The controversial motion on Union neutrality has passed at the latest Union General Meeting, after its third attempt.
The motion, tabled by Stuart McLuckie, will see the Union prevented from taking a stance on issues not directly relevant to students.
It was sparked after the 2016/17 Union President Dave Keenan voiced his support for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament last year.
The motion failed to pass in the General Meeting last October, and was postponed at the last General Meeting in September this year.
The motion was opposed at last night’s meeting by Keenan, who refused to have his comments reported by Brig.
Secondingthe motion was Adam Petrie, who helped revise the original motion.
Speaking about the proceedings if Thursday’s meeting, McLuckie said: “Well I think that [Union President] Astrid [Smallenbroek] handled the discussions very well and I’m glad that the debate, for the most part, was held in a respectful and mature manner.
He added: “I feel nothing but gratitude for those who chose to support my motion on Thursday. It would not have passed if not for those who came from all parts of the political spectrum.
“I believe that this is a massive step forward in mending the deep political divisions on campus, especially since 2016.
“I also hope that those who were previously afraid of criticising Union policy can now have the confidence to stand up for what they believe in on campus.”
McLuckie said he brought forward the motion as some students felt alienated by the political stances of the Union.
The vote on the motion saw a large number of abstentions from the audience, and it sparked lively debate.
Featured Image Credit: Annabelle Cooper
“It is worth ascending unexiting heights if for nothing else than to see the big ones from nearer their own level.” - Nan Shepherd
[…] final motion of the meeting was an amendment to the previously passed Save our Students’ Union motion, which hoped to reduce liability from attaching the Union to specific political agendas […]
When are the official minutes published? The reason I ask is that Mr Keenan seemed rude and arrogant from my hearing of it, but I’d like to read it back to see if my impression is wrong.
Your assessment is correct. Mr Keenan asked not to be recorded, asked for the Brig to not comment on what he said. Very transparent.
He complained about being personally attacked in the Brig, and then used his speech to personally attack someone.
Finally, he instructed everyone against the neutrality motion to abstain, rather than voting against. Consequently the opposition to the neutrality motion was split.
Komrade Keenan successfully made an arse of himself, and single handedly ensured that the neutrality motion passed.
In a few days (Tuesday approx) the recording should be available- Listen Again as well as the minutes
Beautifully Expressed