LPH Minutes

[Jessica]

...from the last debate:

The Inaugural Debate


The University of St. Andrews Union Debating Society last met on Wednesday the 12th of April, in the Year of Our Lord 2006. The motion before the House was ‘This House would merge Rangers and Celtic in order to combat Sectarianism’. Miss Laura Wilson was in the chair and welcomed the members of the House in the usual manner. She then asked if any important information would appear some time today, after which Mr. Stuart Patterson appeared and shouted ‘Stop!’, informing the House that he brought intelligence from the Students’ Association indicating that a new Convenor had been elected and that ‘this woman (Laura) is an impostor and has forfeited her right to sit in the chair’. Miss Rachael Whitbread stood at the end of the table upon which the sword was placed by the rather enthusiastic new Serjeant-at-Arms and was sworn in by Mr. Patterson, repeating the oath “ I, Rachael Elizabeth Whitbread, Convenor, swear to uphold and protect the ancient traditions and rights of this House, of the University of St. Andrews Union Debating Society; and especially, I swear to guard the right of every matriculated student of this seat of learning to attend debates and speak his mind in any capacity at no charge or fee whatsoever. This being one of the chief glories of this House." Mr. Patterson then added ‘So help me God’ which Miss Whitbread duly repeated. A loud cough from Mr. David Bean alerted the new Board to their duty, to which they responded by enthusiastically, if somewhat chaotically lifting up the new Convenor and installing her in the chair. Rachael then remarked that she had suggested ordering a winch, before welcoming the members of the House to the University of St. Andrews Union Debating Society, the oldest and finest of its kind, eliciting some rather skeptical expressions from the Glasgow contingent seated at the table.


Mr. Bryn Williams rose on a Point of Order to say a few words about the outgoing Convenor. He first met Laura when they were both tiny first years and back then, he didn’t actually like her very much, due to such inclinations she had as lusting after Eliot Wilson, Gown Fetishism and a liking for pink rugby shirts. However, last year he found himself standing proudly with a yellow Laura Wilson poster around his neck and a pint of tea. Laura has contributed to a great year of debating, creating a real atmosphere in the chamber. Mr. Williams acknowledged the immense pride that the society has as a whole in the outgoing Convenor through the work she has done throughout her term and even preceding this through her work as treasurer for example, helping to put the society in a strong financial position. Laura is a Northern lass with a laugh that can be heard two streets away and in addition to the memorable impact she has had on the society, she has also provided us with such things as ‘Laura’s League of Gentlemen’, which consists of politicians and celebrities she seems worryingly friendly with, a particularly notable example being Gyles Brandreth. Mr. Williams had the dubious pleasure of accompanying Laura to the Edinburgh Fringe to see a God-awful show Gyles (wearing a yellow thong) participated in. He also accompanied Laura and Gyles to Tate Britain on account of Gyles’ perception that Laura looked like Botticelli’s Venus. Gyles is not alone in his admiration of Laura however; Sir Kenneth Dover (the oldest man alive) repeatedly left notes in Laura’s house at the beginning of the year. However, in terms of stalking, Laura herself is quite proficient; in the case of Robin Harper, for example, she stalks him as much as legality permits and apparently was witnessed trying to ‘go in for a snog’ once or twice! In addition to being an excellent Convenor, Laura has given us all many laughs with her old men, and with that laudable quality, Bryn drew his remarks to a close, with a well deserved round of applause being given to the ex- Convenor.


Mr. David Bean then rose on a Point of Order, moving to the dispatch box where he had the privilege of standing one year ago and found himself again, this time to offer to Miss Whitbread some words which he hoped would be a fitting start to her Convenorship, as she engaged in the new tradition of taking the job in second year. He did not envisage this being a problem for Rachael however, because she has always been precocious, explaining that in Rachael’s first LPH appearance she won the Inter-Residence competition for DRA. Rachael’s success as a debater is not limited to St. Andrews; she has competed with merit on the Scottish, British and International debating circuits, a particularly notable achievement being attaining the title of best speaker in the novice final at Cork. Rachael’s ascendance as Convenor coincides with the resurgence of the reputation of St. Andrews as a competitive debating union, ably led by ‘the Godfather of them all’, Mr. John Stewart. Our pride in Rachael however is not limited to her role in carrying our good name forward externally. Rachael has worked with merit within the society in the role of Chief Whip where she helped to expand one of our most vital services; training for public speaking and oratory. Last year saw a major expansion in this area and also created a focus on less competitive elements such as confidence, helping public speaking to become an important element of the service the society provides alongside showpiece debates such as the one we all have the honour of witnessing tonight. From experience, Mr. Bean knew that the chair in which Rachael now sat could seem like the loneliest place on earth. However, he assured her that she would not be alone; the Father of the House would be able to advise her, the Clerk to the House could assist her through clarification and for particularly troubling situations, or when she needed her glass filling, the Serjeant-at-Arms would help her (at this point, in the absence of any troubling situations, Mr. Cahn enthusiastically leapt to his feet to fill the Convenor’s glass). Rachael will also be supported by the Board of Ten, who are not only competent individuals, but can also be relied upon for valuable support. Mr. Bean then addressed the Board directly, entreating them to argue with the new Convenor if necessary, but for as long as she holds the best interests of the students and the House at heart, he told them that they have a duty to respect and support her. Mr. Bean stated that while there may well be challenges ahead, at this time and in this place tonight we must let the message ring forth that we have confidence in our new Convenor and we support and respect her. With that in mind, there is no mountain too high for this Convenor who now has a duty to what is the oldest, and most definitely the finest society in the land.


Rachael thanked David for his kind words before calling upon the Clerk to the House, Miss Beth Conner, to read the minutes of the last debate in the style of a Glaswegian football supporter. The Clerk had not demonstrated her rather interesting interpretation of a Glaswegian or indeed of a football supporter for very long before Mr. Jason Vit rose on a Point of Order noting the presence of Glaswegians and the possibility of violence, consequently proposing that the minutes should be taken as read. The Treasurer, Mr. Chris Hawkins swiftly rose on a counter-point, arguing that Mr. Cahn, the Serjeant-at-Arms should be given a chance to use the Sword in the ensuing violence resulting from the minutes being read in full. Noticing the dissent in the House, the Convenor called a division by oral acclamation. Some members of the House were evidently overcome by the excitement of the evening so far, forgetting themselves and shouting ‘aye’ to the minutes being taken as read, earning a loud cry of ‘shame’ from those in opposition, including the Clerk who rather enjoyed being a Glaswegian football supporter even if no one else did. The loud cry of ‘nay’ appeared a fairly clear win for the Opposition, but perhaps in a state of slight uncertainty having started her new role so recently, the Convenor decided to consult the Serjeant-at-Arms who advised her that he thought the Clerk looked quite nice. Nevertheless, the new Convenor proclaimed that the Ayes had it, to cries of ‘resign’ which she had evidently anticipated and swiftly retorted ‘just give me a chance!’


After resisting the temptation to resign, the Convenor asked if any member of the House had a matter of public importance they wished to bring forward. With great relief that there were none, she exclaimed ‘Thank goodness, this night is long enough!’ She then announced the motion before the House and proceeded to introduce the speakers as: Mr. John Stewart (a long-serving and long-suffering member of the Society), Mr. Jonathan Hardman (Convenor of the Glasgow University Union and someone she has known since she was thirteen years old, eliciting laughter from some members of the House who were obviously recalling Mr. Bean’s comment about Rachael being precocious), Mr. Douglas Cochran (one of our own) and speaking for the Opposition, Mr. Mark Donaldson (Sports Editor of Radio Forth 1 and Radio Forth 2), Mr. David Adams (Head Clerk at the Glasgow University Union and ex-President of the Glasgow Young Conservatives) and Mr. Richard Anderson (Clerk at the Glasgow University Union).


Without further ado, Mr. John Stewart was called to the dispatch box to open the case for the proposition. He began by commenting on the great honour it was to speak in the inaugural debate; even if he had only been asked at 4pm that afternoon. However, if he got to see David Adams cry, it would be well worth the pain. He then remarked on the fact that nobody knows much about Scottish football, mainly because nobody actually cares. However, he felt that we should care, because it is an issue that affects us all. As a proud Scot who loves all of his country except St. Andrews, Mr. Stewart recognised its positive attributes, such as the hospitality that the Scots are renowned for. However, ‘all is not green in the glens’. In fact, each weekend the festering sores of Ibrox and Celtic Park in Glasgow become ‘cauldrons of hatred’. The problems inherent within these cauldrons of hatred are manifested beyond Glasgow. Football is a big business and a matter of global interest, meaning that when teams compete on the international circuit, they become ambassadors for their country. When Rangers and Celtic represent Scotland, they reflect our image to the eyes of Europe and the world; what then do people see (apart from substandard football)? They see teams lining up to Sectarian chants. They see a litany of abuse, hostility and violence. At a recent UEFA game this is the very impression of Scotland that was presented to the world. Scotland as a small nation that is not even sovereign depends upon its reputation. The economy, for example thrives upon tourism and tourism in turn depends upon the image of Scotland that is being projected. If tourism is damaged, our economy will obviously suffer. The problem evidently exists, but why can the clubs not tackle it themselves? It is not in their commercial interest to do so. The club has the ability to sensationalise their product through the perpetuated agenda of Sectarianism. No other solution can be implemented by the clubs themselves, because supporters would resent it, decimating the crowds upon which the club’s commercial interest is invested. Mr. Stewart accepted a Point of Information from Mr. Anderson who argued that ‘clear steps have already been taken’, to which he responded that we have seen scores of initiatives but no action. The only effective solution is to terminate the clubs as entities in themselves; uniting divided clubs will help to unite a divided country. It is futile to continually launch half-hearted initiatives that don’t actually achieve anything. (7:26)


Mr. Mark Donaldson was then called to open the case for the opposition. He began by informing the House that he wasn’t quite sure what he was doing as he had only gone out for a Chinese and had then been accosted by Rachael. He then quoted from Bill Shankley’s remark of October 17th, 1967 that ‘Some people believe football is a matter of life and death. I’m very disappointed with that attitude. I can assure you it is much, much more important than that’. Although this quote is not exactly politically correct, it accurately summarises what Celtic and Rangers mean to their fans and consequently, it can be seen that the notion of merging the two teams is preposterous. In the context of Scottish football, Sectarianism is beyond the control of any individual club – it is a much wider issue, rooted in social, cultural, historical and religious circumstances. Nevertheless, both Rangers and Celtic accept that they have a problem with Sectarian violence and admit that a proportion of their supporters have been, and continue to be guilty of perpetuating Sectarianism and cultural intolerance. However, both clubs have already taken measures to combat this. Working alongside the Scottish Parliament, Church groups, schools and community organizations, the Old Firm has clamped down on Sectarian songs, inflammatory flag-waving and troublesome supporters in addition to increasing surveillance and policing. Merging Rangers and Celtic will exacerbate the problems we see currently; imagine the increase in violence when previously rival supporters are forced to sit in close proximity to each other at matches. There are other measures which will actually resolve the problem; FIFA, for example, has threatened to deduct World Cup points and even disqualify any nation if bigotry is evident among supporters in Germany. January 2006 saw the Scottish Executive launch an Action Plan on Tackling Sectarianism in Scotland. Donald Gorrie MSP plans to draft a Bill which would make Sectarian harassment a specific offence. It must be seen that in the context of Scottish football, Sectarianism is beyond the control of any individual club. However, with forthcoming Scottish Executive legislation as well as sanctions from global sporting organisations it will finally be possible to greatly reduce the disease that is Sectarianism. Merging Rangers and Celtic, though, is not the solution. (7:41)


Mr. Jonathan Hardman was then called to the dispatch box to continue the case for the proposition. He began by dispelling what he perceived as a myth; the University of St. Andrews Union Debating Society cannot be the oldest (although he did not try to dispute that it was the finest) of its kind; there is a Papal bull of 1451 which states the founding of the Glasgow University Union. He expressed regret at not having known that Rachael’s previous position on the Board was that of the Chief Whip and wishes he had known this in order to make some more jokes. He also apologised for the fact that the gown he was wearing was in a slight state of disrepair and while he did not wish to mention any names, if any member of the house knew the whereabouts of his own gown that was stolen, he would like it back. He took a moment to reflect upon the possible reason for Rachael inviting him to speak, informing the House that his first assumption had been that she was calling all of the GUU debaters she had slept with. Perhaps remembering that Rachael’s mother and boyfriend were both present at the debate, he then moved swiftly on. He informed the House of the status of his debating partner (Mr. Anderson) as a regular worshipper at the Temple of Ibrox and explained that the poor man was an example of the indoctrination that these clubs use. The whole basis of these clubs is Sectarian and both clubs have conspicuously failed to intervene to stop Sectarian violence being perpetrated by their fans, leading to the negative image that Mr. Vit (presumably Mr. Stewart) previously talked about being perpetuated. The clubs fail to intervene when their fans are obviously exhibiting inflammatory behaviour such as when they run amok and sing songs about fields. Why should the government intervene in this? Because the duty of the Government is to look after its people and in this situation, it has a duty to look after two groups of people; those who are indoctrinated and those who are victims of the violence that results from this indoctrination. The clubs have proved themselves incapable of dealing with problems on their own and merging would greatly benefit them. Scottish football is in a terrible state and it can’t seem to drag itself from the quagmire. In order to do better, clubs and players need to work together and on the Scottish national side, the ability of players of opposing faiths to work together and play good football is impeded by the fact that they are used to being opposed to each other in their usual teams. It is not in the best interests of Scottish football to allow clubs to fight against each other as it has a negative impact on the ability of players to work together, which in turn has a negative impact on the image of Scottish football, which is in already in a dire state, in addition to the negative image of Scotland projected by the behaviour of fans of these clubs. (7:52)


