There is much to celebrate about the make up of our new Parliament. Yes, we can lament the loss of experience but some of the gushing eulogies written about some of the departed stalwarts, particularly from the Labour ranks, need a reality check. Such a sweeping clearout, whether the parties wanted it or not, brings in fresh blood which is, by itself, a very good thing. Whether or not they will deserve the epithet *talent* remains to be seen…
But in certain key areas, the Parliament is making very slow progress indeed.
Dennis Robertson has found himself wheeled out at the forefront of the SNP group and the subject of much media interest because he is blind. And even better, has a telegenic dog to guide him. Dennis is canny so he knows what he’s doing and he deserves his election, not because of his visual impairment, but because he has a lot to offer. He is clever and a great campaigner on issues that are often ignored or worse, patronised at Holyrood. He has a careful decision to make – does he become a champion of disabled people simply because he is disabled or does he eschew such issues, as Anne Begg did in her early career, to avoid being defined simply as the blind MSP? It’s a tough one. And the bottom line is that it simply should not be remarkable that someone with a visual impairment can be elected: it should be the norm.
But with Siobhan McMahon becoming the first woman born with a disability, joining Margo MacDonald whose disability has been caused by her long term condition, our Parliament is now more visibly, differently abled. And hurrah for that. They will bring a very different perspective and life experience to their work and that is what a more representative legislature is all about.
Readers will be pleased to note that progress was also made on the ethnic status and gender balance of Holyrood. Women’s representation increased by a whole one, yes one MSP, taking us to nearly 35%. It’s nowhere near the nadir of 1999 but it is progress, if at a snail’s pace.
The Labour group by electoral accident rather than design has achieved almost complete balance with 17 out of 35 MSPs women. The Conservatives have added to their tally too, with 40% of their group now women.  Margo, of course, achieves 100% while the Scottish Greens are perfectly poised with a woman and man MSP. But it is the Lib Dems and the SNP who let the side down.
Reduced to a group of five, only one Lib Dem MSP is a woman, 20%. And despite having a record number of MSPs – 69! some of us still can’t quite believe it! – a shockingly low number are women. Nineteen, but Tricia Marwick now doesn’t count as belonging to any group, so the figure is down to 18. Would I have traded an extra woman MSP for the SNP Group instead of having a female Presiding Officer? Of course not. But even at 19, this equates to only 27%, slightly over one in four, SNP MSPs being women. Disappointing doesn’t cover it.
Already the cry is that something must be done. Shame no one made that cry before the election when candidates were being selected. Severin Carrell of the Guardian deserves special mention for championing this issue and he is right: we need “somebody” to sort this out. And not just on gender balance but also on ethnic representation. We have made some progress, going from 0 after the tragic, early death of Bashir Ahmad in the last Parliamentary session, to 2. But at 1.5%, the number of MSPs from the BEM community does not equate with the ethnic diversity of our population which is approaching 4%.
The issue of ethnic diversity is a controversial one – for everyone who comments that there are folk of Italian descent (Linda Fabiani and Marco Biagi being two) and many, many more of Irish descent, they are missing the point somewhat. This is about melting pots, multi-culturalism and assimilation and ethnic and cultural diversity – far too complex for this post but perhaps worthy of a future one. There is no one of Chinese or Polish descent, despite both being statistically significant commnities in our society. Scots Asians yes, but no blacks either from African or Caribbean communities. Our Parliament should be representative of all our people. That should be a given.
So what to do, other than moan about it on blog spaces or in newspapers? I agree with Sev. Something has to be done and the parties seem incapable of doing it without support and guidance. We don’t need a new body, there are a plethora of them, particularly on women’s issues: Engender, the Fawcett Society, the Scottish Women’s Convention. And now the Hansard Society has got involved.
It needs an all-encompassing organisation with a remit to promote democracy more generally, to address all the issues of under-representation of key groups and communities. It needs to engage positively with the parties and the work has to start now, before candidate selections begin again. There is a window open now in which to examine and explore possible solutions but the starting point has to be an acknowledgement by all the parties that there is a problem to be addressed. And an agreement to work on a cross-party basis to achieve real progress.
