THE Scottish Government makes much of its actions in keeping university tuition free for all Scots students who go on to higher education. It is a flagship policy that the nationalists believe speaks of "the democratic intellect," where the chance to learn is not determined by wealth or privilege. Little wonder, then, that First Minister Alex Salmond once said that rocks would melt in the sun before the SNP would introduce charges for Scots going to university. But while Scotland may be the land of the free degrees, younger students - or, more accurately, their families - are paying through the nose for the very basics that we might expect to come as part of a state education. Holyrood's education committee today considered a report from the Scottish Funding Council which not only showed that children from deprived areas continue to lag far behind their affluent classmates, but revealed that schools are increasingly being forced to asked parents to chip in for classroom staples such as pencils, paper, and books. Parents, of course, have always been invited to contribute to their children's education: the odd school trip, for example. But, even then, steps are taken to mitigate the cost for those on the lowest incomes. It is one thing, however, to ask parents to find a few pounds for a day out at a museum and quite another to expect them to pay for those items that make up the fabric of a child's education. For a long time, Scotland has comforted itself with the sentimental notion that ours is, somehow, the best education system in the world. This has been repeated so often it goes unchallenged. But the truth is that the days when a Scottish schooling could be considered the gold standard are long past. The accusation that Scottish education is "no longer free at point of need" is a serious one but, on the face of evidence presented at Holyrood yesterday, it is justified. And if that accusation carries some weight then the question is whether the Scottish Government believes this to be an acceptable state of affairs. We would very much hope that the answer to that is an unequivocal "no." Should this be the case, then we would like know what the government plans to do about it. An early stroke of political genius by the SNP after its 2007 Holyrood election victory was the signing of a "concordat" with Scotland's local authorities. This agreement gave councils more freedom but tied them into supporting nationalist commitments such as the ongoing council tax freeze. The concordat led to a new era in which the SNP had a largely hands-off approach to the day-to-day running of services. Councils have found that with greater power comes greater responsibility for any failures. But now that the very basics of learning are often no longer provided as a matter of course, it is surely time for ministers to step in. Be on look-out for web of deceit WE should be wary when we hear those in authority call for curbs on the internet. It scarcely needs saying that free speech is a most precious commodity, and the internet has been a powerful democratic force, giving anyone with a connection the ability to speak to the world. During the so-called "Arab Spring" uprisings, it was the internet that brought people together against corrupt governments, and allowed the world to witness what was happening. Politicians and police alike should bear in mind the importance of the preservation of free speech when considering legislation to regulate use of the internet. This means accepting the right for people to express views that may be considered offensive. But while it is crucial that free speech continues to be a right, internet firms cannot absolve themselves of responsibility for what takes place on their sites. GCHQ director Robert Hannigan today accused internet giants of being "in denial" about the role their services play as "command-and-control networks of choice" for a new generation of web-savvy criminals and extremists. Warning online providers that users did not want their social networks used "to facilitate murder or child abuse," Mr Hannigan called for greater support for those tackling crime committed with the aid of the internet. Internet companies, understandably, are reluctant to concede much ground. But their default arguments - that they are not responsible for content and oppose censorship - are not sustainable when terror groups such as Islamic State organise online. Free speech is vitally important but it must not be used as cover for failure to police extremism.