A Personal Statement - On Tuition Fees

The following is a personal statement I have issued as the former Liberal Democrat candidate for Linlithgow and East Falkirk in the 2010 General Election:



Last night in the House of Commons MPs voted 323 for and 302 against the proposal to increase the cap on tuition fees in England to £9000. If I had been elected on 6th May as the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk I would have been joining the 21 Liberal Democrats who upheld the Liberal Democrat party policy not to increase tuition fees but instead to look at abolishing them. This had been stated in our manifesto as well as the personal pledge that many of our candidates in May signed.

The reasons I would have done so are:

• The party had instructed us to do so, not only in the years before the election, but in motions passed since the general election in most of our federal regions upholding that commitment.
•  Because personally the increase on personal debt to students is something I personally have been campaigning against since I was an undergraduate fighting the introduction of student loans when they first came in to replace grants.
•  We would be leaving students with half a hefty amount to pay off when they leave university, which when you take in the interest payments comes to a sizable part of a second mortgage
•  Even though I would have been representing a Scottish constituency I saw that the cut of the teaching budget funded by the increase in tuition fees would have a knock on effect in Scotland were tuition fees have been abolished.

I take exception to some of the comments made by colleagues in the party I have long considered closely aligned to me on the political spectrum.

Steve Webb wrote on his blog:

"I stood on a manifesto that had literally hundreds of policies and pledges."

I thought a lot of that was aspirations, many of those had caveats dependent on the economic situation, one that didn’t no matter what the financial situation was the promise not to increase tuition fees. He goes on to say that he was elected as part of 'Coalition programme for Government', a programme that allowed for Lib Dems to abstain if the findings of the Browne Report were contrary to our beliefs. That was a concession that was made to our party over this sticky issue yet Steve and 27 others not only didn't take that option, or uphold their pledge but voted for increasing the level of tuition fees.

Lynne Featherstone another blogging MP wrote:

"For some one like me – who has always believed that education should be free – it has been a difficult decision. Sadly, my view of education (free through raising taxation) isn't on the table – or anywhere near it. That vision was ended when Labour introduced tuition fees and the principle of free education for all feel."

Thankfully my colleagues in Scotland didn't feel this way and reversed the decision in Scotland and as a result that was the aspiration of our party nationally to repeat that process in both our 2005 and 2010 manifestos. I also think that because of the general benefit to society as a whole of those who go through Higher (and Further) education that this should indeed be funded, if need be, by increased taxation. The fact that it is not on or near the table would be a reason for me to further vote against.

Last night I heard Vince Cable even say that Scotland had failed to take hard decisions, I beg to differ one that Scotland has taken in that tuition fees should be abolished and from what I understand the main parties are agreeing that they should remain abolished. That is a tough decision made in light of the current situation and one that I was signed up to as a candidate this May, that we, no matter how bad things were would phase fees out.

At least in Lynne’s favour she did have the courtesy to apologise for breaking her pledge.

However, I am most proud of the twenty one, who I feel are erroneously listed as ‘rebels’ they have stood up for what the party believes in, and how the electorate who voted for them believed they would vote. Therefore I salute Annette Brooke, Sir Menzies Campbell, Mike Crockart, Tim Farron, Andrew George, Mike Hancock, Julian Huppert, Charles Kennedy, John Leech, Stephen Lloyd, Greg Mulholland, John Pugh, Alan Reid, Dan Rogerson, Bob Russell, Adrian Sanders, Ian Swales, Mark Williams, Roger Williams, Jenny Willott and Simon Wright.

However, if Nick Clegg things that those listed above and myself are 'dreamers' because of our opposition to increasing tuition fees, I'm glad that I can still dream of a fairer and truly progressive way of funding Higher and, I want to expand it to, Further Education.

I'll not stop dreaming. I will fight on.

