Main arguments against removal of the legislative prohibition
17. One respondee did not agree that the prohibition should be removed (Aberdeenshire Health and Social Care Partnership) and one respondee (Dundee University) supported the prohibition being removed only partially for the purposes of ScotGEM but with it remaining in place for all other degree-awarding purposes. Both respondees appeared to be of the view that by removing the legislative prohibition this would be determinative of the University's ability to award medical degrees. The objections raised therefore focused on the potentially adverse impacts on the medical education and training environment should the University deliver its own degree in either of these subjects in the future (discussed further in the next section), rather than removal of the legislative prohibition itself.
18. In addition, the University of Dundee advised that the original intention, prior to the ScotGEM bid being submitted to the Scottish Government, was for the ScotGEM degree to be solely awarded by the University of Dundee but that:
"… prior to the submission of the final proposal to the Scottish Government, the University of Dundee agreed to a revision of the application such that the final degree would be awarded jointly by both institutions. It did so on the basis that it would support the University of St Andrews to seek reinstatement of these degree awarding powers solely for the purposes of ScotGEM."
19. The University of St. Andrews' views on this point were subsequently sought, and the Scottish Government was advised that the University refuted the University of Dundee's assertion. This was on the basis that no such revision exists and no such condition was raised at the time of the ScotGEM bid submission.