Referendum results mean election candidates will not be able to run as a group.

DEFEND EDINBURGH will be unable to campaign at this year’s EUSA General Election, following the online referendum held last week.

Defend Edinburgh is a group of campaigners for free education that have run together in the last two EUSA elections.

Other outcomes from Edinburgh University Students’ Association’s (EUSA) first online referendum mean that SABMiller products will be banned from sale in all EUSA outlets, and EUSA policy is now to work towards the introduction of a living wage for all EUSA staff.

The referendum also demonstrated support from the student body for the introduction of a free Easter Bush bus campaign and the strategy for improving accommodation introduced by new rector Peter McColl.

Motions not carried included introducing quotas for the election of female delegates to the National Union of Students (NUS) and a motion to allow EUSA sabbatical officers to stand for re-election.

Motions which could have a financial impact on EUSA will also have to be passed by the board of trustees before becoming the policy of the association.

There were some initial difficulties with the voting but these were resolved. Andrew Burnie, Undergraduate Representative for the School of Informatics told The Student, “I don’t believe results will be affected and I’m sure things will be much more clear from the start in future referenda.”

He also hoped that the success of the election this year would yield better results next year.

He said, “Now people have seen how this works I’m really hopeful we’ll get even more questions from outside of those already elected in EUSA.”

Matt McPherson, EUSA President, told The Student that the referendum had been a great success.

He said, “Our turnout was really good. This was a huge achievement for Edinburgh and is an exciting new chapter in our democracy.”

McPherson also acknowledged that there was a lot to learn from the referendum and that there would be changes made next year.

He said, “The Campaigns and Accountability forum, which isn’t up and running yet, will play a much more proactive role in overlooking the questions that come to the student body.

“This will make them much more tailored, much more appropriate and much more clear but for a first start it was fantastic and I’m very pleased.”

The passing of question 10 (“Should candidates in EUSA elections be banned from running in a group, under a common name with collective publicity designs and sharing funding?”) will prevent students in the up-coming elections running as a group claiming shared values and under a shared name; commonly known as a ‘slate.’

This will have a direct impact on the Edinburgh University Students’ Association general elections taking place at the end of March.

Gabi Jones, member of the EUSA Student Council, proposed the question and told The Student, “This question was preemptive more than anything. I’d heard talk about people setting up rival slates to try and emulate the success of Defend Edinburgh, and I just did not want to see EUSA go down that path.

“It’s off-putting to people that want to stand in elections, and it’s off-putting to the students that EUSA is supposed to be representing.

“Nobody wants EUSA to turn into a mini-parliament with mini-parties vying for the biggest number of seats on Student Council.”

However, members of Defend Edinburgh criticised the wording of the referendum question as being misleading. Aurora Adams, EUSA representative and member of Defend Edinburgh told The Student defended the group stating, “EUSA has never allowed candidates to share funding - it would be outrageous if it did.”

Those who campaigned against ‘question 10’ further argued that in actual fact many students on the Student Council run together in groups, but it is only those in a slate who are open and clear about the principles they share.

Adams told The Student that the motion is “a blow to the transparency at EUSA” and suggested that it will not actually stop students running for election collectively but that “now we will not be able to make this clear.”

Furthermore, Max Crema, third year Economics student, insisted that the wording of the question had been misleading.

He told The Student, “I’m disappointed that a question that was factually incorrect was allowed. However, it passed and we shall of course respect the student body’s decision.”

James McAsh, EUSA Undergraduate Representative also said, “Defend Edinburgh fully respects the mandate from the referendum and will comply with it 100 per cent.

“However, the reasons why Defend Edinburgh exists still stand and we will continue to work towards a more democratic, transparent and relevant EUSA.”

Defend Edinburgh is currently represented in EUSA by the Vice President of Academic Affairs, Mike Williamson, and seven undergraduate representatives.

They are also represented at the NUS by four of their members.

It is not yet clear how the group plans to operate in the future.

News Editor Alasdair Drennan explains what some of the EUSA referendum results may mean for future policy.

EUSA should work with the Vet School Council (VSC) and staff to campaign for the University of Edinburgh to provide a free shuttle bus to the Easter Bush Vet School, because all students have a right to fair and free access to their campus.

It will become EUSA policy to pressure the university to fund a free bus to the Easter Bush campus. This campaign is already supported by EUSA but the referendum result demonstrates the campaign has the backing of the student body.

In the interests of strengthening our twinning, should EUSA organise an annual visit from a delegation of students from Birzeit University?

It is not clear what level of funding will be expected from EUSA to organise the trip, and if it will involve a significant financial burden, then EUSA trustees can veto the decision.

Should candidates in EUSA elections be banned from running in a group, under a common name with collective publicity designs and sharing funding?

This will prevent Defend Edinburgh and other ‘slates’ from campaigning in EUSA elections as a group. This will impact upon the upcoming EUSA general elections.

Should EUSA ban all SABMiller products sold from Union outlets within the university due to the unethical tax practices of this brewer, until the company incorporates tax justice principles into its corporate responsibility policy?

SABMiller products, such as Miller and Peroni will not be able to be sold in EUSA outlets. As it impacts upon the business side of EUSA it will be subject to approval by the board of trustees.

Should EUSA be reorganised so as to give the greatest number of students direct democratic control and meaningful participation, through a system of nested councils?

Not exactly clear what change will come of this motion as no constitutional amendment was submitted, but it could see the introduction of school councils like those that exist for vet students, medics and law students.

Should EUSA pay all of its staff a Living Wage of £7.20 an hour?

Unlikely to be introduced immediately given that for some this would amount to an 18 per cent pay rise which in the short term wouldn’t be manageable financially. Will also need to be approved by trustees. Furthermore, EUSA cannot discriminate who it employs based on whether or not they are a student, and paying such a wage would increase competition for jobs and may see fewer jobs at EUSA. Working towards a living wage has been a EUSA policy for some time.

Should EUSA reserve at least 40% of places for women when electing delegates to NUS UK and NUS Scotland Conferences?

Motion fell and no changes will be made.

Should EUSA retain both of the current two Undergraduate School Representative positions for each School?

Workload of undergraduate representatives was deemed to be enough to have two representatives for each school.

Should EUSA stand against ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement)?

EUSA will stand against ACTA and will probably encourage the University to do the same.

Should EUSA support the Edinburgh Rector, Peter McColl, in his strategy for improving accommodation?

EUSA will support Peter McColl’s strategy for improving accommodation in the university, primarily ensuring that all students will be housed within University of Edinburgh accommodation that they are able to afford.

Should the elections for Undergraduate School Representatives be held in the main election during the second semester?

Concerns were raised that October elections for Undergraduate School Representatives would mean that new students would not have the opportunity to engage with representatives when they started at university.

Should the university make students aware of any additional costs they are going to face on their course (textbooks, travel, lab equipment, etc.) and should they minimise these additional costs?

Reasonably self-explanatory. EUSA will pressure the university to publish known course costs.

The law limits Sabbaticals to two years. Should EUSA’s Sabbaticals be eligible to stand for reelection for a second year, effective from the EUSA General Election of 2013?

Motion fell, no changes will be made.

Volunteering as a special constable creates a conflict of interest as a sabbatical officer. Yes or No.

Motion fell. Matt McPherson, EUSA President will be able to continue to volunteer as a special constable. He told The Student he felt that the motion had been an attempt to “derail” him. He said, “There’s a huge amount of work that needs to be done and this issue is now in the past.”