And the winner is. . . Yes folks, when the battlesmoke cleared on last week's Special General Meeting, it revealed that the motions before it had been convincingly defeated.

These motions were, of course the much-pamphleted partners in petition, those ikonoclastic amendments Alec Ted Editor and the Reverend Dum. The first of these, had he not been foiled in his plans, would have replaced the present system whereby the Editor of Salient is appointed by the Association's Publications Board with one where the editor would be elected directly by the students in the same ballot as they elect their Executive. It would also have empowered SRC to elect the editor of any other publication the Association might put out, such as the annual handbook, and to elect a temporary editor for [unclear: salient] should the necessity arise.

The second, likewise if he had succeeded, would have amended the Constitution to provide for the conducting of referenda on motions declared to be "contentious" by SRC or a General Meeting. Also when the Executive decided one was necessary for a particular issue or when 75 members of the Association called for one by petition. The decisions of such referenda were to be binding for 12 months unless repealed or amended by another referendum.

Before the first shots could be fired however, a brace of points of order arose questioning whether in fact the motions, could be considered by the meeting. The substance of these was the requirement that motions to amend the Constitution must be given notice of 10 days before a meeting can be held to vote on them. This is to allow amendments to be studied and their full implications understood.

However the chairman, Professor of Social Work, John McCreary, ruled that the meeting was entitled to consider the motion, and the meeting continued.