#1 by Danny95 on May 14, 2011 - 10:34 am
I don’t agree with positive discrimination at all. If a particular women/ethnic minority person/disabled person deserves to be elected then they will. I really don’t agree with Labour’s policy of having a woman or BME atop every list.
#2 by The Burd on May 14, 2011 - 11:03 am
Where in the post was positive discrimination mentioned?
#3 by Aidan Skinner on May 14, 2011 - 8:13 pm
Well, except they don’t. There is a large body of evidence showing gender bias putting women in seats that they are less likely to win such as http://krook.wustl.edu/pdf/MKO_09.pdf and that there is a significant gender penalty at the ballot box eg. http://people.anu.edu.au/andrew.leigh/pdf/BiasBallotBox.pdf
There isn’t a level playing field for women, and although race and sexual identity are less studied the evidence is that there is significant bias on those grounds as well.
#4 by douglasmclellan on May 14, 2011 - 10:45 am
You are great at highlighting what you perceive to be the problems Kate but what are the solutions? Who is to blame for all of this?
What mechanisms can be put in place to solve this “issue”? Forcing more women candidates into “winnable seats”? What was a winnable seat for the Lib Dems? Given the precarious balance of votes between constituency and list seats should the Lib Dems concentrate on selecting women in winnable constituencies or put them at the top of the list to win a list seat. Guess what – we did that in Edinburgh Western & Lothians with Margaret Smith and it didnt work. What is the solution Kate? Cant blame the party for that one can you?
I am puzzled why there are not more women MSPs but the final number in parliament is not the outcome to be measured. It is the number of women candidates, it is the number of women who were shortlisted at selection for interview, it is the number of women who applied to be candidates, it is the number who are on the approved candidates list in each party and it is the number of women who actually want to be a MSP. Only when it can be proven that the number of men and the number of women who want to get elected is the same can we then look at where in the whole process in each party to see why we dont get that same proportion out the other end. And if the number of women is not the same at the start who is to blame for that?
Other than a pleasing balance of numbers what does having more women in the parliament actually achieve? What would change? What would be the desired outcome that only more women MSPs can achieve?
I do think that there should also be some investigation into why some women step down as MSPs (Wendy Alexander, Susan Deacon, Rhona Brankin) whilst men seem to retire (John Farquar Munro, Robin Harper, Ted Brocklebank).
As for BME candidates – yes the BME population of *Scotland* is around 4% but the concentration of that is hugely in the cities and Glasgow in particular. Where there is still a value of a candidate living locally how could any local party in the Highlands and Islands, South of Scotland and Mid Scotland & Fife contribute to solving this problem when the BME population is less than 1% in those areas.
It is interesting that you mention Dennis Robertson in a piece about “progress”. He has in the past stated that “I want people who have the ability through merit and hard work to be selected for parliament not because of their gender, race or disability.”
A statement which I agree with wholeheartedly.
#5 by The Burd on May 14, 2011 - 11:03 am
You rightly point out that the number of MSPs is the finishing point of a much longer process and these absolutely should be the starting point for any examination of where the faultlines are. That’s why we need a cross party approach led by an umbrella organisation to look at everything, including barriers, real and perceived, to becoming candidates and ultimately MSPs.
I made the point in the post about what a more representative parliament brings. A different and valid life experience and perspective. This is a wider point. There are many men in the SNP group with a quite similar age demographic and life experience. There are many new Labour MSPs who have done very little else since leaving education but work for their party. Good or bad?
And yep that is a fair point about concentration of BME population but we are not talking about quotas just candidates reflecting real life more.
And it’s not about selecting candidates on the basis of a particular demographic but about ensuring that candidates simply are more representative of all demographics. How many pensioners do we have in the Parly? Not enough to be representative of our population as a whole nor to contribute the richly valid view of life they have.
#6 by douglasmclellan on May 14, 2011 - 11:15 am
I dont think that the background of MSPs is all that vital. It is more about openess, ability to understand and acceptance of information/evidence that is important. These traits can be found as much in a 25 year old as an 85 year old.
