Cards on the table
Well, it can certainly be said that the AGM held the attention more than most such occasions, with no fewer than three votes in the balance on the ABS motions.
At the end of it all, members contrived to pass two conflicting motions supporting differing degrees of liberalisation, one permitting (to some extent) and one excluding external ownership, leaving the Society's Council with the job of working out what it should represent to Government.
Some supporters of the Dailly motion say that should be the policy because it had the most votes, though there has yet to be a straight choice between it and the Council motion which was also passed. There was also a suggestion at the subsequent Council meeting that the Society should simply say to Government that it had no policy, in view of the clear divisions that remain. In the event Council decided to recognise the admittedly technical constitutional position that its policy was as approved in Council and ratified by General Meeting, but to make clear to the Scottish Government and Parliament that the profession remains divided.
In practical terms it may not make a lot of difference. The divisions are there for all to see, and as Ian Smart said at the press briefing after the meeting, each vote could easily have gone either way. MSPs will be in no doubt when they resume work on the bill that no consensus position has been achieved and they will have to decide for themselves what limits if any to build into the bill. SLAS have promised to continue lobbying and no doubt others will also.
But I would call it a good thing that the Society is able to continue to influence the legislative process rather than be handicapped by a policy binding it to oppose all forms of ABS. With an issue of this importance and complexity, playing a constructive role becomes ever more important as scrutiny moves to the detail of the bill and the regulation of the new entities that may emerge. All interested parties should be ready to roll up their sleeves and play a part.