IAIN Macwhirter is wrong to suggest that Universities Scotland has been behind a “disingenuous” campaign to “save our rectors” (“Yes, elected rectors for all of our universities”, The Herald, February 9). We value the role of rectors and the contribution they make to higher education governance. We know that it is not the Scottish Government’s intention to abolish rectors. So rectors have not needed us, or anyone else, to save them.

What has been a source of confusion throughout this bill is the important difference between rectors and chairs. Mr Macwhirter also seems to confuse this in his piece. Our position is that they are very different roles and should remain so. The Scottish Government was clear on this by the end of Stage 1 of the bill, but its amendments at Stage 2 put this in doubt. These appeared to confuse the roles and responsibilities of the position of chair and the position of rector, compromising the rector’s role as a tribune for students and introducing potential confusion into university governance arrangements. It was helpful that debate and further amendment at Stage 2 clarified the distinct roles of the rector and the chair or “senior lay member”.

While Universities Scotland retains significant concerns about aspects of the Bill, we do not see it in its current form as a direct threat to the role of the rector.

Alastair Sim,

Director, Universities Scotland, Holyrood Park House, 106 Holyrood Road, Edinburgh.