I am not convinced that there is a problem here other than the supposed ideal of having a parliament that mirrors society. And I have yet to be informed as to why that is a good idea. In many respects a parliament is reflects the desires and ambitions of a society. I remain convinced we have the politics, politicians and parliament that we (as a nation) desire.
#7 by Aidan Skinner on May 14, 2011 - 8:21 pm
Surely the interpretation of that evidence is just as important as openness in accepting its submission? Different life experiences don’t change the facts as laid out in submissions to a committee, but they do change how those facts are interpreted. Different people give different weights to the same things, someone with experience of disabilities is much more likely to pick out issues with accesibility than someone without that experience.
It would be great if Parliament was a machine where we put facts in, crunched some gears and got optimal policy out. But it’s not. It’s an imperfect process implemented by imperfect people. If the people involved share different imperfections surely we’re likely to get better policy out of the process?
#8 by An Duine Gruamach on May 14, 2011 - 12:26 pm
As for pensioners… well, there’s a whole party that stands solely for pensioners’ issues, and hardly anyone voted for them (even with the assumption that pensioners are more likely to vote than anyone else). Do pensioners maybe not see it as so much of an issue that OAPs ain’t MSPs?
#9 by Gregor on May 14, 2011 - 11:14 am
A good post there 😀
Since we’ve covered ability/gender/ethnicity, might be worth looking at sexuality also?
I know we lost Margaret and Iain Smith, while keeping Joe FitzPatrick and Patrick Harvie, but what about the new ones? I would say Kevin Smith, Marco Biagi, Ruth Davidson at least, so we’re “up” on the last Parliament, perhaps there are others too?
Interesting to note we’ve never had a transgendered MSP at all…
With four of the five main parties promising movement on LGBT issues during the Parliament, I don’t know if that would make a difference at all.
#10 by The Burd on May 14, 2011 - 12:37 pm
Kevin Smith? Who him? In any event, I’m a little uncomfortable with folk being outed unless they do it themselves so please, no more names bandied about in supposition.
#11 by Colin on May 14, 2011 - 12:51 pm
What has sexuality got to do with ability? The “Gay” population is tiny and certainly much smaller that we would be led to believe.
I just don’t see why our representatives have to be anything other than honest and capable. Are we to have representatives for criminals as they make up a fair proportion of our population? The whole “fairness” argument is immature.
#12 by The Burd on May 14, 2011 - 12:55 pm
Sorry folks, but I’m away out for a few hours and as the only Better Nation one around, some comments might take a while to get approved. Apologies but life sometimes gets in the way!
#13 by Richard Thomson on May 14, 2011 - 11:45 am
Hi, Kate –
IIRC, we were on opposite sides of the gender balance debates in the SNP c.1997/98. As someone heading rapidly towards being that white, paunchy, middle-aged male archetype that’s supposed to be able to just turn up to get elected, maybe its to my credit that I still have the same concerns I did back then that parties aren’t more successful in encouraging a wider range of people into their candidate selection processes.
I have to say, the SNP leadership, particularly under Alex Salmond, has always been pretty good at seeking out talent from all ages and backgrounds and promoting it rapidly – something which doesn’t always sit comfortably amongst a truculent membership which values equality of opportunity a great deal more than equality of outcome. However, the fundamental truth is that no matter what steps they take, parties can only select those who make themselves available for selection.
The barriers to entry into politics aren’t uniquely down to gender, ethnicity or disability. First and foremost, it’s about having the time to commit to political activity, as well as having the financial resources to sustain a candidacy through lost earnings, diminished employment opportunities, relocations etc. Clearly, there are gender and cultural implications to this, but that’s a problem which can only be addressed at the family level, rather than at the party level.
Secondly, you’ve got to have demonstrated to your peers that you are the sort of person who can appeal to the wider public, and who would be an asset if elected. Many the political career of some fast-tracked supposedly bright young thing has crashed and burned spectacularly at the hurdle of being unable to deal with the ‘little people’ they expect to work for them.
