Information on the role of Rector at the University of St Andrews: FOI Review

Information requested

Original request 202600504101

On 06 January 2026, the University of St Andrews (the “University”) received a letter, via email, from Mark Ruskell MSP, MSP for Mid Scotland and Fife. Mr Ruskell’s letter concerns the University’s interpretation of the Higher Education and Governance Act 2016 and the Universities (Scotland) Act 1858, in connection to the role of Rector when presiding meetings of University Court.

Mr Ruskell’s letter includes:
“I have written to the Minister for Higher and Further Education to request the Scottish Government provides the intended interpretation of this legislation. I have also requested that the Scottish Government advise what steps can be taken to settle this dispute and protect the role of Rector at the university.”

I seek all information, held by the Scottish Government and/or Scottish Ministers contained within correspondence and/or documents:

1. Received by Mr Ruskell MSP, related to the subject areas introduced, above – I anticipate that if held, this information was received by the Scottish Government in early 2026.

2. In responses from the Scottish Government and/or Ministers to Ruskell MSP, related to the 5 subject areas introduced, above. If no information is held for point 2 of my request, then I seek

3. All information held by Scottish Government and/or Scottish Ministers, on the drafting and/or construction of a response from the Scottish Government/Scottish Ministers to Mr Ruskell MSP and information that may show when a response to Mr Ruskell MSP might be made.

Response

I have now completed my review of our response to your request (reference 202600504101) under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA), which asked for the following:

On 06 January 2026, the University of St Andrews (the “University”) received a letter, via email, from Mark Ruskell MSP, MSP for Mid Scotland and Fife. Mr Ruskell’s letter concerns the University’s interpretation of the Higher Education and Governance Act 2016 and the Universities (Scotland) Act 1858, in connection to the role of Rector when presiding meetings of University Court.

Mr Ruskell’s letter includes:
“I have written to the Minister for Higher and Further Education to request the Scottish Government provides the intended interpretation of this legislation. I have also requested that the Scottish Government advise what steps can be taken to settle this dispute and protect the role of Rector at the university.”

I seek all information, held by the Scottish Government and/or Scottish Ministers contained within correspondence and/or documents:

1. Received by Mr Ruskell MSP, related to the subject areas introduced, above – I anticipate that if held, this information was received by the Scottish Government in early 2026.

2. In responses from the Scottish Government and/or Ministers to Ruskell MSP, related to the 5 subject areas introduced, above. If no information is held for point 2 of my request, then I seek

3. All information held by Scottish Government and/or Scottish Ministers, on the drafting and/or construction of a response from the Scottish Government/Scottish Ministers to Mr Ruskell MSP and information that may show when a response to Mr Ruskell MSP might be made.

I have concluded that the original decision should be confirmed, with modifications.

Your review request focused particularly on the application of section 30(c) of FOISA (prejudice to effective conduct of public affairs) to a paragraph starting “I am deeply concerned by...” in the material released in the response.

As set out in the original response to your request, the 30(c) exemption was applied in the context that it is essential for Ministers to be able to communicate, often in confidence, with external stakeholders on a range of issues. Disclosing the content of these communications, particularly without the consent of the stakeholder, is likely to undermine their trust in the Scottish Government and will substantially inhibit communications on this type of issue in the future.

This is not to say that the consent of the correspondent is required to make a disclosure. As you point out in your review request, the Section 60 Code of Conduct sets out that communication with a third party for their views should be clear that consent is not being sought and they do not have a veto on release, because it is for the Scottish public authority that received the request to determine what information should be disclosed. I can confirm that this was the case in handling of this request.

Material redacted from the original response under the 30(c) exemption consists of personal views set out by an individual in correspondence and subsequently retracted. On that basis I have concluded that the original case handler’s decision that release of this material would be likely to undermine trust and inhibit communications is reasonable.

In your letter you provide an image of a social media post from the University Rector claiming to be an extract from the 6 January letter from Mark Ruskell MSP to the Minister for Higher and Further Education. I have been unable to locate this online and I believe the image is of an Instagram Story post, a form of social media post which is automatically deleted after 24 hours if not added as a ‘highlight’ to the poster's profile, which was apparently not done here.

However, I can confirm that the wording quoted is identical to that in the 6 January letter and so on the basis that this has been put in the public domain I have concluded that this can be released. I attach an updated annex that includes this information.

In relation to the application of the public interest test, I have concluded that it was appropriately applied, but that the way this is described in the response is questionable. The response to you of 24 February refers to the correspondence being “part of the process of exploring and refining the Government’s policy position on the position of the Rector of the University of St Andrews.” Given that the University of St Andrews is an autonomous institution it is not clear to me that the Government has or needs to have a policy position on the position of the Rector.

However, the conclusion that “premature disclosure is likely to undermine the full and frank discussion of issues between the Scottish Government and these stakeholders, which in turn will undermine the quality of the policy-making process, which would not be in the public interest” is still valid. Even if this is not an instance of policy-making, it is reasonable to conclude that undermining free and frank communication would impact on the quality of the policy-making more widely.

Finally, you have expressed dissatisfaction that the response to you did not include information on the right to make an application to the Commissioner. It may be useful to note that you can only appeal to the Commissioner if you remain unhappy with the outcome of our review. The information was not included in your original response because a review had not yet been carried out or requested and the Commissioner cannot take action on a request to appeal until you have asked us to review the original decision and allowed 20 working days for a reply. As such, this is why no information was provided to you on how to appeal our decision at the time of your original request.

About FOI

The Scottish Government is committed to publishing all information released in response to Freedom of Information requests. View all FOI responses at https://www.gov.scot/foi-responses.

FOI 202600509685 - Information released - Annex A

File type

PDF

File size

112.5 kB