IS it possible that the majority backing the removal of free university tuition is largely representative of those in our society who have not themselves benefitted from a university education (Survey finds voters back end of free tuition fees, July 13)? As in any society, there is a greater need for the variety of skills which require rather an apprenticeship or similar training and experience. The numbers, therefore, whom we require to have a more academic training are naturally much smaller.
We do, however, still need a constant supply of doctors, teachers, researchers, lawyers etc with a university level of training, and surely it is right that those capable of benefitting from it can access it and thereafter benefit the rest of society. All through the education process, students follow a variety of paths according to ability, free of charge. Why therefore, should there be a charge for the university part of the education process?
READ MORE: Most Scottish voters back end of free tuition fees
Moreover, there are many occupations for those without university education which bring far higher financial rewards than those earned by graduates. Many receive pay while in training, so why should university students have to pay for their training? Having fees paid surely compensates for that missing income and ensures that society has the wide range of qualified professionals it needs.
It is undeniable that tuition fees limit access to university, as has been the case in my extended family over two generations. One relative had to forego his intended course in law, as an older sibling’s degree had left the family too short of funds; another was forced to leave a year before graduating when funds ran out; two for whom both fees and a maintenance grant were available managed to complete honours degrees. So two out of the four who could have provided professionals society needs were excluded by lack of money.
Education in a civilised society should surely be free to all to whatever level their ability allows. That level should not be determined by how much money one has. If those with degrees earn higher salaries, they already do pay higher tax. Can the same be said of those with huge untaxed amounts of inherited or unearned wealth in tax havens? Would it not be better to target them for extra revenue?
Sorry, I am forgetting. The EU’s proposal to do just that is one of the main reasons we are leaving that club!
P Davidson
Falkirk
MICHAEL Fry correctly identified the forces threatening to kill Gaelic – economic, social, cultural, demographic, the scarcity of jobs using Gaelic after Gaelic-medium education – but I’d disagree that “no amount of effort can now stop” them succeeding (Why no amount of effort can now stop Gaelic turning into a dead language, July 14).
People have begun to recognise that crofting, fishing, and weaving are a totally inadequate basis on which to keep any language alive in today’s world, and by themselves offer it no future at all. Every sphere of the life in the Gaidhealtachd is now part of the much larger Anglosphere, increasingly the primary mental sphere of the young.
READ MORE: Why no amount of effort can now stop Gaelic turning into a dead language
All the forces I’ve named work together, which means that if they can be redesigned on less Anglo-Saxon principles, principally in the form of local economies that can bring prosperity even to small communities or even sub-communities, interconnecting them in mutual support – something surely not beyond our ken – to create a foundation on which to reverse the other forces, we might see them bringing life and significance back to the world of the Gael. They’d still be in the Anglosphere, but in a part of it of their own characteristic design, enjoying the best of both worlds and avoiding the worst.
Discovering to what extent this is possible has to be made an urgent priority. Language encodes a way of thinking and behaving too. Do we want to be left with nothing but “stuff you, Jack, I’m all right,” “not my problem mate,” and the inability to “see” anybody else?
Gaelic place-names are being replaced with English versions all over Scotland with no thought to the authentic original. The pre-eminent revision is calling Scotland and Scots “British”, a name resurrected from the Dark Age graveyard of the real Britain by an Anglo-imperialistic Elizabeth I.
It might be being uncharitable to detect a whiff of wishful thinking in Fry’s conclusion that “Policy that accepts [that Gaelic’s death is inevitable] will be better than policy that insists on the unrealistic opposite”, but he hasn’t factored in all the possibilities, and I’d forgo the pleasure of writing the obituary for a while yet.
Ian McQueen
Dumfries
MICHAEL Fry’s column is another part in a slew of articles across a lot of Scottish media bemoaning the mere existence of Gaelic. I assume this is ire sparked by the finance allocated to the language, as if simply by throwing money at a “problem” a positive result is expected. This is the linguistic manifestation of consumer capitalism; if something seems broken just dump it and move on. How that is beneficial for any country seeking to go and make a change on the scale of national determination is beyond me.
Louis Rive
via thenational.scot
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel