Good points gentlemen. But it's not a level playing field, is it?
It will be interesting to see what the electorate return percentage is. If it's 30% of which 51% or more vote Yes (where yes is pretty much a foregone conclusion/certainty anyway, whatever the percentage happens to be) then a mere one sixth of the putative voters will be determining the future of UK caving in/access and the all-important, nay critical, relationship we have with landowners, or not, as the case may be.
However, I stand by my earlier point that to ONLY have a Pro stance publicly voiced to a captive audience prior to a national ballot is frankly bang out of order and hence should either not go ahead or, if it does, for the subsequent ballot to be considered potentially void and the costs of same to have been immorally squandered*.
An earlier, tongue-in-cheek, thread of mine showed that when offered with a choice of "Yes, or No", approximately two-thirds of people vote Yes for no ostensible reason other than that people naturally are inclined to say yes when asked...
I therefore state with absolute certainty that any ballot of UK Cavers on this topic will result in a positive response, not based on research, or reasoned debate, or thinking through the consequences, but purely on the basis that cavers who think they might find access easier will go for what they perceive to be a quick win.
* There could be unwitting but logically obvious consequences of this regarding the uptake (or not) of BCA membership thereafter. i.e. if anyone, Joe Bloggs and all, can go caving with no bona fides whatsoever, why would anyone want to join a club, or the BCA, or any regional council whatsoever? "Bollocks to the lot of 'em, let's just go caving; the law is on our side". National bodies, and EVERY UK club, take note.