Mr. David Adams was then called to the dispatch box to continue the case for the opposition. He began by welcoming the House to the ‘East Yorkshire takeover of Scottish debating’ before drawing attention to his impartial status, as manifested by his attire (a Rangers scarf). He wished to begin by addressing the nonsense presented by Mr. Hardman and the better nonsense presented by Mr. Stewart through adopting a realistic approach and arguing that Sectarianism, racism and other ‘isms’ would always exist, regardless. The proposition want to address the matter by casting it to the darkness of erasing history, adopting the approach most recently seen in the policies of the Nazis. If someone is too soft skinned to cope with fans from the other team singing songs at them, they shouldn’t go to the game. The immense financial costs of a merger cannot be ignored; there is currently a £300 million turnover (to which the House requested ‘How Much’? twice, due to Mr. Adams being unfamiliar with a debating society which is perhaps the most interactive in addition to the oldest and finest) which we cannot afford to lose, especially with the preponderance of White Elephants such as the Scottish parliament itself which cost £450 million, which is certainly not cheap (contrary to what the members of the House appeared to believe). The reason the teams make money is simply that they exist; this immense turnover will be eliminated if the teams are merged. When Wallace Mercer wanted to buy the bankrupt Hibs, his proposal (despite making sound financial sense) was rejected. Why? Because the fans refused. This illustrates the ingrained ideas of the fans; they will not be won over by the idea of merging the team they feel so strongly about. Mr. Adams asked the House to imagine the scene of thousands of angry Glaswegians; they only had one angry Glaswegian before them now, how could thousands be coped with? Rangers is a club with strong social roots and to cut them off in order to create a quasi- club with no roots is an insult to this heritage and to those who support them. Poverty accounts for a great proportion of the problem; in 2001, 14% of men in Glasgow were unemployed. Racism and Sectarianism is rife in these areas due to the need to find someone to blame; this will not be resolved by merging the two football clubs. The problem needs to be addressed at its roots, not by attempting to merge two football teams that are so dissimilar. There can be no surrender on this issue and the House must oppose. (7:53)


Mr. Douglas Cochran was then called to the dispatch box to conclude the case for the proposition. He began by apologising for not paying much attention to the preceding speeches but he was preoccupied due to the fact that he was in close proximity to three Glaswegians and there was a weapon close to hand. He had been asked to speak as a result of his athletic credentials as the second reserve back-up goalkeeper for the football team. Both sides have acknowledged that Sectarianism within football is an issue that penetrates not only the city of Glasgow, but has repercussions on a national and international scale. The Scottish population has a vested interest in seeing their clubs play internationally and when the image of us being projected to bodies such as UEFA is a situation where fans are rooting for Rangers as Protestants and not Glaswegians, fundamental problems can be seen to exist. When there are attendant third party harms of the actions of supporters, institutions such as the Government and the Scottish Parliament (which, like Stella Artois, is reassuringly expensive) must intervene. The graduated approach presented by the opposition is just not good enough; the international repercussions are falling upon us now. We must weed out incompetence and from what can be seen from Scottish football, there is plenty of that. We have a duty to promote the values that ought to exemplify Scottish football. Sectarianism flourishes due to symbols; if we remove the touchstones of beliefs rooted in violence, we can prevent it from being perpetuated. We need to remove the ninety- minute platform being given to these bigots. The Opposition acknowledge the positive action being taken by merging schools and merging Rangers and Celtic is merely the next logical step. We do need to accept that these clubs have a history but also that they need to change and the only way to achieve this change is to remove the symbols and the atmosphere that is conducive to Sectarian violence. (7:33)


Mr. Richard Anderson was then called to the dispatch box to conclude the case for the opposition and indeed the debate as a whole. He began by congratulating Rachael on her election as Convenor before informing the House that he had not just been asked to speak on this matter as a ‘weegie NED’ who knew about these things, but like Mr. Cochran, he had sporting credentials in the role of the ‘left-back’ (in the changing room) for the football team. He said that the notion of clubs not doing anything to combat sectarianism amongst their fans was fallacious. As a regular attender at Ibrox, he has witnessed leaflets being handed out promoting tolerance of all faiths. When Donald Findlay engaged in ‘karaoke’, he was deemed to have brought the club into disrepute and had to resign, illustrating that clubs are conscious of the need to combat any behaviour that could be interpreted as offensive to other faiths. Glasgow on the whole can be deemed as violent, for example, it has the highest rate of stabbing in the world. However, during the tournament in France 1998, although the football was appalling, Rangers received an award for Fair Play and their fans behaved well. Similarly, Celtic received an award in Spain. Consequently, the bland assertion of the situation as irredeemably dire simply does not hold. The plausibility of everyone uniting behind the new Glasgow United is also absurd; a man is more likely to change his wife than his football team. Mr. Anderson then accepted a Point of Information from Mr. Hardman who asked whether the fans were only actually going to these clubs as a result of Sectarian motivations to which Mr. Anderson replied that they were going because they wished to feel involved in something (presumably not Sectarianism) The Proposition have not taken into account the fact that evil, nasty forces act upon this issue form afar and that doesn’t mean the Vatican. The presence of social factors that influence Sectarian values will not simply disappear by merging the teams. Because the Proposition have meddled with figures with a skill only comparable to that of an Enron executive and have premised their whole case on a false pretence of the real roots of the problem, the House must oppose. (7:54)


The Convenor thanked the speakers and expressed her hope that this debate would be the last time that two external speakers cancelled within as many days! She then opened the debate to the floor with a bottle of port to be awarded to the best speaker.

