Extraordinary Diocesan Synod 2025

Extraordinary Diocesan Synod – Proposed Changes to Canon 4

Monday 23^rd June 2025 at 6:30pm by Zoom

United Diocese of Glasgow and Galloway

Introduction

The proposed changes to Canon 4 were made by the Faith and Order Board, and were approved at first reading by General Synod in June 2025. An extraordinary meeting of the General Synod will be held in September 2025 for the second reading of the Canon, which will require a two-thirds majority in each House (of Bishops, Clergy, and Laity) in order to pass.

The current Canon 4 was passed by the General Synod in 2023 and has now been used twice, in the Diocese of Glasgow and Galloway and in the Diocese of Argyll and The Isles. The use of it has brought to light some issues which now require correction on an expedited timeline in order to be in place for the next Episcopal election process in the Diocese of Edinburgh later this year.

The response of the Diocese of Glasgow and Galloway, along with the responses from the six other Dioceses, will be provided to relevant boards and committees, as well as the General Synod of September 2025 as an advisory note.

The proposed changes are:

• Section 12:

The time limit for an Episcopal election process is 12 months. In the current version of Canon 4, this begins from the date of the Episcopal vacancy arising. A proposal is made to adjust this so that the time limit begins from the date of the Mandate being issued.

The purpose of this change is to ensure that if an unanticipated vacancy arises, for example if a Bishop dies in office, an appropriate delay can be made to the Mandate being issued at the discretion of the College of Bishops without shortening the time available to the Diocese for the rest of the process.

• Section 26:

The voting procedures for an Electoral Synod takes place in Houses, with candidates requiring a majority vote from both the House of Clergy and the House of Laity in order to be elected Bishop.

If no candidate has been elected after two rounds of voting, the Electoral Synod moves to a single transferable vote with the aim of reducing the number of candidates down to two candidates before a final vote. In the current version of Canon 4, the single transferable vote also takes place in Houses, potentially giving rise to a situation where an unintended deadlock is reached if both Houses choose different top two candidates.

The proposed change is that the single transferable vote takes place as a whole Electoral Synod, before moving back into Houses for the final vote.

Minutes

An Extraordinary Diocesan Synod took place on Monday 23 June 2025, beginning at 6.30pm over Zoom. Bishop Nick opened the meeting with the Eucharist, which included his Charge to Synod.

Bishop’s Charge

Before we get into the formal work of synod this evening, we begin — rightly — at the table. At the place where we don’t vote or debate, but simply receive. Where all our efforts, good intentions and mixed motives are held by a God who knows us fully and loves us anyway.

Our Gospel reading from Matthew 7 brings us straight to the point: “Do not judge, so that you may not be judged… first take the log out of your own eye.” It’s one of those lines that hits close to home. It’s not telling us to avoid discernment or decision-making — Jesus isn’t saying “don’t think.” But he is saying, “Start with humility.”

That’s exactly the spirit in which we approach what Canon 4 is trying to do — helping the Church listen carefully and wisely when it comes to choosing a bishop. It’s not just a process — it’s a kind of shared spiritual work. Discernment, not selection.

And as a diocese, we know just how important it is that that process works well.

We’ve seen it go badly — when the system breaks down and leads to deadlock. That experience is still part of our memory, and it was painful. But we’ve also experienced the opposite: a process that was careful, prayerful, structured and full of grace. That was my own experience when I was elected bishop — and I will always be grateful for how well this diocese held that process. It gave me the chance to begin with trust, and gave us, together, a good start.

So tonight, we’re looking at some small but important tweaks to Canon 4. They’re based on lessons from real situations — including ours — and they’re designed to make sure that the process works as well for others as it did for us. We want the Diocese of Edinburgh, which is next to enter discernment, to have a process that’s smooth, honest, and Spirit-led — not one that gets stuck.

These changes don’t rewrite the theology of calling. They just clear the path so that calling can be heard.

So let’s do our work tonight with grace — the kind Jesus points to in the Gospel. Not assuming we’ve got it all sorted. Not focusing on the specks in other people’s eyes. But remembering that even in Canon law, even in procedure and process, God is at work — nudging, guiding, surprising us.

Let’s be open to that. Amen.

