Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to join our community
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site, connect with other members through your own private inbox and will receive smaller adverts!

English to pay higher Scots tuition fees

fairplay sixty.

so how much do EU students have to pay?
this was all completely ignored by the news.

Heriot Watt Uni:

International students i.e. non-EU students, are asked to complete a detailed form which enables us to assess the fees payable by them. The fees payable by international students i.e. their 'fee status' are higher than those payable by a UK or EU national.

For example


ScreenShot.JPG

Compared to an English Uni plucked at random, including what Scots pay ;-P


ScreenShot.JPG


Uni of West Weedgie land somehwere

Fees - Non EU Countries
The University tuition fees for entry in January 2011 are £9,300 for an arts-based course and £10,050 for a science-based course.
For entry in September 2011 or January 2012, the tuition fees are £10,000 for an art-based course and £10,500 for a science-based course.
 
This all the fault of that **** Blair. He created this mess just to ensure that people voted for his disgusting party in Scotland and Wales. Remember how those shits in his party were telling us that devolution for the Scots and Welsh was good for the UK, yet somehow a devolved government for England would be devisive.

This is typical of those Labour cnuts. Bugger about with stuff, never giving a toss about what might lead to.

Anyone who ever voted Labour at any timein their lives should be ashamed.
 
FrankIG, I think we can both agree that devolution was a cock up, as well as been vastly unfair on England.

Christ I'll definitely drink to that one with you!! However I believe that it was unfair (if that's the word you want to use) to every part of the UK as it was a simple and total vote chasing con!! Badly conceived, not thought through at all and horrendously poorly operated!
 
How terribly awful for you.

Absolutely. I believe the choice was either forming a political party to campaign for full English devolution and an English Parliament, taking into account all of the hard work and logistical expertise that would entail, secure in the knowledge that it'd be for the greater good and was the will of the majority.

Or they could whine about it on the internet.

I believe they went for the latter option.
 
Absolutely, I believe the choice was either forming a political party to campaign for full English devolution and an English Parliament, taking into account all of the hard work and logistical expertise that would entail, secure in the knowledge that it'd be for the greater good and was the will of the majority.

Or they could whine about it on the internet.

I believe they went for the latter option.

Maybe we should charge the English students the full Non EU fees instead of the paltry sum they pay now, see above, now that would give them something to moan about :)
 
Someone remind me again why there is no English parliament/assembly if all the other constituent parts of the U.K have their own 'executive office'? What was the official argument against it? I don't understand and as I'm Welsh (well British first) I have no stake either way but I find it baffling nonetheless. Another thing, would a separate northern and southern England assembly be suitable for England? I hardly doubt that someone from London is going to have much in common with a benefit claimant in Liverpool for instance. Upstairs downstairs in England, always has been.
 
Someone remind me again why there is no English parliament/assembly if all the other constituent parts of the U.K have their own 'executive office'? What was the official argument against it? I don't understand and as I'm Welsh (well British first) I have no stake either way but I find it baffling nonetheless. Another thing, would a separate northern and southern England assembly be suitable for England? I hardly doubt that someone from London is going to have much in common with a benefit claimant in Liverpool for instance. Upstairs downstairs in England, always has been.

Because they didn't want it.

I give you the NE as an example where I believe they had a local consultation about a regional Parliament and they all went sod that for a game of soldiers
 
Because they didn't want it.

I give you the NE as an example where I believe they had a local consultation about a regional Parliament and they all went sod that for a game of soldiers

Since when did a regional assembly in a part of England become the same as an English Government?
 
I don't recall any proposition for a regional/nationwide assemblybeing put forth to the entire English population?

Perhaps because there was no demand for such? If it vexes you that much then vote for the English Democrats (although moaning about it on the internet seems to be preferable)
 
I don't recall any proposition for a regional/nationwide assemblybeing put forth to the entire English population?

As I said in an earlier post, the current UK government says a separate body will be set up discuss the West Lothian Question, whether it is right for Scottish MPs to vote on issues, such as health and education, that are devolved to Holyrood.



Google is your friend :)

In May 2002, the UK government published a White Paper Your Region, Your Choice outlining its plans for the possible establishment of Elected Regional Assemblies. These assemblies were to be responsible for regional strategies dealing with sustainable development, economic development, spatial planning, transport, waste, housing, culture (including tourism) and biodiversity. They would be funded primarily by central government grant, with powers to raise additional funds from a precept on the council tax.
The Assemblies were expected to be elected by an Additional Member System similar to those used for the London Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales. The Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act 2003 made provisions for referendums to be held to create such assemblies, and to simplify the structure of Local Government where this is done. Three such referendums were planned, for the regions of North East and North West England and Yorkshire and the Humber.
On 12 February 2004, Local Government Minister Nick Raynsford announced that elected Assemblies would be able to direct local authorities to refuse strategic planning applications that are not in the region's best interest. They would be able to look across local boundary constraints and ensure planning decisions are made with region-wide interests taken into account. On 8 July 2004 it was announced that the referendums would be held on 4 November (see Northern England referendums, 2004) but on 2 July Nick Raynsford announced that only the North East England vote would go ahead on that date. This region was chosen because the government thought it was the most likely to approve the proposal, but the voters rejected the assembly by 696,519 votes to 197,310. This overwhelmingly negative vote was seen as an insurmountable obstacle to elected regional assemblies elsewhere in England outside London. On 8 November, Deputy Prime MinisterJohn Prescott told the House of Commons he would not move orders for the other two regions within the effective time limit of June 2005 permitted by the Act.
 

New posts

Top