Thirdly, there’s the small matter of actually convincing the public to vote for you… no matter how balanced your slate of candidates is, if the voters decide they’d prefer someone else, or a representative of a different party, then that’s the way the cookie crumbles, irrespective of class, gender, age, ethnicity, sexuality or anything else for that matter.
The reluctance of the Chinese community in Scotland to get involved in politics has always puzzled me, particularly when compared to the relative enthusiasm of the Pakistani community to get involved. However, the reason there isn’t greater Eastern European participation should be obvious, surely? That’s because although there are Eastern Europeans in Scotland in statistically significant numbers, much of the population isn’t yet settled. Many plan to stay for only a short time, and getting involved in the politics of a country many see as only a temporary home, particularly when so many will be working long hours, isn’t going to be top of their list of priorities.
Time and integration is the main factor, which is why Mark Lazarowicz, who’s father formed part of an earlier wave of Eastern European immigration became first an advocate and a councillor then an MP, and why the current wave of migrants largely stay away.
#14 by Doug Daniel on May 14, 2011 - 4:36 pm
Richard Thomson, Dougie McLellan and Indy have pretty much covered the problems with trying to make parliament mirror society exactly, but I’ll stick my oar in anyway.
The simple fact is the demographic of those who take an active interest in politics does not match the demographic of society at large, and until it does, there is no fair way of getting parliament to mirror society without causing more problems than currently exist. Richard mentions the Chinese community, so let’s take an extreme example. Suppose there is only one Chinese person in the whole of Scotland who has any desire to be a politician, and let’s also suppose that this person is the most unsuitable person imaginable for being a politician. Do we promote this person all the way to Holyrood anyway just for the sake of having Chinese representation in Holyrood; or do we just live with the fact that there are no decent candidates from the Chinese community and try and engage them a bit more so that we might eventually get some decent Chinese candidates? Obviously, we take the second option.
“Our Parliament should be representative of all our people. That should be a given.”
Why should it, though? Parliament should certainly represent all our people, but can a straight, white, middle-aged male with all his faculties in tact not represent the interests of gays, blacks, the young, the elderly, women and disabled people? If not, then he’s a bad politician, but not because he isn’t a part of one of these sections of society. The problem with suggesting that parliament needs to look like a microcosm of society is that it implies that certain groups can only have their interests represented by politicians of the same background. That’s just not possible, because while 4% of Scotland may be BEM, they can’t all vote for the same candidates, which touches upon another point: MSPs can only represent those that are in their constituency.
I think about 6% of the population is gay, which would equate to 7 or 8 MSPs. Say we have those 8 gay MSPs, then that’s the gay community in Scotland properly represented, yeah? Well, no, not unless you’re one of those MSPs’ constituents. What about the other 94% of those MSPs’ constituents who aren’t gay, are they suddenly lumbered with an MSP who doesn’t represent them? Hopefully not, otherwise they shouldn’t be in politics.
MSPs are not there to represent interest groups, they’re there to represent their constituents. I didn’t vote for Margaret Watt because I thought it was important to have enough Doric-speaking women in Holyrood, I did it because she was a far better candidate than the others on offer. If I wanted to vote for the person who most closely resembled me – a 20-something white male who, in all honesty, is a bit of a nerd – then I would have voted for the dork the Lib Dems put up.
Maybe a few of us are missing your point and arguing against a different argument, because I don’t think you’re necessarily suggesting that Holyrood should be artifically engineered to be more diverse. But the fact is voters can only vote for who is on the ballot papers, and parties can only offer up candidates from those that put their names forward. Parties can try and engage with certain sections of society, but if those sections of society don’t want to be involved, then what else can you do? Force them?
In short, is Humza Yousaf in Holyrood because he represents 4% of the population, or is he there because he has the potential to be a cracking MSP?
#15 by Aidan Skinner on May 14, 2011 - 8:43 pm
You’re conflating an MSP representing their constituents with representing the demographic groups they belong to. The two aren’t necessarily in conflict, they don’t even necessarily have anything to do with each other. But even so, my SNP MSP won’t represent my views on all things, but neither will my Labour MSP (my Green one will do so on most things, but that’s cause Patrick Harvie’s ace).
