British Educational Apartheid
Yet more examples of inequalities within the Union, and when the Scottish Parliament is spending English money to give Scotland superior services. This time is it pledging English money to create an educational apartheid within Britain:
“Scottish Executive plans to cut class sizes north of the Border to 18, while children in England remain in groups of 30, sparked accusations of “educational apartheid” last night.
Fiona Hyslop, Scotland’s Education Minister, promised to recruit 300 extra teachers for nurseries and primary schools in the coming year. A total of £25 million would be spent, she said, cutting the number of pupils in classes in the first three years of primary school from 25 to 18.
The move provoked cries of a postcode lottery among critics in England, who claimed that taxpayers across Britain would pay for an improvement available only in Scotland.” (The Times)
So whilst more than 23,000 children in English schools suffer in classes of more than 30 children, the Scottish Executive plan to use English money to give children in Scottish schools a far superior primary education, with class sizes of just 18. Even my university seminars had 15 students in them!
Like I said before, I have no problem with the Scottish Executive doing this - and I applaud the aims - but not when it is English taxpayers’ money that is funding a far superior educational situation for Scottish kids. That is where the problem lies, and that is what the problem with the current devolutional situation is. Conditions should be equal across the entire UK, and definitely not so specifically distorted.
Source: The Times, The Telegraph
This entry is filed under Absurdity, Devolution, Politics, Scotland. You can follow any responses to this entry through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
But you have no proof that it’s English tax payer’s money.
It is impossible for the Scottish Executive to fund everything they want to do with the taxes generated by Scottish taxpayers, even if the controbution they should make to the non-devolved issues are ingored. Their aims simply cost too much. Thus, where else could the money be coming from?
If you can prove that it’s not, I will happily retarct my statemnts and make a full, unreserved apology. But I somehow doubt that you can do that.