Representatives of the student body at the university of the West of Scotland couldn't be clearer about tuition fees.

They believes fees are morally, economically and educationally wrong.

That puts them at odds with the university's principal Craig Mahoney, who thinks the issue should be debated.

The Students Association at UWS doesn't mince its words. Members are losing confidence in the Principal over this matter, they say and his stance leaves them 'angry and confused'.

There are significant points made on both sides. Mr Mahoney says that the income from fees would help level the playing field with other higher education bodies, particularly those in England. The gulf between UWS and some of its competitors south of the border is now a 'multi-million' one, he says. This has a direct impact on the facilities and support on offer to students.

He also argues fees could help students become more demanding consumers of higher education. This is highly contentious, and many will object to the market-led approach to university provision it implies. The student association claims such a consumerist model is most likely to lead to barriers for those from poorer backgrounds and argues that the fee system in the rest of the UK is costly and inefficient.

But how freely can these debates be had?

The Scottish Government, of course, is opposed to fees. It is perfectly reasonable for it to take that stance. However it is not acceptable for discussion of the topic to be stifled.

That is the core accusation made by Mr Mahoney, who says fees are little discussed in higher education circles because of a perception that it would be politically unwise. As he puts it 'opposing government policy isn't always welcomed'. He adds confronting government policy might cause problems for an institution.

If this is true, it is unacceptable. Mr Mahoney doesn't provide examples of such problems or ways in which debate is not allowed. Yet it is not the first time such suggestions have been made.

During the independence referendum campaign members of the business community said they were reluctant to speak out for fear of a backlash. For some businesses that was came in the form of social media campaigns by supporters of independence.

However the views expressed by some were more concerning. Gavin Hewitt, former Scotch Whisky Association chairman, said businessmen feared planning applications would be stonewalled by SNP councils. Others feared they might be passed over for government grants or procurement.

The Scottish Government is currently in a very strong position politically, but there is a danger that strength becomes a problem. It is not healthy for public figures to feel they risk retribution for airing critical views.

The Scottish Government's policy has many supporters and this paper has regularly opposed tuition fees. But whether they are right or wrong, the strength of a democracy lies in competing views.

Most people have had cause to understand the value of a critical friend from time to time. The Scottish Government should be no different.