The point is that a parliament should represent a diversity of opinions, of different experiences and different constituencies in the broad, non-geographic sense.
There are problems with fewer people from different backgrounds standing for selection, getting selected, staying with the process, getting elected, completing their term and standing for re-election. There’s clearly scope for debate about the means by which those problems can be addressed but I don’t think there can be a question that there is a problem to be addressed.
#16 by Indy on May 15, 2011 - 4:08 pm
It’s not simply about representing constituents though. It’s also about setting the agenda.
It’s not an exaggeration for example to say that childcare was literally not on the agenda in Scotland prior to the election of the Scottish Parliament in 1999. And there is a danger that it could slip off the agenda, despite the fact that it is one of the most important issues which families – and particularly mothers – have to deal with in their daily lives. It helps if you have a fair number of women in there who have the real life experience to back up the research and so on and who know from their own lives just how important an issue it is.
#17 by An Duine Gruamach on May 14, 2011 - 12:30 pm
The question of how representative the parliament is of the population is an interesting one, but I sometimes wonder if the number of variables is too great to make tackling them all reasonable. People tend to bring up gender and ethnicity, but how many native Gaelic speakers are there? Methodists? Cyclists? Vegetarians? I know some of these seem trivial, but to the people for whom these are defining components of their identity I don’t suppose they do.
I also wonder how much of a difference it really makes to our representation. My new MSP is a gay, ethnically Italian secularist. I am a heterosexual, ethnically Scottish Christian. We’re both white males, but I voted for him because of the policies he represents, not his background.
#18 by Indy on May 14, 2011 - 2:23 pm
It isn’t really to do with the candidate selection process, it’s to do with the difficulties women in particular face combining political activism with work and family life.
Look at all the elected women in the SNP. What do they have in common? Supportive, nationalist partners. They simply couldn’t do it if they did not have partners prepared to take on more than their fair share of the family and domestic duties. But such men are sadly still a minority in modern Scotland.
It could be argued why does this apply to the SNP more than Labour or the other parties? Because SNP activists – and candidates – have historically had to work twice as hard to make progress. I’m not saying other political activists don’t work hard of course, I don’t want to start a fight about that! But taking the SNP from being a fringe party to the party of government in Scotland has been a massively labour-intensive process which has required real sacrifices from our members.
Will it be easier now? Probably not because we now have an independence campaign to win which means going up several gears, not easing up on the gas.
For those who are not active in politics maybe I should set out what I mean by activism. Time-wise for the average campaign you are looking at spending Saturday and/or Sunday afternoons out on the doors, plus at least two weeknights. When the short campaign kicks off it is full-time. Then there is all the preparation which takes up another big chunk of time. Plus the meetings. And campaigns don’t just start when the election is called. They are ongoing – one leads almost seamlessly into the other. There is no downtime any more.
If you are young and single – or indeed not so young and single – you can afford to do that because you don’t have so many other demands on your time. But the reality is that if you are a woman who works full-time with a family, you will only be able to commit the level of time which is necessary for campaigning if you have someone at home who will support you to do that. So it does come back to old fashioned feminist values. In this case the personal is most definitely political.
So the problem is more
#19 by Aidan Skinner on May 14, 2011 - 8:57 pm
Nail on head here. There are huge cultural and practical difficulties associated with standing as a candidate which particularly obviously affect women, but also affect a lot of other people whom it would be good to have in parliament. If you have a full time job and a family unless you’re a union official or particularly flexible hours it’s going to be almost impossible to stand. I think that’s one reason why we see an increasing professionalisation of politics, with politics graduates falling off the research -> councillor -> candidate conveyor. Holyrood is at least better at the ridiculous late night sittings from Westminster which is something.