Attendees and Apologies

A rollcall of attendees was taken to ensure that there was quorum (two-thirds of each House) in accordance with the Diocesan Constitution. After a brief period to gather enough members, 31of 39 representatives from the House of Clergy were present (quorum of 26 or more), and 42 of 57 representatives from the House of Laity were present (quorum of 38 or more).

Apologies were noted as submitted prior to and intimated at the start of the meeting.

Process

Bishop Nick addressed the meeting, summarising the changes and their desired outcomes briefly.

[Below is a document comparing the differences between the original Canon 4 and the updated reading. It was used for illustrative purposes during the meeting.]

Canon 4 Comparison

Section 12

• Passed nem con by the House of Clergy
• Passed nem con by the House of Laity

The number of abstentions was not recorded due to the technical limitations of the Zoom vote.

Comments and queries made in relation to the section:

The Rev Sydney Maitland (SM) queried whether rewording “the date of the Mandate being issued” to “the date of issue of the Mandate” would be clearer.

There was a discussion about the timeline for the amendments to Canon 4. Ray Gascoigne (RG) noted that the Episcopal vacancy in Edinburgh is expected to arise on 31st August, and that the extraordinary meeting of General Synod for the Second Reading is currently scheduled for September. It was not clear to Diocesan Synod whether the election process in the Diocese of Edinburgh will be bound to the version of Canon 4 that stands in the Code of Canons as of the vacancy arising (i.e. the current unamended text) irrespective of the outcome of the extraordinary General Synod.

It was agreed that Bishop Nicholas would take this question to the College of Bishops, but that this would not have an impact on our discussions about the proposed changes.

N.B. (post-meeting):

Canon 4.5 (d) The issue of the Mandate shall inaugurate the Electoral Process.

Canon 4.5 (b) The date of issuing the Mandate may be extended by the College of Bishops.

Both versions of Canon 4 allow for a delay in the issuing of the Mandate, which is the start of the Electoral Process, i.e. if the amended Canon 4 is passed in September and the Mandate is issued following that date, the rest of the process will follow the amended text (in regards to Section 26, further clarity to Section 12 might be required).

Furthermore, according to Canon 52.18, alterations to the Code of Canons that have been proposed and confirmed in accordance with Canon 52.17 will take effect forty days from the end of the meeting at which it was enacted unless the General Synod at that meeting directs otherwise.

 

Section 26

• Passed by the House of Clergy: 19 in favour, 9 against
• Passed by the House of Laity: 35 in favour, 3 against

The vote was preceded by a line by line discussion of Section 26, and the purpose and implications of the proposed changes.

The comments made during the discussion were in four areas:

The implications of conducting the single transferable vote as a whole Electoral Synod

Subsection C

Original:

“The vote shall be by ballot in each of the Houses, with a transferable vote being cast by each member of the Electoral Synod.”

Revised:

“This vote shall take plae without division into Houses, and will reflect the votes of the whole Electoral Synod.”

An email submission was received by the Rev Canon Jane Ross (JR) prior to the Diocesan Synod, and this was discussed.

JR noted that in Dioceses with a significant imbalance between the voting numbers in the House of Clergy and the House of Laity, the effect of a vote not in Houses could be for the majority group to effectively force a candidate onto the minority group. She noted recent Episcopal elections where there has been significant division in opinion between clergy and laity, such as in the electoral process in Glasgow and Galloway in 2019. A number of options were discussed to address this potential imbalance, including giving equal weighting to the votes of both Houses (e.g. one lay vote to one clergy vote, particularly in the case of clergy with multiple charges).

It was noted by Paul Hindle (PH) that if the single transferable vote led to a House feeling that they could not support either of the two remaining candidates, they would still be able to reject all candidates by voting “None” when the Synod moved back into Houses for a final vote.

Ray Gascoigne (RG) noted that even if there were an attempt to balance the number of votes for clergy and laity, there would be no guarantee of equal attendance during elections. This could still lead to disparities.

 

The process for counting votes where a preferred candidate has already been eliminated

Subsection H (in the original Canon)

Original:

“If at any point where a second preference vote on a ballot paper is being counted and that vote is in favour of a Candidate who has been eliminated, the third preference vote shall be counted instead and so and so forth until a preference is reached in respect of a Candidate who has not been eliminated. That preference vote shall be counted as though it were the second preference.”

This subsection has been eliminated from the proposed revised Canon.

