Commentary on the future of higher education in Scotland has become almost constant in recent months. There’s no shortage of strongly held opinions, expert analysis, confident diagnosis, or suggested solutions.
The issue isn’t a lack of interest – it’s that the debate doesn’t seem to be going anywhere. Much of the conversation remains dominated by the same voices – politicians, senior academics, government officials, and university and college leaders – whose positions inevitably shape how they see the system.
Their perspectives matter, but their interests often diverge, and consensus is limited to one point – the system is under strain and change is needed.
Who’s missing?
To widen the conversation, last year we worked with Ipsos to gather public views on higher education funding. The findings showed a wide range of perspectives – far more varied and considered than dominant narratives suggest.
Despite this, and continued support for the “public good” of higher education, civic voices have remained largely absent from discussions about its future. Given the Carnegie Trust’s – now Carnegie Education Fund – long history of expanding participation in Scotland, we felt compelled to help address this gap.
Reform at last?
The good news is that the government has accepted the case for reform. Three years after committing to develop a new funding model, work has begun on a “Future Framework” for the sustainability and success of Scotland’s universities.
But with a focus on universities alone, a governance structure composed largely of established actors, and reporting delayed until after the election, there’s already scepticism about what it can and will achieve.
At the same time, there’s a new legal commitment to prepare a national funding strategy – not only for universities, but for the whole tertiary education and training system.
How these opportunities fit together remains unclear – as does how, with so many diverse and competing views, decisions will be made about what matters, and what principles – rather than Principals! – will guide prioritisation.
Who pays, who decides?
Higher education is a public service. It sits at the heart of a social contract that has kept access free for most undergraduate students, helping to minimise student debt compared to other parts of the UK.
But free access doesn’t mean cost-free provision. The system is funded through public taxation and delivered by universities and colleges on society’s behalf. Decisions about how it’s funded and what success looks like should therefore reflect public values – not just institutional needs or political pressures.
Research on democratic participation in Scotland shows that excluding the public from major policy debates risks further eroding trust and weakening the perceived legitimacy of institutions. It also tends to leave existing dynamics unchallenged, making it more likely that the status quo persists.
Broadening participation is therefore essential to support more imaginative and future-focused policymaking, strengthen confidence in decision-making, and counter public disengagement – something that matters for our wider democratic wellbeing every bit as much as for higher education itself.
A people’s panel
That’s why, last autumn, we convened a citizens’ jury – a structured deliberative process that brings members of the public together to examine a complex issue. Our jury consisted of 19 individuals from across Scotland, broadly representative of the population. Over six sessions, they heard evidence, questioned experts, and discussed their views.
We asked them to develop a set of principles to guide future government policy on higher education funding. But what we were really talking about was the purpose and value of higher education, the outcomes it can and should deliver, their priorities for public funding, and, critically, how we pay for it.
The aim wasn’t to validate any predetermined position or manufacture consensus. It was to create space for people who aren’t usually part of the debate to think deeply, ask questions, and articulate what they believe a fair and sustainable funding system should look like.
Before the findings
The jury finished its deliberations on 6 December 2025. The method paper, published this week, outlines how the process was designed and delivered. Before sharing the findings themselves, it’s worth reflecting on what the process revealed.
Don’t underestimate the public
There can be a tendency among those who consider themselves “experts” to assume that anyone outside the system won’t understand its complexity. Scotland’s higher education system is complex, wide-ranging, and technical, but it isn’t impenetrable. The challenge lay in presenting the right level of detail and identifying the core “facts” participants needed.
We developed a series of short, animated videos to introduce key concepts without overwhelming people. The panel showed a strong ability to engage with complexity – asking informed questions, absorbing information quickly, and offering thoughtful contributions.
Fresh eyes, different questions
In debates that have become entrenched, those closest to the system can either become convinced that the answers are obvious or so mired in the detail that nothing seems possible. The panel’s discussions showed the value of fresh perspectives.
Participants asked different questions – about fairness, opportunity, responsibility, and the purpose of higher education. They approached the issue through different lenses – what the system should deliver, how it operates, the impacts for learners, and the implications for Scotland’s places and communities.
Process as evidence
The conclusions matter, but so does the reasoning behind them – the values people prioritised, the trade-offs they considered, and the conditions under which their views shifted. While we asked for a set of “principles”, the way those principles were developed was equally revealing. What participants chose not to endorse was often as significant as what they did.
That has meant thinking carefully about how to communicate the findings in a way that reflects the depth of the discussions and respects the time and energy participants gave to the process.
Will anyone listen?
Deliberative processes like citizens’ juries can strengthen legitimacy – but only if those with the authority to act engage with them.
Notably, no members of the Scottish Parliament’s Education Committee accepted our invitation to observe a panel session, and the Scottish government has yet to respond to our offer to discuss the findings.
Over the next few weeks, we’ll release a series of thematic papers exploring what the public said about different aspects of higher education delivery – the purpose and value of higher education, issues of equity and access, views on different higher education pathways, and perceptions of university education.
With the need for change accepted, Scotland now has an opportunity to embed civic engagement in shaping the future of higher education. Doing so could help shift the debate away from institutional interests and towards a renewed social contract – one grounded in public values and long-term sustainability.
And at a time when public trust and democratic participation feel increasingly fragile, creating space for civic voices matters for the health of our democracy every bit as much as it matters for policy.
Did you invite representatives of SFC to observe a panel session?