There are many scientists and other researchers living in our area, some of whom have raised concerns about the availability of government research funding following independence. As with many other issues, the Better Together campaign has sought to create an atmosphere of anxiety and uncertainty over this. Here is an outline of our position on this issue. Comments, questions and suggestions are welcome (YesMorningside@gmail.com).
In Summary:
- the difference between the Scottish tax contribution and RCUK spending in Scotland is small compared to savings that will be made in other areas such as defence
- Funding levels per institution are actually similar in Scotland to those in the rest of the UK, it’s just that there are more institutions here
- Because of its relative importance any independent Scottish government would prioritise research
- If rUK rejects a common research area it would lose the benefits of its previous investments, and the Scottish research capacity, which is supported by the Scottish government and the excellence of our universities
- There are significant disadvantages with a No vote, resulting from UK immigration policy and the possibility of exiting the EU
As you probably
know the Scottish government propose the retention of a Common Research Area,
with a fair, negotiated funding arrangement. I think this would have advantages
for both parties. However, I’d like to address the scenario in which the UK
rejects such an arrangement and an independent Scottish government creates
funding bodies to fulfil the roles of the UK research councils.
Taking the
figures in a recent letter to the press signed by several senior Scottish
biologists who oppose independence:
“Scottish
institutions have done extremely well when competing for UK Research Council
grants; for example in 2012-13 they won £257M (13.1%) of the funding available
– a remarkable achievement for a country with just 8.4% of the UK population”
The relevant
comparisons are not with population but with revenue contributed and with the
relative numbers of researchers and institutions. In that year Scotland
contributed 9.1% of UK revenue (table 4.6 of http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0044/00446179.pdf ).
This gives a 4% difference between the Scottish contribution and the funding
that was won: approximately £79m.
However the
figure above includes only RCUK spending on studentships, grants and
fellowships. It does not include RCUK spending on infrastructure, of which
Scotland gets a disproportionately low and declining share. If you take all
RCUK spending into account, the Scottish share is around 11%, still slightly
above its revenue contribution but representing a funding gap of only around
£22m in 2012. This looks rather different from the $257m figure advertised in
the quote above. The equivalent funding gaps for previous years were:
£15m
(2011), £58m (2010) and £39m (2009).
To put this in
context, the Scottish contribution to the UK defence budget was over £3bn in
2012/13 (table 5.1 in http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/0044/00446179.pdf).
A recent Royal United Services Institute report proposed an independent
Scotland should spend a similar proportion of its GDP on defence to Denmark and
Norway, which would be between £1.5 and 1.8bn, an annual saving of up to £1.5
billion over our current contribution. (https://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/Scottish_Defence_Forces_Oct_2012.pdf).
The current Scottish government propose a generous £2.5bn annual defence spend,
which would save £500m per year. Savings in this single policy area dwarf the current,
modest shortfall in research funding.
I’ll turn now to
our “remarkable achievement” in winning the funding levels that we do. The figures above relate RCUK spending to share
of population, giving the impression that Scottish research is better funded
than the rest of the UK. However, there are more Higher Education Institutions
(HEIs) in Scotland compared to rUK: 19/160 (11.9%) for an 8.2% share of
population.
The total research
council spend in Scotland (including PhDs and research institutes) was £307 million
in 2012, compared to £2562m in rUK. This works out at £16.2m per Scottish HEI
and £18.2m per rUK HEI. On these figures, Scottish HEIs are slightly less well
funded than rUK HEIs.
So research is
funded pretty much equally in Scotland and rUK, there’s just more of it in
Scotland. In consequence, it’s a more important part of the economy than
it is in the rest of UK.
As we see with
the example of defence, government spending is a question of priorities. Given
the contribution of research to the economy in terms of employment and income,
it makes sense for a rational government to support the sector proportionately
to its size. An independent Scottish government would have different priorities
– and one of these would be to support a critical sector of the economy.
The SNP’s white
paper and its record make it clear that a government in which they are
influential would prioritise science. Labour party policy in Scotland is also
notably pro-science.
The
analysis above also supports the case that the rUK government would do well to
consider the continuation of the common research area. Doing otherwise might
endanger the benefits of current investments, particularly in certain areas.
This investment is supported extensively by the Scottish Government, by
highly-trained staff and by the international reputation of Scottish
universities in attracting fee-paying overseas students. And we produce high
quality work. Scotland has 5 out of its 16 HEIs (33%) in the top 200 of the
Times rankings, compared with 31/141 (22%) for rUK.
For these
reasons and others, Professor Paul Boyle, the “International Champion” of
Research Councils UK, expressed strong support for the continuation of a common research area in the event of a Yes.
Charity funders
also make use of Scotland’s research capacity (and indeed raise revenue here). Why
should they decide not to engage with the Scottish scientific community and
benefit from the support described above, simply because the people have
decided that reserved matters such as defence and welfare policy should be
decided by Holyrood? As a spokesperson for Cancer Research UK said recently:
"As we fund
research in a number of Scottish Universities and there is an enormous amount
of public support for our work, Scotland is an integral part of our charitable
activities. It is in everyone's interest to see this research continue,
regardless of the referendum outcome”
There are
reasons to be concerned about the consequences of a No vote for Scottish
academia. One is the impact of the UK government’s immigration policy, which is
likely to get worse given the rise of UKIP. Immigration restrictions have
already led to a marked decline in overseas student numbers, particularly from
India. This was discussed in some detail by Professor Peter Downes of
Universities Scotland and others at the parliamentary hearing mentioned above:
“There is no
doubt that the presentation of a rather unwelcoming prospect has already
damaged our reputation”.
Finally with
UKIP having won more votes than any other party across the UK at the European
elections, and the Conservatives committed to an in-out referendum, there is a
real prospect that we could end up outside the EU if there is a No vote. This
would drastically affect the free movement of research talent and undermine the
position of a large group of researchers from elsewhere in Europe.