Petko Marinov (PM) noted that with the removal of this wording, there is a lack of clarity about how the transferable vote should be handled if a candidate listed as next preference has already been eliminated. He felt that this wording should be reinstated to avoid ambiguity in the voting process.

 

The role of “None”

The Rev Sydney Maitland (SM) made a general query about the validity of treating “None” as a candidate, and suggested that this should be treated as abstention. PM and Dr Beth Routledge (BR) explained that a vote for “None” is a vote to reject all remaining candidates and effectively reopen the process of nominations (where applicable), which does not have the same effect as an abstention.

Subsection B

Original: “None shall be included on the ballot paper and may be listed as a preference.”

Revised: “None is competent and may be included as a preference.”

JR expressed concern about the change in wording, and felt that the revised wording would make it more difficult for a House to reject all candidates. She felt that the original wording provided a stronger safeguard if a House felt that they had been left with no candidates for whom they could vote.

 

Subsection H (in the revised Canon)

“For [the purposes of eliminating Candidates until two Candidates remain], “None” may be validly considered a Candidate.”

This is a new subsection, which was not included in the original Canon.

PM expressed concerns that this would add further complications to the process, and queried what would happen if the two remaining Candidates after the transferable vote included “None”. Furthermore, he noted that if the options were between a named Candidate and “None”, the Electoral Synod could simply end up electing the named Candidate out of desperation or a lack of other options. PH disagreed, given the experience of previous elections.

BR noted that this could potentially lead to a situation where the final vote under Section 26 could be between a named Candidate and “None”, which could then result in “None” achieving a majority of votes in both Houses and being declared to be “elected”. She requested clarification as to whether this would mean that the election would in fact be declared to have failed at this stage, and suggested that the Canon should state this explicitly if so.

A number of comments were made that this point would allow the election to fail if it were felt necessary by one or both Houses. They argued that this would ensure fairness and balanced representation.

 

A request for clarification on the number of voting rounds

            Subsection J (original Canon) / Subsection I (revised Canon)

The notations of the subsections become inconsistent at this point, due to changes further up the text.

Original:

“When only two Candidates remain, a final round of voting under this Section shall take place using a first past the post system.”

Revised:

“When only two Candidates remain, a final round of voting will take place using a first past the post system.”

PM suggested that the phrase “under this Section” should be reinstated to clarify that this “final round of voting” is part of Section 26, and is separate from the subsequent voting procedure in Section 27. He believed that the absence of this phrase would create ambiguity about the number of voting rounds.

 

Diocesan Response to the Province

Section 12

• Passed nem con by the House of Clergy
• Passed nem con by the House of Laity

 

Section 26

• Passed by the House of Clergy: 19 in favour, 9 against
• Passed by the House of Laity: 35 in favour, 3 against

 

There was a thorough discussion about the changes to Section 26, and the Diocese asks for consideration of the following:

• We suggest reinstatement of the original wording of Section 26, Subsection B:

” None shall be included on the ballot paper and may be listed as a preference.”

It was felt by the Diocesan Synod that the original wording provides a stronger safeguard if a House feels that they are left with no candidates for whom they can vote.

 

• We request clarification on what will happen if the two candidates remaining after the single transferable vote included “None”, and on whether, if. “None” achieves a majority of votes in both Houses, the election is declared to have failed at this stage. We suggest that this is made clear in the text of the Canon.

 

• For clarity on how votes will be counted at the single transferable vote stage when a preferred candidate has already been eliminated, we suggest reinstatement of the original Section 26, Subsection H:

“If at any point where a second preference vote on a ballot paper is being counted and that vote is in favour of a Candidate who has been eliminated, the third preference vote shall be counted instead and so and so forth until a preference is reached in respect of a Candidate who has not been eliminated. That preference vote shall be counted as though it were the second preference.”

It was noted that in some dioceses there is an uneven distribution of votes between the House of Clergy and the House of Laity, and the Synod had a discussion about the potential implications of conducting Section 26 in one House in this case. There were concerns expressed that this could result in candidates being “forced” on the minority group by the majority group. It was felt that this could be avoided by maintaining “None” as a strongly valid Candidate in subsequent voting rounds, but we note these concerns and ask the Province to consider whether balancing the distribution of votes in such circumstances might be  required.