With less than a week to go before the elections, Scotland's higher education institutions have apparently decided to welcome devolution with open arms, queuing up to offer their expertise to the new legislature. It is a pragmatic move: they arguably have some bridge-building to do, given their opposition to devolution in 1979 and their initially sluggish reaction to the political change.
But there are unspoken anxieties. Higher education's trumpet-blowing is in curious contrast to further education's serenity. Further education assumes its role of serving the local community will be well understood and appreciated by the new political elite. But higher education has a more complex role to sell, intertwining the regional, national and international, and the span of institutions is more diverse.
Bernard King, principal of the University of Abertay Dundee, believes that the parliament's ethos of inclusion will make it aware of the need for different types of institutions. But the competitive outlook that has beset higher education raises suspicions of some institutions being more equal than others. And, if the new universities have often felt like poor relations since the end of the binary divide, it is their older sisters that have covert worries about post-devolutionary status.
Professor King, principal of Scotland's newest university, sees Abertay as having a much more regional role than the older research-led institutions. His telling phrase that the parliament "must rediscover what a Scottish university is really all about'' may fuel the traditional universities' fears of being seen as a narrowly parochial resource. These fears extend beyond Scotland. The THES last week reported warnings from the Royal Societies of London and Edinburgh that devolution must not lead to a fragmentation of basic research in the United Kingdom. It is, after all, the UK that ranks so well in the world league tables that Lord Sainsbury quoted last week (page 37). Split up, each country would sink sharply.
The exact form of the parliamentary structures is still unknown, although they will differ radically from Westminster. As Joan Stringer, principal of Queen Margaret University College and a member of the parliament's constitutional steering group, explains, the plan is for committees to play a key role in shaping policy, advised by external experts. Only the Scottish National Party has explicitly said it aims to have a sub-committee on tertiary education and research. The Scottish Liberal Democrats say they will establish a powerful department of education and enterprise, reversing the recent Scottish Office move to split its existing department of education and industry. But party manifestos cannot be read as blueprints: despite the SNP's recent slump in the polls, the betting is still against Labour winning an overall majority. Any coalition will be driven by horse-trading. Is higher education facing marginalisation and restriction?
Possible, but improbable. If universities are to serve Scotland, they must retain the know-how that stems from United Kingdom and international links. The opposition parties have tacitly rejected a Little Scotlander perspective by pledging to end the "Scottish anomaly'' of fourth-year fees for students from the rest of the UK. Devolution does not intrinsically threaten a vision broader than Scotland. The Royal Societies recognise that devolution will expand research opportunities to support distinctive Scottish priorities. Institutions may have different proportions of regional, national and international work but need not sacrifice one for another.
If universities fear their teaching or research is threatened or misunderstood, Scotland's new constitution gives them the chance to challenge this. The great opportunity that the Scottish Parliament offers is legislation based on informed debate. Informed debate is the lifeblood of universities: now they must use it to influence their future.