Even though this blog may be remaining silent over the next few months due to the nature of my work, I will be keeping up the fight. Recently I was elected as a Conference Representative for my local Liberal Democrat Party. I will not be ripping up my membership card in disgust, I will be pushing up my shirt sleeves and getting down to the business of upholding the things enshrined in the opening paragraph of the preamble to the party constitution:

"The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity. We champion the freedom, dignity and well-being of individuals, we acknowledge and respect their right to freedom of conscience and their right to develop their talents to the full. We aim to disperse power, to foster diversity and to nurture creativity. We believe that the role of the state is to enable all citizens to attain these ideals, to contribute fully to their communities and to take part in the decisions which affect their lives."

I'll carry on dreaming of achieving the above, but when I'm awake I'll be fighting tooth and nail to achieve it.

Note: This statement is made in a personal capacity due to the fact that I was a Liberal Democrat candidate in the General Election in May. It is not a statement on behalf of either the West Lothian Local Party, who very graciously selected me, nor the Northern Irish Local Party of which I am now a member, nor of my current employers. 

Elaine Bagshaw's response to Nick's tuition fee email

Elaine Bagshaw a former Chair of Liberal Youth posted her response to Nick Clegg's email on Facebook. I felt it deserved a wider audience and therefore with her permission I am publishing that response below.

My response to Nick's tuition fee email

Dear Cowley Street staffer/poor intern that's been given this job,

Thanks for your email. I note it's the exact same one you sent to MPs last night, that many had already seen and reacted to. The fact that you haven't acknowledged a single point about debt and trust and the hundreds of others that have been made by people since we all saw that email, shows how little you now respect the membership of this party. If you want an "open dialogue", start by opening your ears and listening.

You keep referring to this dire financial mess argument. The problem here is that we had a fully costed and affordable manifesto - I know, I helped formulate the thing in FPC, in which a 6 year plan to scrap tuition fees was included AND costed. I have to ask whether you will now be using this as an excuse to drop all of our other pledges? Have you started a review of our manifesto and the policies in the coalition agreement, to see if we can afford them? Have you started a process internally to make sure we never produce a manifesto that, in hindsight, contains pledges we simply can't afford? No, didn't think so.

You may not have made any detailed decision but you and Vince both publicly endorsed the broad themes in the proposal. Vince did so on Tuesday morning before the ink on the Browne report was even dry. It is not an open dialogue when you have already decided privately and said publicly what you are going to do.

There are some good points in the Browne report, the extension of support to part-time students is an excellent move, but all it proposes is to tinker with the system. I agree that major reform of the system is needed, but Browne simply isn't it. It was a narrow review that hasn't tackled many of the major issues in HE, and hasn't looked widely enough at the alternatives.

But the biggest issue here is trust. I have been a proud member of this party since I joined at Uni because we are not like Labour and the Tories. It was us who could during the expenses scandal could hold our heads high and say that not a single on of our MPs had flipped their homes or overclaimed on a mortgage. Now, we sit in the same ditch as every other politician and political party that said one thing to get votes and did another once in power. I believed that over the next five years we could get a lot out of the coalition, and that we wouldn't be wiped out at the next election. Now, I'm not so convinced. You and Vince over the past two days have shown yourselves to be just like every other power grabbing politician, and frankly you have treated the membership with disdain. I supported you in the last leadership election, but if happened again today I wouldn't be able to. I am seriously reconsidering whether to stand for any publicly elected position whilst you are leader of my party.

You have let thousands of party members and voters down. You may be enjoying government now but it is us who will have to pick up the pieces of this party when you are gone. The legacy you are leaving us is not one I will be proud of.

Yours,

Elaine

In Which I Disagree With Nick a Lot

Over on Lib Dem Voice there is a letter which Nick Clegg has sent to all MPs on the subject of Tuition Fees. In it he writes:

Like you, I am painfully aware of the pledge we all made to voters on tuition fees ahead of the General Election. Departing from that pledge will be one of the most difficult decisions of my political career. It means doing something that no one likes to do in politics – acknowledging that the assumptions we made at election time simply don’t work out in practice. With the benefit of hindsight, I signed a pledge at a time when we could not have anticipated the full scale of the financial situation the country faces now and the absence of plausible alternatives for students to the arrangements we are now advocating.

