THE proposed reforms to the way Scottish universities are run have been controversial from the start, and while the underlying principles of transparency and accountability are sound, questions about how the system will work have persisted. The Scottish Government has still to fully answer those questions.

The latest controversy has been stirred by the chairs of the country’s 18 universities who have said the proposal to make their position an elected one is a threat to equality and diversity. In a letter to the Education Secretary Angela Constance, they say adversarial elections will discourage the widest range of candidates from applying.

Such concern about equality at the top of universities is welcome, but the idea of elections as a threat to diversity has to be balanced against the important principle of increasing democratic accountability. Institutions such as universities can only benefit by opening their decision-making to the scrutiny of those directly affected by it.

The other argument which has been advanced against elections is that they would amount to state control or threaten the effectiveness of universities. But the critics have not done enough to demonstrate why that might be the case.

Similarly, the latest argument about diversity lacks weight in the face of the potential benefits of the reforms and the fact an elected system could help secure the confidence of everyone who works in it. Where there is doubt is over how the elections would actually work, especially in relation to rectors, and who would be involved in the elections.

The critics of the reforms need to do more to explain why these changes are a problem, and why the principle of democracy amounts to such a threat to our universities. However, the Scottish Government also has a lot of work to do to explain how the new system will function. Perhaps then, confidence in the reforms will start to grow.