universities are private thus don't receive government support such as here or other European countries.

You know a significant majority of university students in the USA attend a public institution, right?

[Ad Lib]

That's fucking interesting man, that's fucking interesting.

What are you general thoughts on a coercive government appropriating the rights of parents to teach their children in the first place?

Not comfortable in the slightest. I've argued quite consistently on here for a long time that I don't believe the state should be funding or controlling education.

[Ad Lib]

You know a significant majority of university students in the USA attend a public institution, right?

Absolutely, but the best universities are private.

[Law Stud]

Source for the bit in bold? The top Scottish universities are still amongst the best in Britain.

I really don't understand the 'why should those who didn't go to university and earn LESS be made to pay for the education for those future Solicitors, Accountants, Engineers, Surveyors, or Architects?' argument. Why shouldnt they, any more than should I pay for primary school children, even though I'll never go to a primary school again?

That argument has been cooked up by politicians to make people forget the hyporcrisy of people, benefitting from a free education, imposing fees on a younger generation. Whichever way you look at it, a degree was far more valuable when they were at university (look at the legions of unemployed graduates struggling to find work)

Not according to the league tables they aren't. Only St Andrews is in the top 15 and that's before the funding changes kick in. The gap is only going to get worse.

As for the fees argument. There is no such thing as FREE EDUCATION. It has to be paid for by the taxpayer. My belief is that should end and that everyone should pay for what they use. If you've followed my posts in the past you'll know that I have proposed a government dividend which is the redistribution of the taxes collected to each UK Resident UK Citizen from which they will be able to pay for their own health care and for any educational needs they have.

Now as for your claim that politicians got free educations - actually most of them didn't. The system was grant based and it was means tested. Many politicians like David Cameron or George Osbourne would have paid their way through University and quite rightly too.

[vikingTON]

Right let's dissect this drivel point by point.

1. There is no moral "outrage" here at all.

"moral" outrage seeps through every single one of your stampy posts.

2. No Latin used. No reference to my blog either

You do not refer to the blog only because your blog has failed, and we all know that bailout Latin is but one more defeated point away.

3. I am perfectly familiar with market anarchism. It is the belief that absence of government removes large swathes of vested interest from the market place, producing equitable solutions based on true supply and demand.

And here we have you referring to 'values', as I stated previously.

4. I don't cheerlead Unionism. Evidence please.

Who have you voted for in respective elections, what is their stance upon the Union?

5. I don't cheerlead the powers of the state - I was supporting private property rights of the University and made it clear that it wasn't the University's fault that their right to forcibly eject people from their property had been appropriated by the state.

How are these private property rights secured, and by whom?

It's blatantly clear that you wanted any agent, including the state, to remove protestors because you disagreed with their protest. That's not even remotely in keeping with your "principles", which is why you are a tiresome posturer.

[Pink Freud]

Not according to the league tables they aren't. Only St Andrews is in the top 15 and that's before the funding changes kick in. The gap is only going to get worse.

Mmm.

How many universities in a country of 5.5 million people should there be in the top 15 universities in the world? Should we be disappointed that Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen aren't there too?

Or rather, should we celebrate the fact that British universities are either second best or best in the world, depending on how you measure it?

[Ad Lib]

"moral" outrage seeps through every single one of your stampy posts.

You do not refer to the blog only because your blog has failed, and we all know that bailout Latin is but one more defeated point away.

zzzzzz

And here we have you referring to 'values', as I stated previously.

As opposed to everyone else's values informing their opinions? My posts were no more "value" based than yours.

Who have you voted for in respective elections, what is their stance upon the Union?

I didn't realise that historical allegiance bound present and future allegiance.

For the record I voted Conservative at the EP elections in 2009 and Lib Dem at the GE last year. This year I probably won't be voting (or else spoil my ballot), but if I do I will be voting Lib Dem.

Further I didn't realise that voting for a party meant that you endorse all of their policy stances. Are you suggesting to me that every person who votes SNP support Independence? I thought independence supporters were quite keen not to plead this argument because it infers majority support for the Union.

My own view on the Union (as with all statehood) is that it is oppressive and unnecessary.

How are these private property rights secured, and by whom?

Private property rights exist by nature. They are secured either by the owners themselves (or their agents) through force or through a mutually agreed enforcement mechanism (the most familiar model of which we see as the state). The state has appropriated the University's right to use force to remove people from their premises. That in itself is wrong. That does not preclude the University from seeking to enforce their basic private property right.

It's blatantly clear that you wanted any agent, including the state, to remove protesters because you disagreed with their protest. That's not even remotely in keeping with your "principles", which is why you are a tiresome posturer.

Not at all. If that were the case I'd want to ban their protest. I don't. They can run about shouting "no ifs no buts no education cuts" as much as they like, but they must not break into a building belonging to someone else, vandalise it and occupy it when they have no right to do so granted by the owners.

[xbl]

Dear Swampy, Ad Lib, and VikingTon. Sod off and posture somewhere else.

[Ad Lib]

Mmm.

How many universities in a country of 5.5 million people should there be in the top 15 universities in the world? Should we be disappointed that Glasgow, Edinburgh and Aberdeen aren't there too?

Or rather, should we celebrate the fact that British universities are either second best or best in the world, depending on how you measure it?

The ancient Scottish Universities certainly used to be a lot higher up the league tables (there were at least 3 in the top 10 about a decade ago IIRC). They've slipped in recent years.

[xbl]

The ancient Scottish Universities certainly used to be a lot higher up the league tables (there were at least 3 in the top 10 about a decade ago IIRC). They've slipped in recent years.

You mean since tuition fees were introduced?

[Ad Lib]

Dear Swampy, Ad Lib, and VikingTon. Sod off and posture somewhere else.

I'm more than happy to leave it here. They're the posturers though.

[Pink Freud]

Dear Swampy, Ad Lib, and VikingTon. Sod off and posture somewhere else.

[Ad Lib]

You mean since tuition fees were introduced?

That would appear to be the case.