The Convenor recognised the Serjeant-at-Arms, Mr. Tom Cahn who asked the members of the House to cast their minds back to 1985 when English football was in a terrible state. The one good thing Mrs. Thatcher did in her term was to resolve issues with policing and as a result, hooliganism was eliminated. There are other tough measures that can be taken and will work, for example, the deduction of points. The Proposition are trying to ‘crack a nut with a sledgehammer’. Therefore, he sided with the Opposition. (1.58)


The Convenor recognised the Treasurer, Mr. Chris Hawkins who argued that divisions within Glasgow are not restricted to football as we can see from Glasgow University’s dislike of Strathclyde University who dislike Glasgow because they are jealous. It is not just Sectarianism which causes problems within football; other issues such as racism are present yet there is no call to merge all English teams. We should crack down on the individuals who are causing the problems and not make everyone suffer for the actions of these people. Riots would still take place anyway, just not at the game and we should not deprive people of the fun at the game on a Saturday (before the riot). Therefore, he sided with the Opposition (2.23)


The Convenor recognised Mr. Stuart Smith who asked whether the possibility of hooliganism in Germany this summer meant that we should merge England and Germany? He declared himself to be a supporter of Rangers who has no religious alignment. The Proposition is derogatory due to the fact that they assume the majority of Rangers and Celtic fans to have Sectarian beliefs when this is not the case. Merging these two clubs can only be deemed insane. Therefore, he sided with the Opposition. (2.09)


The Convenor recognised the former Steward to the House, Mr. Rob Rollings who warned the new Convenor and the members of the GUU that ‘sex before marriage leads to Hell after death’ before stating that merging Rangers and Celtic will not lead to a lovey-dovey utopia but will instead lead to more violence and death, which is a good thing. ‘Let’s not be divided by the Pope or whatever the Church of Scotland believe, let the NEDs kill each other’. Therefore, he sided with the Proposition. (1.14)


The Convenor recognised Mr. Will Watson who regaled the House with such charming chants he has had the pleasure of witnessing at football games. His flatmate had declined to attend the debate due to the presence of members of the opposing side to his own being present. Thus, it can be seen that those who hold Sectarian beliefs do not wish to change. Merging the teams will consequently lead to an even bigger fight. Therefore, he sided with the Opposition. (1.06)


The Convenor recognised the DoSDA and former Father of the House, Mr. David Bean who informed the House that although he has not attended a football game, if he did and the team across the pitch were singing nasty songs, he wouldn’t think it was very nice. People who sing these songs are not very nice and there are lots of these not very nice people around, the problem being that they all choose to attend football games. Mr. Bean did not wish to draw any correlation between being a football fan and being an idiot, but he mentioned it to the House so they could work it out for themselves. He attended Dundee High School, which although not a place for ‘backstreet kids’, left him with a quantity of bruises which seemed to increase around World Cup time, due to the fact that the Scots do not like the English, or indeed people who sound like Mr. Bean regardless of where he is actually from. Mr. Bean therefore offered a counter proposal which involved not merging the clubs, but rolling them over, adding wickets and turning them into cricket clubs, allowing the fans to partake in the ‘real beautiful game’. With that, he begged to hit a six and abstained. (3:36)


The Convenor recognized Mr. Jason Vit who highlighted the fact that this was an issue which caused feelings to run high but he would be making his speech as a ‘pure Catholic boy’ to which Mr. David Adams shouted ‘You’re pure mental’. Mr. Vit continued nevertheless by exploring the idea of ‘isms’. Sexism made him hate men because they are weak. Ageism made him hate people younger and as a result of alcoholism, he had woken up in third year with essays to do. He went on to outline some fundamental issues with merging the teams, in terms of naming them for example; the two he had come up with and wished to share with the house being ‘Anger Celtic’ and ‘Clitgers’. He has also been disturbed (as many members of the House perhaps were by the possible name of the new team) by the number of advertisements for joining the infantry and expressed the view that current Rangers and Celtic supporters would be ideal candidates due to the fact that they already have basic training in how to use weapons. On a more serious note, he argued that football gives sectarianism an acceptable face and there are already more things to hate and beat people up for. Although there is a problem, the Proposition does not solve it. Therefore, he sided with the Opposition. (4.07)


The Convenor expressed relief that this was probably the last debate her mother would be present at.

The Convenor then recognised Miss Connie Grieve, the Inter’Varsity Secretary who asked the House to consider the feelings of the fans in the stadium if the teams were merged. What would Rangers’ fans feel about a former Celtic player on the pitch? Supporters would still have to be segregated due to the fact that if they sat next to each other, it would be easier to hit the previously rival fan with a crowbar. Merging the teams will not remove problems between the fans and will actually make the situation worse for the players on the pitch. Therefore, she sided with the Opposition. (1.48)

The Convenor then called a division and votes were cast as follows: votes for the Proposition, 4; votes for the Opposition, 59; Abstentions, 6. Therefore, the motion fell.

The Convenor then expressed great pleasure at moving on to the issue of Father of the House. We have seen a great and joyous service from Mr. David Bean and she had great pleasure in announcing that the new Father of the House will be Mr. John Stewart until the summer.

The prize for the best floor speech was awarded to Mr. Will Watson whose remark about the chants of football fans had reminded the Convenor what it was like to sit on the terraces at a recent game of Hull City and Leeds.

The Steward to the House, Miss Jassel Majevadia, announced the forthcoming Magistrands’ debate and dinner, which will take place on Wednesday 3rd May with the dinner at the Jahangir costing £15 (which is very cheap in response to the question of the House).

The Inter’Varsity Secretary, miss Connie Grieve announced that the trials for the Balaka competition will take place on Wednesday 19th. Anyone wishing to try out for the World Championships taking place in Vancouver in December should email Connie with their examination timetable.

The next event will be a ‘meet the board’ social event on Wednesday 19th in the back room of the Gin House.

Finally, the Serjeant-at-Arms called the House to rise and led the singing of the Gaudeamus as it adjourned.


Miss Beth Conner

The Clerk to the House

THESE WILL BE ON THE OLD WEBSITE AS WELL IN THE NEXT FEW DAYS.

[David Bean]

Sad to see you've changed your name to Jessica, Beth - could get a little confusing! - but as far as the minutes are concerned, jolly good show! Not only have you got what everyone said down pat, but your commentary is witty and insightful. I find it easiest to refer to what you did with what I said, because I can remember it best, but I have to say that not only did you get the sense of it all down perfectly, but you put most of it much better than I did.

All in all, a highly auspicious start to what should be a splendid Clerkship! Congratulations, and well done.

[hr]

Psalm 91:7

[Guest]

Minutes from the Balaka.... if anyone knows the name of Mr. Rouf's business partner, please let me know and I'll add his name to the list of judges. Thanks!

The Balaka Competition


The University of St. Andrews Union Debating Society last met on Sunday 23rd April, in the Year of Our Lord 2006. The motion before the House was ‘This House believes that aid to Third World countries should be in the form of education above all else'. Miss Laura Wilson was in the chair and began by welcoming the members of the House to the oldest and finest society of its kind, and the twelfth annual Balaka competition. She then called upon the Clerk to the House, Miss Beth Conner, to read the minutes of the last debate. Miss Kirsty Russell swiftly rose on a Point of Order, requesting that the minutes to be taken as read due to the fact that many prestigious guests were in attendance, and it would be unfair to bore them with the usual drivel spouted in Lower Parliament Hall. Miss Elizabeth Fletcher, a judge for the competition and a former Convenor, rose on a counter point to inform the House that it was many years since she had been to a debate in St. Andrews and she would consequently like to hear the minutes of the previous debate in full. Mr. Justin Kitzen, another former Convenor seconded her on this. The resounding cry of ‘nay’ to the minutes being taken as read coupled with the pleas of the former Convenors still did not convince Miss Laura Wilson, who was compelled to so consult the acting Serjeant-at-Arms, Mr. Aaron Laycook, who perceptively informed her that the Clerk did not actually appear to have the minutes of the last debate. Ignoring the mutterings of ‘resign’ for somewhat obvious reasons, the (ex) Convenor proclaimed that the minutes were to be taken as read. She then proceeded to congratulate the finalists and introduced the Mr John Stewart, Mr Justin Kitzen, Miss Elizabeth Fletcher, Dr. Mahmoud, Mr. Pat Chapman and Miss Jenni Harrison.

Without further ado, Mr. Gavin Illsley was called to the dispatch box to open the case for the Proposition. He began by outlining the gravity of the situation we currently face with regard to education. Many children are suffering from an absolute lack of education and as a result, a whole generation remains illiterate, innumerate and ‘all the rest of it’. Mr. Illsley informed the House that this unfortunate state of affairs extends beyond Dundee, and as such, it is the duty of the Global community to resolve it. Unfortunately, UNESCO has estimated that it would take until 2100 for the £8 billion that Gordon Brown has promised to have any significant impact on education provision in Third World countries. Consequently, we are falling grossly short in terms of our duty to assist education through aid. By designating education as a priority when we give aid to Third World countries, we can actually instigate change in other fundamental areas of need, such as health, by creating an increased and educated culture of awareness. By giving individuals the capacity to read, we create a more effective way of disseminating vital information. It must be acknowledged that far from being an isolated issue, illiteracy causes harm in other areas, such as the lack of awareness of basic health issues. As such, illiteracy needs to be tackled if we want to have a positive impact on awareness with regard to immense areas of concern such as AIDS. Economic and social gains that result from education engender fundamental benefits for individuals through the greatly augmented degree of freedom enshrined within the knowledge it provides, particularly for women who are currently deprived to a greater extent than men from education. This will have a positive impact on women through allowing them access to the job market on a more equal footing, conferring benefit to them as individuals in addition to assisting them in maximising the interests of their whole family. It is in the interests of families to allow their children to engage in education because it maximises their opportunity for social and economic gain. Education is also an immensely worthwhile apparatus in terms of political engagement. For example, if the vast majority of a country’s population cannot even read, how can they be expected to hold a corrupt government to account? (Unfortunately, due to the simultaneous malfunction of the Clerk and the stopwatch, timing was somewhat awry and Mr. Illsley was approximately one minute over time.)


Mr. Niall Kennedy was then called to the dispatch box to open the case for the Opposition. He began by lamenting that across the table from him was an individual from Oxford who had clearly squandered the fine education offered to him. Mr. Kennedy reflected that the mechanism laid out by the Proposition is inherently problematic, due to the fact that it does not accurately take into account the priorities of the Third World. The modes of work needed by these countries are not necessarily aligned to the type of education the Proposition perceive to be essential. Not only is the mode of education offered not always applicable to the areas of need the Proposition have designated, but it is also offered at the expense of other, more pressing issues. The problem of certain areas lacking clean and safe drinking water is not only a more pressing concern, but it is also much easier and cheaper to solve. People cannot function without basic necessities such as this, and issues such as a lack of clean water and health issues that impinge upon a basic quality of life in the Third World must be prioritised when designating aid. People do need a better understanding of these issues and it is a good thing to offer more people the chance to become literate, but we must acknowledge that in the Third World, there are other, more important priorities, especially in terms of economic development. Third World countries already have the capacity to compete well in terms of the textile industry, but many people are inhibited from engaging in this, due to the fact that they cannot acquire the start-up capital. The correct road to development involves initially addressing basic priorities such as health, and then giving people the capacity to engage with already established industries, by giving them the capital to set up businesses. Even if we create countless primary schools, there is no real economic benefit conferred upon individuals and no greater capacity for sustainability. We must understand the nature of industry and economy in the Third World and take appropriate measures to allow individuals to benefit from this. Education is an important issue, but when giving aid to the Third World, our first priority should be health and our second should be increasing economic growth and prosperity. For these reasons, Mr. Kennedy was proud to stand in Opposition. (7.21)


Mr. Douglas Cochran was then called to the dispatch box to continue the case for the Proposition. He began by highlighting the fact that education is a political catalyst and can empower the Third World in terms of political engagement. Additionally, education can be mobilised to assist development in areas of need. Education allows individuals to take charge and to gain greater awareness of health issues; for example, it is greatly beneficial to give an individual the capacity to read a leaflet about AIDS when this information may be the only information readily available to them. In political terms, the complexities of a nascent democracy must be understood. Individuals must be given the power to steer politics to their own preference and the only way to do this is through increased awareness and education. Mr. Cochran accepted a Point of Information from Mr. Macdonald who asked why such awareness could not be gained from listening to the World Service, for example, to which Mr. Cochran responded that education is a more beneficial alternative, due to the fact that it is less susceptible to manipulation. Education empowers individuals to hold their government to account and this capacity can be greatly beneficial in other important areas. Education is an immensely productive catalyst for change and it is worthwhile to use target aid into this area, as opposed to the current situation where some aspects of aid are shaky and aid is being wasted without much tangible impact on change or development. Mr. Vit offered a Point of Information to illustrate that the Proposition would have to then exempt education from the situation whereby aid is refused to dictatorial regimes. Mr. Cochran developed his conception of the political benefits education transmits through the notion that the degree of engagement and accountability needed to instigate change and affirm democracy can only be engendered through education, and as such, there is a duty to target aid to this area. In terms of business in the Third World, educating a workforce transmits basic skills that will benefit them in any area of their work and simultaneously acts as a compelling incentive for private foreign investors to give fledgling businesses support. Once a business is built and becomes successful, it affects not only the individual, but also the whole community and is a greatly beneficial asset which education plays a crucial role in shaping. For these reasons, the House must propose. (7.16)