Actually NO Nick I don't agree with you. The Browne report is looking at removing the cap on tuition fees. This means that only the wealthiest of our young people, those from a privileged back ground will be able to go to our finest institutions of learning. This is not the fairness for students that we stood for.

As well as promising not to increase tuition fees we did say we would seek a fairer alternative. One thing we suggested in the past to do it was a penny on income tax. Income is a fairer way of paying for University education than tuition fees (which now will be paid back at commercial rates of interest). It is also fairer that a graduate tax, expecially as some graduates will be working alongside people in the same payscale who will not have a degree, though the graduate will be paying 9% more.

The Browne report is not seeking a fairer alternative laissez faire pricing of education does ensure that our brightest get a fair deal. The rich already pay to ensure their young go to the best schools, to get the best results, to go to the best universities. To then ensure that we also price smartest A Level students from the state sector out of the course of their choice, which meets their abilities, is not liberal and is not democratic.

Those who manage to get to Oxford or Cambridge from the state sector already do so at a great disadvantage. To place them at a further disadvantage as the Browne Report allows, is not why I stood for election. This is battle I have been fighting since the Thatcher Government of my undergraduate days moved to bring in loans rather than making the maintenance grant a fair and workable system. The campaign for fair student finance is one that runs through my political veins as deeply and any Lib Dem policy thread, if not deeper.

I signed the NUS Pledge as did every Lib Dem MP. I am standing by my promise to the students of Linlithgow and East Falkirk and I will continue to ensure that Liberal Democrat MPs do the
same.

The Browne report far exceeds what was envisioned when the coalition deal was signed. A lifting of the cap on tuition fees was one thing, a removal of it all together is not what we envisioned. The goalposts have moved and with it the game. Our Lib Dem MPs should take this on board and do the right thing and vote against allowing the removal of the cap. This is how we show we mean to give a Fairer Deal for Students.

There is now a Facebook Group called Lib Dems Against Scraping the Cap, in which I have joined other PPCs, AMs and others.

Open Letter to Lib Dem MPs

Dear Nick Clegg and Lib Dem MPs,

Like all of you I signed a pre-election pledge to vote against any increase in tuition fees and to seek to introduce a fairer alternative.

Like most of you I probably had a picture taken signing it. As you can see from the picture I signed it right next to the name of the Deputy Prime Minister up in Perth at conference.

I'm pleased that in light of the Browne proposals at least 30 of our Liberal Democrat MPs are prepared to honour the pledge that they signed before the election by voting against. I am ashamed that Vince Cable last night tried to persuade them otherwise and neglect what the people who voted for them said they wanted.

Greg Mulholland has said:

"I am trying to make it clear to government that we simply wouldn't accept a rise in tuition fees. I hope that the government will heed the message and will come up with a proposal that isn't an increase to fees."

That is what we agreed to. We have delivered on fairness to students here in Scotland and again at the weekend decided to maintain that is a challenging debate to change, I which Tim Farron also spoke strongly in favour of student. We have stood by this principle for a long time and now is not the time to compromise on such a long held position. Indeed this sort of standing up for our principles might just be the sign that tells the media we are not the Tories lapdogs, we are not Tory-lite, we are our own party.

Student funding is something we have long been distinctive on. I'm proud of that fact and that students and their families recognise that. We're now the ones to fight that corner. Let us stand up and be counted in doing just that.

Stephen Glenn
2010 Westminster Candidate Linlithgow and East Falkirk


Update: There is now a Facebook Group called Lib Dems Against Scraping the Cap, joining other PPCs, AMs and others.

Standing Up For Students

Looking at the fine detail of the coalition agreement one thing that did strike me was the omission of any agreement to increase tuition fees. Indeed what there was is a rather woolly statement.

Higher education

We await Lord Browne’s final report into higher education funding, and will judge its proposals against the need to:

• increase social mobility;
  
  
• take into account the impact on student debt;
  
  
• ensure a properly funded university sector;
  
  
• improve the quality of teaching;
  
  
• advance scholarship; and,
  
  
• attract a higher proportion of students from disadvantaged backgrounds.

