STRATHCLYDE University is a fine higher education institution with an excellent record in research and teaching.
However, the University is in danger of throwing away this reputation because of a series of insensitive and unjustifiable decisions.
Throughout the UK, household budgets are tight, living standards have been falling, and pay rises have been kept to a minimum.
In this context, it is essential for chief executives in the private and public sectors to lead by example and make sacrifices.
However, not only did Strathclyde spend £1.2million on a five-story townhouse for the principal's personal use, but the University then spent another £339,000 overhauling the luxury property.
At a time of belt-tightening, spending over £140,000 on "refurbishment", nearly £4,000 on a wardrobe and endless amounts of cash on home improvements is, frankly, an outrage.
Similarly, University principal Sir Jim McDonald benefited from a 7% pay rise in 2013/14, a hike that took his pay package to £334,000 and which made him the best paid higher education leader in Scotland.
His salary far exceeds the package enjoyed by either First Minister Nicola Sturgeon or Prime Minister David Cameron.
Today's revelations, if anything, cast doubt of the anachronism of the public purse continuing to fund 'grace and favour' residences for university principals.
Local authority and NHS chief executives are not provided with luxury homes, so why should the higher education sector be different?
In 2010, the taxpayer was shocked by the greed and cynicism of MPs' expenses claims, which covered everything from duck ponds to a moat claim.
McDonald hasn't claimed anything for the mansion - the bills were paid directly by the University - but the public will inevitably compare the townhouse spending with the pampering of MPs.
Meanwhile, MSPs are currently discussing long-overdue plans to democratise the governance of higher education.
The reforms would increase scrutiny of controversial spending decisions and, given today's revelations, should be implemented as quickly as possible.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article