Standing up for democracy

I had not intended to say more on the Society's constitutional reforms at this stage – they are after all off the agenda for this week's SGM, while the Society considers how to take on board the comments made on the draft circulated in the summer – but I fear one or two readers have misread what I said in my August magazine column.

To summarise, I noted the main points of objection to the draft (increasing the numbers needed to call a general meeting; removing the power of successive general meetings to bind Council; the exercise was premature anyway pending the Legal Services Bill), and then suggested that Council should reflect further on what it had proposed.

Trying to identify a guiding principle that might help settle the numbers argument, I suggested "aiming for a balance btween encouraging the democratic process and not burdening the Society (and the members who pay for it) with matters raised on the whim of a few individuals. Where that requires the line to be drawn is a matter of judgment, though not necessarily kept at the same proportion of an expanding and changing profession".

Unfortunately one or two protagonists in the recent debates on the future for the Society and the profession have taken the reference to the "whim of a few individuals" as meaning the Scottish Law Agents Society or others who have campaigned against the Society's position. Quite how this can be taken from the context of suggesting that the Society should rethink its own proposals, or indeed of "encouraging the democratic process", I'm not sure. Suffice to say that I was simply arguing that it is legitimate to have some minimum threshold for a meeting requisition (as appears to be accepted on all sides) and that the number should not necessarily increase in direct proportion with the Society's membership, as appeared to be the intention behind the draft that was criticised.

I have certainly never attempted to belittle the strength of feeling among the opponents of ABS, even if I have argued – as I know many feel, both within the profession and outside – that they have overstated their position at times.

David Flint's recent contribution to the Firm, claiming I was insulting the profession by suggesting that the cost of democracy is not a cost worth bearing, is itself an insult. I hope he will see fit to withdraw his comments.