More than 60 eminent scientists make a distinct intervention in the Scottish Parliamentary elections campaign in a letter published in The Herald today. They do not endorse any particular party but their views are not helpful to the SNP. That is because they believe Scottish independence (they prefer the emotive noun "separation") would disrupt the UK research funding model, with harmful consequences for Scottish science and this country's wellbeing. Therefore, they back the Union. It will especially hearten Labour, trailing the Nationalists in the polls before next Thursday's elections, to have heavy- hitters from the gown end of society in the Unionist corner.

It is an indication of the SNP's popularity in the polls, pointing to the prospect of the party being the biggest at Holyrood after voting day, that so many scientists should be prepared to quit the ivory tower of political impartiality and express a preference for the existing constitutional settlement. But it should not surprise that the future funding of higher education (specifically, scientific research) exercises them so. Dr Brian Lang, the principal of St Andrews University, had earlier expressed his concerns about the HE funding plans of the SNP and the Liberal Democrats, and accused both parties, somewhat unfairly, of failing to understand what universities were for.

Anxiety is understandable. Several Scottish universities have begun redundancy programmes to cut costs and make best use of available finite resources. The sector has one eye trained across the border, where top-up fees, rejected by the Scottish Executive, would have put English universities at a considerable funding advantage, had not ministers found the money to keep the playing field level. But for how long?

No-one knows. Everything will depend on which parties form the next Scottish government. It is not just the funding model for universities that is uncertain. How much students contribute to their learning and whether they should be supported rather than billed will also depend on the make-up of the new administration and its policies. Regardless of whether the scientists are correct or not in their analysis, their contribution is timely. Jack McConnell has made education the priority in Labour's manifesto but the subject has been the focus of only limited debate. Higher education has commanded even less space in the arena of public discourse.

This is disappointing, given the crucial importance of universities to this country's economy and their part in the intertwined creation of a smart, successful Scotland. This cannot be achieved on the cheap. How much will the parties provide? Where will the money come from? There are some answers. The LibDems, for instance, say they will provide the £168m in new funding identified by Universities Scotland to maintain competitiveness. Scotland is part of a UK higher education sector with significant cross-border flow (if not so much among students because of top-up fees). It is true that the Scottish sector is distinctive in offering longer, more broadly-based programmes of study but how, in an independent Scotland, would the SNP mollify the concerns of the scientists on science research funding? There are many other questions demanding answers, regardless of who comes out on top next week. This debate is very important. It has taken time but, courtesy of the scientists, it appears finally to have sparked into life.