How to Improve the Student Motion System at EUSA
There is currently a lack of engagement with the student motion system (SMS) at the
University of Edinburgh, both in terms of proposing motions and voting on them. We suggest that
through increasing student participation our proposals will improve the democratic legitimacy of the SMS and mean the SMS is better suited to achieving policy outcomes that benefit the
student population at large.
Published
2021
University of Edinburgh
Authors
Mairi Bruce
Jade Taylor
Sammy McKinney
Jenny Jarrett
Rosie Willis
Executive Summary
There is currently a lack of engagement with the student motion system (SMS) at the
University of Edinburgh, both in terms of proposing motions and voting on them. This lack of
engagement was displayed in our survey, which found that 75% of student participants did
not know how the SMS works.
In brief, the SMS operates in the following way. A motion is proposed by a student to induce a
response by EUSA, such as lobby the university or initiate a campaign. When a student
proposes a motion, it is discussed and voted on at the student council – composed of EUSA
officers and student reps, as well as the general student population who wish to attend.
Motions with 67% or more support at the student council are passed.
This report recommends five policy proposals to address the limited engagement of the student
body with this system.
Firstly, EUSA must employ a more effective marketing scheme for their system.
Secondly, the language surrounding the SMS must be changed to make the process
more accessible to students.
Thirdly, EUSA must ensure that all students wishing to propose a motion are provided
mentorship by a member of staff to ensure the SMS is equally and easily accessible
throughout the student body.
Fourthly, improved feedback mechanisms from participants who were involved with
the SMS need to be instilled so that the system can be continually honed to meet the
needs of students.
Lastly, the EUSA website formatting must be improved to ensure information about the
SMS is easily accessible.
Moreover, this paper proposes that in the long run EUSA must consider establishing a
randomly selected jury of students to be decision-makers on policy. Overall, we suggest that
through increasing student participation our proposals will improve the democratic legitimacy
of the SMS and mean the SMS is better suited to achieving policy outcomes that benefit the
student population at large.