If the response of the Government to Lord Browne’s report is one that Liberal Democrats cannot accept, then arrangements will be made to enable Liberal Democrat MPs to abstain in any vote.

Therefore it was with relieve that I saw the following amendment to our special conference debating the coalition deal from Liberal Youth.

Conference expresses its concern that Liberal Democrat MPs who signed the 'vote for students' pledge may be unable to uphold this pledge under the abstention agreement on the Lord Browne report in the 'Higher Education' section of the agreement for a coalition government and expresses its hope that Liberal Democrat MPs can vote against any rise in the cap on tuition fees which isn't index linked.

Conference calls upon Liberal Democrat MPs to ensure that on any decision made on the Lord Browne report, they above all else take into account the impact on student debt.

Conference affirms our aspiration to scrap tuition fees.

Conference also affirms that any vote on tuition fees should not be held as a vote of confidence in the government.

Liberal Youth are incredibly worried that a whole generation of young people from lower-income backgrounds will be shut out of university education all-together if we see even higher tuition fees. Therefore, Liberal Youth are asking you to support this amendment, to reaffirm our stance on tuition fees, and force our ministers to fight for lower fees in the cabinet and allow our MPs to oppose such measures in the commons.

I fully support it, not only does it respect the idea of the new politics and the coalition that we have entered into, but it also allows our parliamentary party who along with myself and many more of our candidates all signed the 'vote for students' pledge.

I have signed their petition in support of this motion and would encourage you to do likewise and if you are attending on Sunday to speak in support and vote for it.

Student Loan Directors Quit

The heads of customer services (Martin Herbert) and information & communication technology (Wallace Gray) at the Student Loans Company (SLC) have resigned.

In a report published at the start of this month it was revealed that only 5% of calls to the company were answered at the peak of the delays in payments earlier this term. Some of the board members of the SLC were apparently only finding out the extent of the issues that students were facing due to the SLC's failures through news reports or the Facebook Groups set up by students facing financial difficulties when their loan payments were not forthcoming.

Earlier this month, before the report was published, Liberal Youth Scotland (LYS) staged a protest outside the offices of the SLC in Glasgow. They called on Ralph Seymour-Jackson, Chief Executive of the SLC and Michael Hipkins, Director of Student Finance strategy for the government. It appears that the two people whose departments are at the heart of the fiasco of student finances these past three months have fallen on their swords, whereas the overseers who should have taken action sooner to step in to correct these issues are to escape scot-free and to oversee the next appointees in these positions.

It is small matter as many students have had to drop out of University. Either because of a direct effect of not getting their student loan in time at the start of term, or later on when having still failed to recieve it, thier University hardship fund was already used up in paying for others before them to cover the absence.

The apology from the deputy chief executive doesn't even go far enough. He promises:

"We are determined to do whatever it takes to ensure processing and payments are faster next year, so that we can deliver the service that students and their parents have every right to expect."

Going faster is not much of a promise considering the effects of this year. Students deserve a promise for next year that the SLC will ensure that processing and payments are made ON TIME next year, not merely faster. They have 9 months to be able to ensure that, six of which will be checking the errors in the current system and three of which will then be the processing of the actual requests and claims that are required. Anything less after this year will not be acceptable to anyone

Is Tom Harris Jealous of a Party with a Principled Stance on Education

Now I know Tom Harris is a Doctor Who fan, a fan of reality TV shows, but his recent blog post contains the phrase "back in the real world". The post in question is about the Lib Dems pledge to keep our promise to axe tuition fees for students.

In a fit of Kerry McCarthy-esque pique he is saying that the Lib Dems are keeping a meaningless pledge as he says we will not be able to enact it in the next parliament. Strangely his own party therefore have made meaningful pledges in each of the last three General Elections and have yet to "honour them" by his own standards. We still have hereditary peers in the Lords. We still haven't eradicated child poverty. As for the pledge before the first Labour win it was all about education, education, education.

Sadly in England and Wales our students find it is all about finding the money, finding the money, finding the money to pay their tuition fees. Back in their real world the failure of the Student Loans Company to provide many with money this last term is horrendous. University hardship funds are having to cover students that they should not normally have to. If students turn to them later this year with genuine hardship issues the funds will be lower than anticipated.

