Those involved in the arguments over the governance of Scotland’s universities are in danger of posing multiple choice questions. Worse, they seem to favour the form “If A, then B. Or possibly C. But first define your terms.”

The terms set out by the older universities in response to the Scottish Government’s Higher Education Governance Bill involve fundamental concepts: academic freedom, institutional autonomy, the future of research, political interference, money. Those such as Professor Ferdinand von Prondzynski, principal of Robert Gordon University, who chaired the review, counter with notions of equal weight: democracy, accountability, public confidence.

Note, first, that none of things defended is trivial. This is a high-stakes contest. Holyrood, presently dealing with the Bill, needs to get the reforms right, therefore, if virtues so often associated with Scottish higher education are not to be forfeit. As things stand, neither camp is in a mood to give ground.

Professor von Prondzynski is blunt. Universities’ governing bodies, “uniquely in society”, are accountable to no one. They pick the chairs of their governing bodies. They exclude – so it is alleged – students and trade unions from meaningful involvement. In the tricky matter of senior staff pay and bonuses they are a law, effectively, to themselves, with no accountability to government, the public, or the wider society of the institutions.

Universities Scotland, representing principals, would retort that the Bill grants ministers “unprecedented and far-reaching powers”, that the demand for elected chairs of governing bodies could lead to conflict within those bodies, that institutional diversity and autonomy are being ignored, and that government “control” could lead to institutions being reclassified by the Office of National Statistics.

This last possibility, it is alleged, could lead to the loss of classification as “non-profit institutions serving households”, harm the universities’ entrepreneurial activities and, simply put, cost hundreds of millions of pounds. The suggestion is disputed, not least by the Scottish Government, but if it contains any truth it undermines Professor von Prondzynski’s claim that the “departure” advocated by his review is “not a radical one”.

There is a further consideration. It is certainly true that universities enjoy a status unique in society. Might that not be because they are, in every sense, unique? Their systems of governance are liable to reflect that fact, irrespective of the standards applied elsewhere.

Equally, our universities are not private bodies. They spend public money, a great deal of public money, and have important public responsibilities. Their governance cannot be a private matter, settled between a handful of people. Hence the tussling over that slippery word, accountability.

Allowing government greater control is clearly no answer. The reforms as they stand cannot be endorsed with confidence. That does not provide an excuse for universities simply to carry on as before.