Just a relative quickie, or shortie, this time from me. I had been so buried in my work the last couple of weeks I had been unable to get to my Online Firm, and only managed this morning to bring my head up from the title deeds long enough to read it (actually the trigger was co-blogger Mike Dailly’s post on Facebook linking to HIS latest Firm blog) and I see that a growing number of players are putting in their opinions through the pages of the Firm, including by implication Mike Scanlan, sadly by his resignation as President of SLAS. Don’t know if that was a palace coup or a mutual parting of the ways, but it can’t have been Mike S’s preference in his heart.

The arguments go back and forth, neatly summarised in Mike D’s said blog. My position is well-known. I am pro-choice, and if people want to set up ABS’s, then as long as the public is protected it is, relatively speaking, a free country. I personally am overwhelmingly likely to stay in my current configuration, as I suspect the overwhelming majority of colleagues and rivals will, and, just like when licensed conveyancers came along (and then left with the appropriate whimper) and advertising came in, it will not be the end of the world. Indeed even the move from quill pen to manual typewriter worked itself through without too many tragedies. My intention is to continue to build the quality and efficiency of my firm, which ironically does not have me utilising solicitor skills but skills from other disciplines – accountancy, commerce, retail, investment. No firm is an island.

To personalise one thing – Mike is vociferous in his condemnation of being beholden to external capital investors. The Govan Law Centre remains a shining beacon of legal independence in spite of receiving public funding – there is no more implacable yet fair opponent of, say, local authority where it is warranted than Mike and his esteemed crew, so if he can bite the hand that feeds him, why are we all such dolts that we could not?

But why I am on today - is to celebrate. I have never in my 30 years in this game known such engagement and such vigorous debate in the profession. And whilst one and another are calling a spade a spade, so far the debate has been conducted mainly in a high tone and a constructive spirit. Yes there have been some personalisations, but fair enough - the issues are worthy of passion and even some heat.

Sadly, for me at least, the debate brings risks. I am speaking of the coming election for the Council membership in the Glasgow and Strathkelvin sheriffdom. I am seeking re-election having come on to the Council in a (very rare) contested by-election, though an election with but one opponent and the kind of turnout that would disgrace North Korea. I was subsequently returned unopposed when the time came. But now, with the “Scotland for Justice Cos You Lot Cannae Be Trusted and Are Making An Arse Of It” grouping, I could very well be hoisted out of office by the democratic will of the constituency. I would have no complaint, the profession in my midden will have spoken. Indeed I kind of get the feeling that my opponents are better organised than I and will get their vote out in numbers.

Not that I am whining or getting my excuses in first. Christ alone knows where I get the time to go to Council and other Law Society of Scotland events and duties to make my contribution to arsing up the profession, and if deposed, I will take a well-earned break from politics or whatever running the Society is and get back to keeping the other 149 plates spinning on the ends of the sticks. I won’t go down without a fight, will certainly try to garner support for the poll, and will make myself available to debate or talk to voters, but conflict and contention are against my nature. I would be a hopeless actual politician, as I can’t take all the backbiting and name-calling seriously when I see MP’s and MSP’s do it, and my greatest pleasure in the day job is to settle a civil case or a matrimonial, and to negotiate a commercial deal where everyone comes away with something.

But whatever happens in my corner will be a minor thing. What I would be interested to see is the first Council meeting with Mike, John McGovern and Walter Semple attending. Council meetings are conducted with unfailing courtesy, politeness and fairness (Walter as a long-standing and honoured member being among the most courteous of all), and from a purely dramatic (ok ,ok – nosy) point of view would like to see how relations will be and how contributions will be made. I don’t suppose the Justice folk will unravel a banner and storm the President’s table, and I certainly don’t expect any actual lack of courtesy, but given Mike’s vocal verbal condemnation of the President at the recent SGM Part One, will there be an immediate onslaught of procedural motions, points of order, challenges and statements? If nothing else, it would/will be most interesting.

Vote Lafferty. Or don’t – it’s your choice, and I can only tell you that running the Law Society of Scotland is not soundbites and passion, it is as complicated as any political government can be. But do get involved, and do vote for someone. The recent referendum with 3,000 odd solicitor participants shows that democracy works if people engage, and I hope that as many as possible vote in the Glasgow election.