Harris goes on to say that the only way to fund such a pledge is by reducing drastically the number of people entering further education. Strangely his colleagues in Holyrood didn't take that attitude when they did agree to follow through the Lib Dem policy here. See we hadn't been the largest party in the Scottish Parliament but we were able to follow through on our pledges to some extent over eight years. Also there hasn't been a reduction in the number of people in Scotland doing further education since the dropping of tuition fees, what there has been has been a fall in the proportion who drop out because they can no longer afford to attend.

Who knows what the outcome of the next Westminster Election will be? It appears that Tom Harris has stopped fighting to win. Even with a little effort from Labour there may be a hung Parliament, which could mean, oh wait, some party may have to negotiate with another to form a workable Government. If that were the case surely certain of their pledges would end up being meaningful.

So if Tom Harris is saying that the Lib Dems should not form pledges to put before the electorate, what does that mean if his party is well behind in the polls from now until May? Does that mean that his party will not have to bother issuing a manifesto as it will be full of pledges they have no chance of keeping or honouring? Of course not.

What Tom Harris cannot stand is that the Lib Dems are remaining true to a long held education policy when over the last 12 years of Labour Government there have been 12 different Education Bills following the shifting sands and a thirteenth was included in the last Queen's speech.

So maybe Tom should look at the "real world" where everything isn't so Red and Blue. Latest opinion polls are showing once again that over 20% are going to vote Lib Dems and in the run up to previous elections that proportion has gone up. In some of those same polls Labour has been within a margin of error ahead of the Lib Dems. As for students I'm glad to see that Tom Harris takes their concerns, their issues so lightly, in the long run they are the people that he will need to re-elect him. Indeed it may be sooner than he anticipates.

Well Done Alex

You know I don't often agree with Alex Salmond but he has said the following about nasty and underground Internet comments that cause offence or are untrue.

"The internet is a wonderful tool. It gives us a means to engage with the public, to motivate activists and to affirm our positive case for Scottish independence.

"We must use the internet for positive campaigns, to build our case and not get engaged in the negative agenda. The SNP can only win and will only win on a positive agenda."

Of course I don't agree with his ultimate aim of his use of the Internet as a tool, but I respect his right to use it in a positive way to try and convince the other 75% of Scots of the need for Independence.

One does wonder if he also means to cover whenever any argument in comments threads in papers also ends up in name calling of the other three main parties.

Sadly he went on to make a few errors himself:

"There is a strong public majority for a referendum, and our job is to translate that public support into a parliamentary majority.

"Each of the three London-based parties – Labour, Tory and Liberal – say no, no, no to Scotland, in the same arrogant manner as Margaret Thatcher did."

For a start not all of those who want there to be a referendum on the subject want to vote SNP, nor do they want to vote yes in that referendum.

Second not all of the parties are London based. The Scottish Liberal Democrats are free to make their own policy decisions as far as Scotland is concerned, that is the nature of our party. That is why there are four occasions a year that we get to debate and vote on policy.

However, who really is saying no to Scotland?

The SNP have said no to Scotland over removing the unfair council tax.

The SNP are saying no to Scotland and Glasgow over GARL.

The SNP have said no to Scottish students for ending student debt.

So the SNP have said no, no, no to Scotland. In the same arrogant way that Thatcher did Alex is only saying on some of the above my way or no way.

Hyslop Announcement Step in the Right Direction

Yesterday the SNP Education Minister Fiona Hyslop announced £30 million of student support of increased grants and loans. Grants of up to £1,000 are to be introduced for independent students – those unsupported by parents and mostly over 25. And she said the maximum level of the income-assessed student loan, which has a current interest rate of 0 per cent, will go up by £442.

Liam Burns the President of the National Union of Students Scotland welcomed the news saying:

"For years, we've been calling for student hardship to be prioritised over graduate debt, getting money into students' pockets when they need it most."

However, he did also caution adding:

"But we still have a long way to go. Even with this money, students will still be living below the poverty line, and we know levels of credit card borrowing and other commercial debt have increased to unprecedented levels."

