I don't agree with you that it's out of context. It actually strikes right to the heart of the argument I would espouse that there should be two completely separate disciplines in flying, vis. instrument and visual with no middle area in between where only certain instrument skills are taught and allowed to apply to lowered minima. It is that lowering of minima for planning purposes, and perhaps also the relevant increase in "perception" of skill that I feel should not be part of regulation. The fact that it was in the UK is, again in my opinion, unfortunate.
Practice is the relevant verb here, and yes, from your post above I see you agree on that. What I would argue is that is practice and checking of skills is perhaps more relevant than most people realise. In an ideal World I'd see an increase in basic IF flying taught in training, and checked every year as part of licence revalidation as a "get my ass out of the ****" skill. As for full IFR flying, then that again should be checked separately, and with failures thrown in. All just my opinion, and I do realise there would be a financial cost with that, but so be it, I feel it is that significant an issue.
The ATP reference to no autopilot was simply that it was not available in turbulence. We could, and did often depart with the whole thing u/s, but again we were a multi-crew environment. IFR single-pilot is a call that would always require a second thought, and respect to those that choose to do such.
Regards,
Squid