Scotland’s universities need solutions. First, we needed the facts.

This blog was kindly authored by Professor James Miller FRSE, Co-Commissioner of the Futures Framework.

Public policy rarely suffers from a shortage of opinions. What is often missing is a shared understanding of the evidence.

That is why the publication of A Funding Gap Analysis of Scotland’s University Sector is such an important moment. It represents the first comprehensive, evidence-led assessment of the financial sustainability of Scotland’s universities for many years and, significantly, it was co-commissioned by Universities Scotland and the Scottish Government through the Future Framework for the Sustainability and Success of Scotland’s Universities.

In itself, that collaboration is historic.

At a time when debates about higher education can become polarised between institutional interests, political positions and competing narratives, the Future Framework has brought together government, universities, trade unions, student representatives, funding bodies and independent experts around a common purpose: establishing the facts. The report led by Professor Sir Anton Muscatelli provides a shared evidence base from which future policy discussions can proceed.

The findings are undoubtedly challenging. The analysis concludes that Scottish universities face a growing structural funding gap. Publicly funded teaching does not recover its full cost. Research, despite its enormous contribution to Scotland’s economy and society, is also funded below full economic cost. Over time, universities have become increasingly reliant on international student income to support teaching, research, innovation and infrastructure. In 2023/24 alone, the report identifies an estimated sector-wide funding gap of around £200 million. TRAC data for Scotland in 2024/25 is due out imminently, and there is every expectation that it will show a widening of the gap.

These findings deserve serious attention. But they do not justify simplistic conclusions.

Indeed, one of the report’s greatest strengths is that it deliberately avoids recommending specific solutions. Its purpose was diagnostic, not prescriptive. The task was to understand the scale and nature of the challenge rather than advocate for a particular policy outcome. The next phases of the Future Framework, which are already underway, will build on this evidence before options for the future are developed.

That distinction matters because higher education is a complex system. Universities are not simply teaching providers. They educate future workers, generate research and innovation, support public services, drive economic growth, strengthen communities and act as anchor institutions within their regions. The report illustrates how interconnected these activities have become and how funding flows between them in ways that are often poorly understood by those outside the sector.

The temptation now will be to move quickly from diagnosis to predetermined solutions. Some will argue for increased public investment. Others will focus on efficiency, reform or diversification of income. Still others may question aspects of the current system itself.

Yet the evidence suggests the reality is more complicated than any single narrative permits.

The challenges facing Scotland’s universities vary across institutional missions, geographies and funding models. The needs of research-intensive institutions are not identical to those with a stronger regional or professional focus. Equally, the interests of students, staff, employers and government must all be considered. The choices ahead will involve trade-offs, and none should be approached lightly.

If there is one lesson to take from this report, it is that future policy should be guided by the same evidence-based approach that produced it. Assumptions should be tested. Consequences should be evaluated. Easy answers should be treated with caution.

The challenges facing Scotland’s universities are real and significant. But so too is the achievement of producing a shared, credible evidence base across such a wide range of stakeholders.

The next phases will be more difficult. The options will be contested. The decisions may be uncomfortable.

But Scotland is now in a far better position to make those decisions because it has started with the evidence rather than the ideology. And that is precisely where good public policy begins.