As I blogged earlier this year there is still a high student reliance on commercial debt. While an extra £442 per year interest free from the Student Loan Company it only goes part of the way to pulling some students out of poverty. Ms Hyslop ignored calls for a comprehensive review on student funding by Sir Andrew Cubie, whose report 10 years ago led to the scrapping of tuition fees in Scotland. The SNP entered Government promising students that they would 'drop the debt' Deputy Conservative leader Murdo Fraser points out that to fulfill that pledge totally the current expenditure required is actually £2bn rather than a £30m drop in the ocean.

Margaret Smith the Lib Dem education spokeswomen added:

"It has taken hard work by the opposition parties and NUS Scotland to drag the SNP kicking and screaming into the best deal for Scotland’s students. Today's decision absolutely vindicates our refusal simply to go along with the government's options and campaign instead for a better option that puts more money into students’ pockets.

"The Education Secretary promised to replace loans with grants, but today's statement is clear. The SNP has abandoned this key election promise."

So maybe this is one small step for the SNP, but we're still awaiting the giant leap for student debt.

I Think Tory Bear Owes me an Apology

I'm not sure what lessons one recent graduate picked up at his time at Edinburgh University, but he appears to have not attending any lesson on democracy. Yes, folks it would appear that Mr Harry Cole either thinks that the elected dictatorship or politburo approach that the conservative party deal with policy and manifesto writing is the way these things get done.

Earlier this week Mr Cole who blogs as Tory Bear, and doesn't like his readers to remember that, posted an article called Liberal Lies. In it he quoted Nick Clegg saying:

"Ending tuition fees would cost billions of pounds every year. We need to be certain we can afford it before we make any promises."

He carried on accusing Liberal Youth of lying saying:

"Liberal Youth built their entire freshers recruitment campaign around this issue. Proudly boasting that they were the only party who would fight for free education...

"Too bad for Elaine Bagshaw and Liberal Youth that their postcards full of lies and false promises have already been handed out across every university in the country."

He even demanded that instead of going about the business of policy discussion and decision at Lib Dem conference I should apologise to him for calling him as liar after he suggested that the pledge to scrap tuition fees was to be dropped.

What I did know, that Harry didn't, was the composition of the Federal Policy Committee. This is the democratically elected body that formulates the parties policies into a coherent manifesto. Having voted on a number of occasions for some of the members who sit on that committee I know where their Liberal hearts lie and how they would feel on this issue. Actually yesterday during the Fresh Start for Britain: Choosing a Different, Better Future debate some of them took to the podium to speak against certain lines in their own motion.

In fact we don't all need to guess at most of their views because this morning a majority of them have signed a letter in the Grauniad. In it they say:

"Not all our policies make it into the manifesto, which contains a carefully costed programme for a full parliamentary term. The manifesto will shortly be produced by the 29-strong federal policy committee (FPC), after an open and vigorous debate about the priority we attach to different spending commitments balanced against the savings we have identified to pay for them.

"We have yet to have that discussion but, as a clear majority of members of the FPC, we think it would be valuable to clarify now that we predict that our commitment to scrap tuition fees, as part of our plans to create a fairer society, will indeed be included in the manifesto and that the party will be united in strongly campaigning on this in the run-up to and at next year's general election."

So I think that Mr Cole owes me, Elaine Bagshaw and Liberal Youth an apology, not the other way round. We, and others, have been in Bournemouth going about the business of manifesto forming.

The same offer you offered me erroneously will suffice please feel free to apologise, even a Tweet will do.

Candidate Calls for National Tenancy Deposit Scheme

Students are currently preparing to head to University for the first time or heading back, I've recently been living through some of their travails, some more closely than others.

It is good to see that Katy Gordon, PPC for Glasgow North has been meeting with and listening to students in Glasgow about the issue of housing. In fact I've been doing the same thing on the same issue because it is a big one. She is also campaigning to introduce a National Tenancy Deposit Scheme, an issue that has been raised by Mike Pringle in Holyrood. This is scheme whereby the housing deposit is kept by a third party until the lease expires. Having once as a student lost my deposit for some damage that wasn't present when any of us tenants left the flat I know this has long been an issue that students.

