« Music: A Last Farewell - Brian Cunningham & Bud Greenwood | Main | Economics of Scottish Independence »

28 May 2012


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

David H

All well and good. But Holyrood produced a Charities Act that was deliberately tighter than England and Wales and specifically required independent schools to mitigate any barrier to access that fees and charges created with wider means-tested financial assistance.

That they duly did, as recent OSCR reports about the charity test have demonstrated.

So does that widened access to schools mean that even newer means-tested kids to the sector should be prevented from succeeding in life?

David H

Just maybe there are other reasons other than perceptions of snobbery why many parents, at least 50,000 at last count, make the financial sacrifice to ensure a good education..


Ian Jenkins

Couple of comments.

Election promises are not binding - for example in the US Obama promised to close Guantanamo and in France Hollande said he would shut many of its nuclear electricity plants. Both also have important international consequences that are not receiving wide debate.

Moreover past candidates in Greece have no doubt promised that sovereignty would be sacrosanct; Greek domestic and foreign policy would be determined in Athens, not Berlin. This seems an important development for all nations, and especially for the independence debate in Scotland.

Secondly, BA writes "We live in a profoundly unequal society." However significantly for G20 political cooperation, and probably the UK's survival, we also live in a profoundly unequal world.
Many have worried about this. (Edited by Editor) ... how the strong biological drive to compete – in many cases violently and ruthlessly – can coexist with the cooperation that makes competitive societies successful."

How will Scotland with barely 5 million people survive in a shark tank of 7 billion.


M concern is that today they are talking about taxing me more because I have above average earnings. I accept a resonsibility as part of the nation to support each other but not at the security of my own qulaity of life.
- I was unable to have a family due to medical issues and yet I pay for schools
- I concentrated on a career as a replacement for the lack of much wanted child
- by doing this I have been relatively successful and now the give net in scotland is talking about taxing my income more
- taxing me more for the value of the house I own
- in essence punishing me for hard work and commitment so that I can support accidental parents who by luck have had families they can't afford to house/feed/support.

While I accept exceptions will always exist, hard times can fall on any of us and that was the intention of benefits not a lifestyle choice.

Don't punish me for the choices I have made to make life better for someone else's choices....

The comments to this entry are closed.

Top Economics Site
My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad

Become a Fan