Today, Alex Salmond, the former first minister, got an honorary degree from Glasgow, one of Britain's great, grand old higher education institutions - an incubator of the British Enlightenment.
Mr Salmond has described the abolition of tuition fees for Scots at Scottish universities as his grandest achievement. England has pursued ever-higher fees - now at £9,000 a year - while Scotland has not.
Neither is "right" or "wrong". Scotland has made a choice that new graduates should not start life with a load of student debt. England has decided that people who benefit from higher education should pay for it.
But it is worth taking a look at a seldom-noted effect of this divergence. Scottish universities are notably poorer. Glasgow is Scotland's second biggest institution by income, but wouldn't make England's top 10.
And if you compare England's biggest 3 - Cambridge, Oxford and UCL - they now have greater income than all of Scotland's 18 higher education institutions put together. And by a very significant margin.
These figures are from 2012-13, by the way, when England's £9,000 fee policy was not in full effect (most undergraduates were still on the old system at this point). The gaps will be growing fairly sharply.
The English sector is, of course, much bigger in any case. It will spend more on new kit and buildings this year than the income of the Scottish universities. But even comparing institutions like-for-like, there is a gap.
The problem for Scotland is that, with fewer resources, they are more likely to lose contests for research contracts. And then, if their income falls again, they might lose more work. There are vicious cycles here.