Margaret Smith recently outlined the hardship faced by our student population. If this is aggravated by needless and incorrect retention or delay in returning deposits to students who often rely on it to move on to their next student flat. The values involved are no small amount for most of us living in rented accommodation but for students who are already working part time often as well as studying try to balance the needs of their education with the needs to survive it is even greater.

The SNP may appear to be failing to do anything to alleviate student debt but this is one issue they can make a move on that isn't going to a constraint on their budgeting. They are recently in some forums saying that the achievement of police numbers was something that they didn't need to gain votes on. Yet the battle to end student debt is something that both Labour and the Lib Dems are signed up to and here is an area that the three can work on together to help.

UPDATE @21:28: Just been told off by James Harrison that I forgot to link to the video. Worse than that I also appear to have forgotten the link to my friend Katy's blog. Both will be sorted with a shake of a lambs tale.

Are Student's Education Worth the Plastic They Are Being Paid With?

Must of my adult life I've been fighting the onslaught of student debt, from the dying years of Thatcher who had taken our milk as kids, to our student days when she wanted to also take away our grants and loan us money to pay for our living whilst were studying. Since then of course it is not just the living expenses that students have paid for but tuition as well since.

We're suppose to be living under a Government that is going to end student debt but today's report from the National Union of Students Scotland shows that there is a long way yet to go. It shows that 56 percent are relying on expensive commercial debt to try and get through their studies supplementing their full uptake of their student loan. Indeed they are more likely than other groups to be indebted at commercial rates.

Also that over 70% are in paid employment for more than the recommended ten hours a week to make ends meet. Two thirds also rely on handouts from friends and families. In total 88 percent of our students are in some kind of indebtedness, many of them a mixture of student loan, commercial and family or friends.

The report points out that the current financial situation is greatly affecting students:

"The current economic recession has hit students in a big way.

"The fundamentally flawed assumptions our student support system is based on, namely that students will be able to secure part-time work during term time, a job during the summer vacation and will receive parental support throughout, will be seriously tested this academic year, and we are positive that no-one will like the results."

So what can be done? The NUS study have suggested some proposals.

In the short term they are looking for the minimum loan to be increased to all students and more cash to be made available to the poorest students in a mix of loans and grants to prevent them slipping into poverty or being forced to drop out.

In the longer term, NUS Scotland wants a minimum income of £7,000 and the loan to be gradually decreased as grants are increased to reduce student debt. The minimum income guarantee has already been backed by both the Lib Dems and Labour. Indeed LYS moved the motion that secured the Scottish Liberal Democrat's support at Autumn conference.

As Liam Burns , NUS Scotland president, points out the aim isn't to totally get to the stage I was at as a student at the end of the more fortunate 80s and early 90s (though my grant was never that big) when he said:

"Simply moving from loans to grants is not what is needed.

"Far worse is the social injustice that would be reinforced if commercial debt is not dealt with, as poorer students are more afraid of commercial debt than those of a luckier background."

The NUS are looking out for those less able to look out for themselves, over to Fiona Hyslop to see what action the SNP can and will take to help work this terrible problem out.

Students Sensible Over Drinking

Unlike certain members of the political leadership Scottish student leaders are showing sense in targeting the real issues of our binge drinking culture. It isn't the age that is the problem it is the promotions, CARDAS (the Campaign Against Raising the Drinking Age in Scotland) are slamming promoters who organise booze tours etc.

Seeing as these events would be happening in clubs or Union Bars the SNP's proposals to ban off sales to under 21s would not curb these promotions of irresponsible drinking. It is these sort of promotions and excessive drinking spree's that young people once they start on can lead to irresponsible attitudes and unhealthy relationship to alcohol. There's no denying that binge drinking is a major issue but while promoters are still freely promoting such hedonism with the bottle to young people surely there is a flaw in the system, which the ban on off-sales is not tackling at the root, merely an outpouring of our acceptance that binging is acceptable and promotion worthy.