Mr. Ewan Macdonald was then called to the dispatch box to continue the case for the Opposition. He began by acknowledging that the issue of awareness is fundamental, but the information needed to foster greater awareness of important issues exists in an already accessible forum through the World Service. In response to Mr. Adams’ Point of Information asking how this was possible if individuals could not understand English, Mr. Macdonald highlighted the fact that they could listen to it in their own language, removing the need to educate them to speak English because vital information already exists in a medium that they can readily understand. With regard to the capacity to read being beneficial regarding health concerns, Mr. Macdonald perceived that leaflets do not actually give people the level of understanding they would need for any significant, positive impact on health to be effected. With regard to economic concerns, the fundamental problem with development is that the burden remains passed on to younger generations, meaning that they cannot be educated, due to the detrimental impact on the month’s income when a child is taken away from their family. With regard to nascent businesses, the Proposition are naïvely hoping that a myriad of benefits will be instantly attainable, solely due to education, but this assertion simply does not stand. It is also naïve to assume that we can just ‘fling money randomly’ to the Third World and hope that it will have a positive impact on education in the future, as opposed to addressing the more threatening problems that are presently facing the Third World. There are issues with regard to the Third World that are pressing and immediate concerns, and providing education should not supersede our obligation to provide basic necessities such as clean and safe drinking water. We must refer to all of the other goals of the Millennium Commission and fulfil fundamental obligations such as providing drugs that will enable people to live and work for longer, in addition to resolving crucial issues relating to poverty identified by the UN. The Proposition have not sufficiently fulfilled their burden in demonstrating why education in the Third World needs to be addressed before these other critical concerns and the House must oppose. (7.09)


Mr. David Adams was then called to the dispatch box to conclude the case for the Proposition. He stated that the debate so far had been great, but now he and Jason had to finish, and everyone fears Jason’s finish. He began his case by referring to the notion that if you give a man a fish, you can feed him for a day, but if you teach him how to fish, he can feed his family for a lifetime. Individuals must be given the capacity to engage in benefits that can be sustained in the long term. Giving them the ability to produce more food confers greater, lasting benefits on them and their families. Fundamental problems are facing the Third World that can be readily alleviated through the medium of education. The hold ideological incarnations of religion wield over individuals’ minds could be eradicated by educating people and consequently releasing them from repressive religious dogma through creating greater awareness and a greater capacity to express themselves in a way that benefits them. Education will also provide vital opportunities for women in the Third World. As the centre of the family unit, women would elicit great benefit from education through the increased capacity it gives them to provide for their families. Women are more likely to provide and care for their families than men (in response to a Point of Information asking for proof of this statement, Mr. Adams felt that it was a relatively objective truth with regard to the Third World) and they should be given the opportunity to learn how to maximise the interests and safety of their family. We also have a duty to help eliminate the stereotypes and social constraints that currently prevent women from engaging in education on a level playing field with men. In terms of economic development, the whole Proposition side has demonstrated that an educated economy is a richer economy, with greater sustainability and consequently, greater benefits for individuals. A democracy in the true sense needs education to prevent people buying into the nonsense, spin and lies that are detrimental to them. Education allows individuals to develop a questioning mind and make informed choices and we have a duty to target aid to allow individuals in the Third World to benefit from it. (7.31)


Mr. Jason Vit was then called to the dispatch box to conclude the case fro the Opposition and indeed the debate as a whole. He began by asking the basic question that he perceived to be at the core of the debate: ‘Why do we need to have this particular debate in the first place? The reason lies in the fact that we can only deploy finite resources and must use these resources to invoke the best consequences. We cannot condemn those who are suffering now due to a lack of basic necessities, but must instead use the resources we have to alleviate this suffering. People on a subsistence level cannot spare their children to be educated due to the fact that the children are needed to help grow the crops today, that will stop the family from starving to death tomorrow. Knowledge alone in some cases is not sufficient; the fact that individuals know that the water they have to drink is dirty and diseased, does not confer any great benefit upon them. In response to a Point of Information from Mr. Illsley, who asked how the Opposition felt about people who did not know that AIDS existed, Mr. Vit responded by informing him that the largest single killer in Africa last year was diarrhoea caused by diseased water supplies. Knowledge also requires facility; you can teach a man to fish, but you must also provide him with a rod and a hook. The Proposition have also conceded that this great catalyst for change will not even be given to countries who have no democracy, indicating that not only has their proposal failed to deal with any immediate ills, but it has not even solved the problems they perceived it would in the future. Just because someone can grow 33% more food, it doesn’t mean that they can create vital antibiotics for their children. Due to our finite resources in terms of aid, we can teach more people to be literate, but only at the cost of denying them Food Aid and the Proposition have not demonstrated how this is remotely justified. Until the Proposition can show that more aid will be given to allow us to effect change in areas of greater need before we consider addressing other issues such as education, the decision with regard to where aid should be designated is simple, and the House must vote with the Opposition. (7.23)


Miss Laura Wilson then thanked the speakers and asked the Serjeant-at-Arms to call the House to rise for the judges to retire, before opening the debate to the floor.

The Convenor recognised Mr. David Bean who began by remarking (without irony) on the status of the society as a forum for the finest young minds in the world to come together to discuss important issues. He expressed concern that some crucial issues were missing from the debate tonight. Enterprise can indeed be seen as a good thing but this good cannot come to fruition unless there is someone to sell the finished product to. We have denied the Third World access to our markets and neither side have acknowledged this fundamental issue. In some areas, endemic corruption means that it is virtually impossible to set up a business, no matter how much capital an individual has. How can we address this issue when we have a political culture that prohibits them accessing our markets and within the country itself, it is complex to set up a business in the first place. Education is a universal necessity but we must realise when designating aid, that education is a priority but it is by no means the only, or overriding one. Therefore, he sided with the Opposition. (3.56)


The Convenor recognised Mr. Bryn Williams who argued that women are put into the situation that has been discussed during the debate, before they are born. Education cannot help women in the way the Proposition believe it can, due to the fact that their future has already been decided, This does not mean that we should not try to help them, but education will not be the means of enacting the drastic change the Proposition have referred to. Therefore, he sided with the Opposition (1.29)

The Convenor recognised Mr. Steve Haraldsen, who thanked Connie for organising an excellent competition before informing the House that he would talk about what he always talked about: alcohol. He informed the house that water can be boiled before throwing in hops and yeast before asking ‘what do we get’ (not as a member of the House suggested ‘you’), but beer. We can boil water and make beer instead of building a well, leaving us more money to plough into education. Therefore, he sided with the Proposition. (1.21)

