Wednesday 7 November saw 370 students meet in George Square Lecture Theatre for Edinburgh University Student Association’s (EUSA) Annual General Meeting.

The unusually high turnout made it possible for the first time in years for motions to be passed. It was particularly the ethical issues that generated a sharp influx of student voters.

Josh MacAlister, President of EUSA, told The Journal: "It was great to see a good turnout and it clearly demonstrates that students engaged with the issues.

“The Students' Association will be taking action on the policy passed over the coming months.

“However, it should be remembered that what happens outside of these meetings is what really makes the difference."

EUSA will lobby the university to make Accommodation Services more environmentally friendly by pressuring them to employ an Environment and Sustainability manager with a view to accomplishing a positive outcome.

However, some of the other areas that EUSA intend to work on, that elicited the greatest student support, could prove to be exceptionally challenging.

A motion was passed proposing that EUSA should pressure the university into using the threat of their £9 million investment in the Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) to induce the bank to halt their investment in new fossil fuel exploration. The motion purposes that RBS should instead be encouraged to endorse new renewable technologies.

The motion stated that if this not achieved by the 2009 AGM, the university should sell their shares in RBS.

Furthermore, the issue of Edinburgh’s complicity in indirectly financing the Burmese regime was raised at the AGM, with a motion passed to pressure the university to completely disinvest from TOTAL.

According to Burma Campaign UK, TOTAL provides the major European funding of the Burmese government.

EUSA have a good relationship with the university, and will be working with them to explore how the desired results can be realised.

However, these proposals are fundamentally the direct domain of the university. They encompass a complexity of issues and infer broad implications. For the university to explicitly accuse RBS and TOTAL of unethical behaviour by means of disinvestment is a huge step in itself."

The university would also have to consider the vast financial consequences of the proposed change in policy.

Mr MacAlister told The Journal: “It is up to the student body to make a judgement on whether these motions are achievable and relevant.

EUSA has put real emphasis on local issues that can be changed with tangible results. Other, broader ethical concerns have been a direct result of changing student concerns

Mr MacAlister said: “Students are ultimately in charge of EUSA and it is encouraging to see that they want to add this to this agenda.”

Anna Davidson, Vice President for Academic Affairs (VPAA) of EUSA, highlighted the dangers of lobbying for issues that would not achieve the desired results. She urged voters not to support the motion of creating an Ethical Oversight Committee for the College of Science and Engineering.

Ms Davidson said: “I am not against the emotions or the reasoning behind the motion. But I don’t think we will actually achieve what we want to do.”

Ms Davidson stated that an Ethical Oversight Committee already exists. The motion if put into practise by the university would examine ethical conduct rather than the desired inspection into the ethical applications of research.

She suggested that a more constructive approach would be to hold an open meeting to discuss how to accomplish greater scrutiny of the application of research.

The motion failed to pass.