Fauls Positive

Just like the man involved, it seems like American suspicion about the release of Al Megrahi just won’t die. With BP now America’s public enemy number one, a group of American senators seem to have decided to get in on the action, and are suggesting that BP had some involvement in the decision last August for the Scottish Government to release Al Megrahi, the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombings.

I’m not going to get bogged down in whether or not his release was right or not – people are very set in their beliefs, and no one who believes it was right to release a terminally ill man is going to convince someone who thinks it wrong to release a convicted terrorist otherwise, or vice versa. Likewise, I’m not going to suggest that his conviction was in any way unsound, that a few of the British Families of victims believe he wasn’t the right man, that even the UN observer to the trial isn’t convinced of the mans guilt. No, these aren’t going to be argued beyond here, because that’s not what this is about.

What it is about, at least in my perception, is a lack of understanding on the part of these senators – a lack of understanding both about Devolution, Scots Law and Scotland’s politicians. There’s also a touch of arrogance, I feel, particularly in mounting an investigation into the decision of a foreign government, and expecting ministers representing that Government to attend such. As the First Minister has made clear, they are answerable to the Scottish Parliament and ultimately the Scottish people – all the relevant information they could release has been, and all a trip to America would achieve is them restating the points they’ve already made.

Though, to be fair, at least they did invite the Scottish First Minister and Justice Minister. The way they were talking before, about the British Government, they didn’t seem to understand the decision had absolutely nothing to do with the British Government.

The worst thing about it, though, is their sheer bloody mindedness. They can’t accept that it was a compassionate release. I almost imagine their train of thought to be as follows; Well, it can’t have been because it was the right thing to do. We don’t think it was, and we’re Americans. We’re the most powerful nation on the planet. Ergo, if we think it’s wrong, it is wrong, as we are the world’s moral authority. Nor could it have been to boost popularity. The SNP did not sit down and say “I know how to get some more votes, let’s release a convicted terrorist.” Everyone knew, even before the release, it would not have been popular. So it wasn’t for power. So that leaves economic gain! They must have done it due to BP lobbying them!

No. They did it because they believed it was the right thing to do, morally, and because it was the right thing to do under Scots Law. It’s one thing to disagree with the moral aspect of the decision – disputes will always arise between nations, and they have every right to criticise any decisions they disagree with. But to persist in this line, to so be so flagrantly disrespectful of another nations justice system because you can’t accept or fathom their system and morals shows an immaturity that has come to be expected of America – that they say jump, and Britain says “How high?” and if they don’t get their way, they throw a tantrum.

Fortunately, the Scottish Government is not the British Government. Whilst Cameron was in the states wrapping himself as firmly as possible round Obama’s little finger, whilst Brown was hiding in his wee bunker at Number 10 last year, refusing to make any sort of comment, Salmond’s Government stood up for what they thought was right, against the fury of the American Government. They continue to do so, and these Senators in the US can stamp and shout and cry all they want, they are going to find nothing more than a Government acting according to their laws and morals.

Today, much to my chagrin since I am a Scottish Student, the think tank Reform Scotland have stated that they believe Scottish Students should pay towards their tuition. A bit of background; The first Scottish Executive scrapped up-front tuition fees shortly after the UK Government had introduced them across the entire UK, replacing them with a £2000 payment, the Graduate Endowment Fee, payable at the end of your degree course. In 2008, the SNP Government in Scotland scrapped that, too, restoring the principle of free Education in Scotland.

The argument of this think tank is that it is unfair that taxpayers should subsidise University graduates – after all, those graduates will go on to make more money after university, ergo they should pay back the cost of their tuition. Of course, this is mired in the politics of “now.” Taxpayers are paying for these students tuition now. It’s dreadfully unfair now. Those Students should pay it back as close to now as possible. No one really stops to consider that, since these graduates will be, in theory, earning more than the average taxpayer, they will also be paying more taxes than the average taxpayer.

Lifting Reform Scotland’s own figures out of that article, they say the average graduate earns £129,000 more over their lifetime than a non graduate. They suggest that when a graduate starts earning more than the average salary in Scotland, which is roughly £23,000, that they start paying back the cost of their tuition. Let’s do some cheeky calculations. Firstly, some assumptions; that a student starts university at 18, does a four year long Honours degree, and leaves at 22. Let’s also assume they work constantly for 43 years, from 22 until they are 65 and retire. Obviously, we also have to ignore inflation, since I’m no economist.

Dividing the £129,000 figure they earn in their lifetime by 43, gives us a figure of £3000. This is how much more per year, on average, this average graduate earns than the average non graduate. This puts their average salary over their life at £26,000, which means that none of this extra income falls into the 40% income tax bracket, making the next calculation incredibly simple.

Since we know that this £129,000 over the years is, on this average graduate, not going to ever push their wage into the 40% income tax bracket, we can safely say that all £129,000 is going to be taxed at 20% tax. Dividing £129,000 by five (or by a hundred and multiplying by twenty, whichever tickles your mathematical pickle) gives us £25,800. That means that this graduate pays the equivalent of an entire years worth of work in tax more than a non-graduate.

Currently, tuition fees in Scotland are £1,820 for most courses, which the Government pays for Scottish students – at least, that is the cost of mine. This is possibly a subsidised cost in and of itself, but we’ll put that aside for now. Multiplying the tuition by four for each year of studies means the total cost of tuition per student to the taxpayer is £7,280. Taking that figure away from the extra tax the graduate will pay over their lifetime, and we find that the average graduate will not only pay back the cost of their tuition, but pay on top of that an extra £18,250 in taxes than a non-graduate. Just to put that into context, that is enough to fund a standard 4 year honours course just a bit more than two and a half times over.

In short, the taxpayer is only paying for a students tuition now – when they graduate, they will, over the course of their lives, pay the cost of their tuition back more than threefold, which, in theory, allows for the next generation of students to be educated without cost. It is absolutely ridiculous, at least in itself, to charge a student for University, whilst also quite happily taking from them taxes that are more than three times the cost of their tuition.

Of course, the problem is it’s all rooted in the here and now – university funding is in trouble at this moment, so if we start charging new graduates for their degrees as soon as possible, we get money for them now, on top of the gradual flow of extra taxes they will pay as graduates, and on top of the interest they will be paying on their student loans. As far as people calling for abolition of free education see, it’s a winning idea. As far as students are concerned, it’s just a way to get us to pay for our education multiple times over.