The Convenor recognised Brafus who expressed his delight to be speaking in a town where there are more Americans than anywhere else. Even if money is ploughed into education, there is still no way to ensure that it is being spent well. A stable state is also needed before spending money on Schools is worthwhile, on the grounds that education cannot be built in anarchy. The idea that education will render all equal is simply not plausible and fundamental disparities and inequalities in many areas will not simply be erased by education. The same problems will be perpetuated and cannot be addressed merely by teaching people how to read. Therefore, he sided with the Opposition. (2.24)

The Convenor recognised Miss Alex Jennings who acknowledged that she was not much of a feminist, but agreed that education was greatly beneficial in beginning to tackle sexism and giving women an elevated status in the community. She was disturbed by the fact that although some situations constantly change radically, with regard to Africa, the same issues are debated over and over again. Resources are not being used as well as they could be and while education is not the only issue, it is an important first step. Therefore, she sided with the Proposition. (2.39)

The Convenor recognised Mr. Rob Rollings who expressed his anger about the fact that billions of pounds are constantly ploughed into the Third World, but with no positive consequences. Amnesty designates the subjugation of women as one of the greatest crimes against humanity, but how can this be redressed when simultaneously, children are dying of starvation. This is not a problem, it is a Holocaust. What is the solution? Maybe there isn’t one. People are suffering and dying and we do nothing, maybe not even giving a couple of pounds to Oxfam to help. It is a disgrace to continually debate these issues when no action is taken to stop people dying. Therefore, he abstained. (2.19)

The Convenor recognised Mr. Charlie Beard who argued that much of the debate had centred upon the First world and not the Third. Nothing has been done about providing vital drugs, such as anti-retro viral drugs that will actually have an impact on the health of people in the Third World and in the First World we remain ignorant and need to be educated to attain greater awareness ourselves. Therefore, he sided with the Opposition. (1.25)

The Convenor recognised Miss Rachael Whitbread who informed the House that her Uncle had run a marathon (not the metaphorical one Connie has completed) for charity, before outlining the fact that it costs only £10 to solve medical conditions such as eye problems. There are many conditions that no amount of education will solve and it is pointless to try to teach a child to read when they cannot even see. While education is important, other issues need to be addressed first. Therefore, she sided with the Opposition (1.40)

The Convenor recognised Miss Shazia Alam who expressed concern that a major reason for educating people in the Third World had been ignored. The lack of provision for education in the Third World often forces parents to send their children to radical schools where hate of the West is continually preached. America is spending billions of pounds to fight terrorism, but is doing nothing to address the root causes of the problem. Educating people means that they cannot be easily exploited by fanatics. Therefore, she sided with the Proposition (1.38)

The Convenor recognised Mr. Will Watson who stated that Mr. Vit was correct, but not accurate, in describing the greatest killer in Africa. People are actually killed as a result of dehydration, not diarrhoea. He was unsure what the motion was having missed most of the debate and admitted that he would have to adapt his speech slightly when he was informed of the motion. He asked whether the House thought it would be more prudent for him to administer CPR if he saw someone collapsed on the street or to give them counselling. We cannot focus on one issue at the expense of other, more pressing ones. Therefore, he sided with the Opposition. (1.45)

The Convenor recognised Mr. Alistair Derek who asked how we had the capacity to actually debate this issue. We are able to do so because we are educated. If a man cannot fish because he doesn’t have a hook, we can teach others to make hooks. Education can have a positive impact upon other areas of need. Therefore, he sided with the Proposition (1.09)

The Convenor recognised Miss Lauren Pringle who stated that cases have occurred where UNESCO has ploughed funds into a country only to see these valuable funds ‘disappear’, with no tangible benefit to the people. Before we put finite resources into a country through the means of education, we must ensure that the funds are actually being used appropriately and this cannot always be guaranteed. Therefore, she sided with the Opposition. (1.52)

The Convenor recognised Miss Jassel Majevadia who argued that there are places where people have no money themselves, but aid is provided. In places like these, children are forced to go to work and education goes amiss. It is these poverty stricken areas where education is fundamentally important to enact change. There are places like Bangladesh where aid is given, but the next step forward in the form of education is still necessary. Therefore, she sided with the Proposition. (1.59)

The Convenor recognised Mr. Chris Hawkins who referred to a country (he couldn’t remember which one, but it was small) which took the few hundred brightest children and allowed them to be educated in the West, benefiting them and the community they went back to because they had gained a degree, but also knew how best to help the country through being aware of the situation on the ground. Education is the only way to create wealth and consequently benefit individuals. Therefore, he sided with the Proposition.

The Convenor then called a division and votes were cast as follows: votes for the Proposition, 15; votes for the Opposition, 36, abstentions, 12. Therefore, the motion fell.

The Convenor announced the winners of the floor prizes as Miss Shazia Alam and Brafus.

The Convenor then announced that this would be the last time she would ever, ever convene a debate and wished to offer votes of thanks. Firstly, to Mr. Ben Reilly for editing the booklet at the last minute, secondly to Miss Connie Grieve for taking all of this on, and finally to Miss Rachael Whitbread who is taking over the reins and will be a wonderful Convenor.

Miss Connie Grieve then offered her thanks to everyone who had contributed to the smooth running of the competition. She particularly wished to thank the judges of the final who had a hard decision to make, particularly thanking Jenni Harrison for judging round all day in addition to the final. The old and new Boards of Ten had provided invaluable support to the competition and it couldn’t have run without them. Connie offered her thanks most of all to Mr. Rouf, without whom the competition couldn’t even get off the ground, and to his staff for their help with hospitality. Entering her second term as Inter’Varsity Secretary, Connie is looking forward to running the Balaka competition next year, and she concluded her remarks by stating her hope that next year’s competition would be just as successful.

The Convenor then invited Miss Elizabeth Fletcher to make some general remarks on the debate. Miss Fletcher thanked Laura, the society and Mr. Rouf for inviting her back to judge. She was gratified to see that the society had in no way improved since she left it, although the content of the debate had improved greatly since her day. She had one main comment to make on the quality of the debate with regard to style. The pace of delivery of the speeches seemed rushed at times but the debate was nevertheless enjoyable and she congratulated the participants on a wonderful debate.

The Convenor then invited Mr. Justin Kitzen to make some general remarks on the debate. Mr. Kitzen was delighted to be in Lower Parliament Hall again and he thanked Mr. Rouf for the opportunity. It was during Mr. Kitzen’s term that the Balaka competition was held for the first time and it is a great asset to the society, with a very boozy reception, a marvellous dinner and high quality speaking. Mr. Kitzen wished to comment on two main issues regarding the debate: substance and style. He remarked on the importance of a strong definition from first Proposition and the fact that the Proposition must provide the opposition with some substance to attack. To sniggers from some members of the House, Mr. Kitzen commented on the ‘thrusty’ nature of the debate with a great deal of engagement from both sides creating a ‘to and fro’ quality. He was disturbed to hear that some speakers had incorporated information from the economist into their speeches due to the fact that in his day, the whole idea was to make up the facts and present them in such a manner that no one was any the wiser. In terms of style, Inter’Varsity debating has become more American and has unfortunately lost something of the ability to engage an audience. It is not prudent to tear quickly through facts, but instead, the speech should be delivered at a slower pace to maintain the interest of the audience and he hoped that debating would eventually return to a more engaging style as opposed to simply rattling off facts. Nevertheless, he had enjoyed the evening and thanked Laura and Mr. Rouf for inviting him, before congratulating the finalists and bringing his remarks to a close.

The Convenor then invited Dr. Mahmoud to comment on the debate. Dr. Mahmoud thanked the society for the opportunity of attending such a wonderful debate, which was excellent not only in terms of the subject matter, but also the way the speakers presented it. The debate was very convincing and interesting and he found himself continually shifting his alignment from one side to the other as the debate progressed. Dr. Mahmoud remarked on the fact that coming from a country such as the ones discussed, he knew first hand how important education is in these areas. For example, if individuals such as Mr. Rouf did not have the opportunity to be educated, it is likely that Mr. Rouf would not be as successful as he is today. Dr. Mahmoud once again expressed his gratitude to Mr. Rouf and the society for inviting him, and wished the House all the best for the future.

The Convenor then informed the House that ‘the bit we’ve all been waiting for’ had arrived and invited the presiding judge, Mr. Pat Chapman, to declare the winner.

Mr. Chapman had greatly enjoyed the debate and commented on the talent of all the speakers in the final. He decided to keep the House in suspense for a little longer while he made some general remarks on the evening. He expressed concern that Mr. Kitzen had criticised some speakers for using the Economist, although he had to concede that when reading economics at Cambridge, his tutor informed him that if he wanted a degree, he would be better advised to ignore it. Mr. Chapman established the Curry Club, which started as a cupboard industry before growing to a cottage industry and then a much larger one. He met Mr. Rouf through this work and awarded the Balaka restaurant the accolade of the best curry restaurant in Scotland. Mr. Rouf came to Dundee many years ago and although he is now successful and powerful, he used to have to struggle to scrape by. Now that he has the capacity to, he puts a great deal of money into Bangladesh. Sponsoring a student at Mr. Rouf’s school in Bangladesh costs only £15 a month, ‘the same as BT Internet’ and Mr. Chapman urged members of the House to give this small amount, because education in a country like Bangladesh should most definitely be supported. Mr. Chapman then commented on the importance of the Balaka to students in St Andrews, giving the example of a student who justified the expenditure on the Balaka on his credit card statement by telling his parents that it was the largest library in St. Andrews. Mr. Chapman found the debate this evening immensely enjoyable and of a high quality. It is no great pleasure to eliminate people, but after considerable discussion, Mr. Chapman could now reveal the placings starting from third place (apparently like Miss World) with David Adams from the Glasgow University Union in third place, Jason Vit from St. Andrews in second place, and Neil Kennedy from the Glasgow University Union as the winner of the Balaka competition 2006.

The Convenor then invited Mr. Rouf to make some concluding remarks and votes of thanks.

Mr. Rouf informed the House that with regard to the issues discussed this evening, today is the most important day, not tomorrow. Mr. Rouf has witnessed first hand the nature of the situation in countries such as those discussed tonight and although some aid does go to Bangladesh for example, only those who can afford to can get a good education. These are pressing issues which it is important for us all to discuss. The Balaka competition is now in its twelfth year of existence and it has been a great pleasure to invite back some former Convenors to judge this year’s competition. Mr. Justin Kitzen, a very successful Convenor was in Shanghai until very recently and Mr. Rouf was very grateful that he could attend this evening. Miss Elizabeth Fletcher was also a wonderful Convenor who despite being busy in her job as a solicitor, found the time to attend for which Mr. Rouf again expressed his gratitude. Mr John Stewart, former Chief Whip and current Father of the House has been an excellent DCA and Jenni Harrison from Dundee University has done an excellent job of judging all day in addition to judging the final. Mr. Rouf also thanked his friend and business partner who was in Spain for a business meeting last night, but still managed to attend. Dr. Mahmoud, who is very successful and busy in marketing, also managed to find the time to join the judging panel for which Mr. Rouf thanked him. Mr. Pat Chapman, the presiding judge had been asked four years ago by Mr. Rouf to judge the Balaka competition and has done an excellent job. Mr. Chapman is usually paid huge sums of money and Mr. Rouf was especially grateful to him for attending the debate without asking for a penny. The Balaka competition is the only one of its kind in Scotland and it is an immense task to organise. It is always organised by the outgoing Board of Ten and although the ‘boys and girls think Mr. Rouf is very demanding’, they like him too and it is always a pleasure for Mr. Rouf to work with them. He is especially grateful for their patience when he telephones them at midnight to arrange aspects of the competition. Mr. Ben Reilly was an invaluable help with editing mistakes in the booklet at the last minute. Miss Jassel Majevadia, the head of the hospitality committee, has worked very hard over the past few days and deserves thanks. The former Father of the House, Mr. David Bean, has been involved with the Balaka for five years and has contributed enormously over this time, for which Mr. Rouf thanked him and asked the House to applaud his efforts. Miss Laura Wilson has been an excellent Convenor and Mr. Rouf thanked her and the former Board of Ten. He then welcomed the new Board of Ten and the new Convenor, Miss Rachael Whitbread, who is dynamic and promising in this role. There have not been many years without the presence of a lady speaker at the table, but the gentlemen speaking tonight have done an excellent job and Mr. Rouf thanked them once again. He then expressed his gratitude to the whole House once more, before bringing his remarks to a close.


Finally, the Serjeant-at-Arms called the House to rise and led the singing of the Gaudeamus as it adjourned.


Miss Beth Conner

The Clerk to the House

[Steveo]

My word, I'm glad I'm not Clerk.

Too much work for my tastes.

Well done that woman.

[hr]

Set your goals way too high so I can laugh when you fail.

[Eliot Wilson]

Kitson, though. Kitson. Or Kitten, if you held him in a certain degree of affection.

I reject utterly the idea that Miss Fletcher thinks standards have improved since she was Convenor. She is, of course, forgetting all of my speeches as Chairman of Ways and Means.

[hr]

Bill and Ted beat the Grim Reaper at Twister

Bill: "You played very well, Death, especially with your totally heavy Death robes."

Death: "Don't patronise me."