I think there’s another cultural issue inherited from Westminster that does particularly affect women which is the confrontational, conflict driven style of decision making. I’m not saying that there aren’t women who can thrive in that setting, plainly there are. However a lot of people are put off by it, and I think it’s something which particularly affects women. (I hope I put that in a way that doesn’t come across as utterly patronising, I prefer consensus decision making processes, it’s not just a gender thing)
#20 by Doug Daniel on May 15, 2011 - 12:31 am
Perhaps now we have a woman in charge of the chamber, something could be done about the confrontational nature of the parliament? Clearly Holyrood was designed with the intention of reducing that confrontational aspect, by having European-style semi-circular seating, rather than copying the House of Commons seating arrangements. However, we still have MSPs who treat FMQs etc like gladiatorial contests rather than political debates. The departures of Mike Rumbles and Andy Kerr will certainly see two particularly bad examples of this absent from the 2011-16 session, and perhaps Tricia could be the PO to finally get the chamber to calm down a bit when conducting debates.
Then again, the only problem with assuming that women politicians are naturally less confrontational than men is that while we have calm, considered women like Linda Fabiani, we also have screeching harpies like Margaret Curran.
#21 by Aidan Skinner on May 15, 2011 - 1:34 pm
I don’t really think it’s down to FMQs or even parliamentary debates. Hardly anybody watches FMQs and basically nobody watches debates except those with skin in the game.
I think it’s partly an artifact of using FPTP constituencies which leads to a polarisation and personalisation between candidates. I think it’s also partly a hangover from Westminster and local council politics. But mostly I think it’s media driven, you get in the papers and on TV by having a stooshie. And that’s what people see.
#22 by douglasmclellan on May 15, 2011 - 2:44 am
Have you looked at why Westminster sits so late (even if it rarely does)? Its related to why we have the professionalisation of politics (good expression, going to nick it).
We want everything from politicians. We want every aspect of out lives legislated for. That takes a considerable amount of time. They only have 3 days in which to undertake all this legislation, reviews of legislation, debates on guidance for legislation. This is why we dont see real in-depth debates from many MPs. We have no time for the types of speeches given by Churchill or even Foot. Its all technical and dry or punch and judy. There is nothing in between.
Susan Deacon was an MSP who stepped down due to the tribal nature of politics.
#23 by Aidan Skinner on May 15, 2011 - 1:41 pm
Absolutely. Not to mention the increasing burden of constituency work to go along with the legislative scrutiny. Something which will only get worse when the number of MPs is cut.
#24 by Quentin Sharpe on May 14, 2011 - 7:49 pm
Do you have any idea how dull and predictable your posts have become?
#25 by The Burd on May 14, 2011 - 8:02 pm
No, do enlighten me…
#26 by Doug Daniel on May 14, 2011 - 8:40 pm
Come on mate, disagree with the posts by all means, but at least give your reasoning for making such a statement. Otherwise it’s not so much political debate, more like just a regular internet slanging match, which really is the point that an internet forum or blog becomes dull and predictable.
#27 by Dan on May 14, 2011 - 8:32 pm
Quentin – I believe the phrase is ‘play the ball not the (wo)man’. Quotas are on the agenda and I’m happy for that to remain the case but having a very narrow base of experience whether by demographic or profession would surely undermine parliament’s work. If for example the place was full of policy wonks…
#28 by Dan on May 14, 2011 - 8:35 pm
Sorry that should be ‘aren’t on the agenda’
#29 by Mairi on May 14, 2011 - 9:02 pm
I think Kate makes a good point about how representative the Parliament is, but I think it’s also part of a wider issue, and that is how engege people feel about politics. I work in politics and I can trace my interest in it to my upbringing. My parent took me with them to vote, I can remember going to the odd hustings as a child. We regulary talked round the dinner table about news and current affairs. My family wasn’t considered quite “normal”.
Perhapse if we need more representation what we really need is to help people feel more engaged, as though politics speaks to them, and isn’t something they are cut off from.
Positive discrimination, which is not a solution Kate has advocated in her post, is only a short term, and short sighted solution, to a much more ingrained problem. I can understand why people shy away from it, I’m not completely in favour of it myself.
But if we look at any minority group (I’m hesitent to call women a minority as we do make up 52% of the planet) we have to ask how well engaged they feel with what is the hierachy of the country we are asking them to engaged in.
Does that under representation make them feel as though they should battle through to become MSPs, or do they feel that the cards are already stacked against them, and with the other issues of life they have to deal with anyway, do they have the energy to take on another battle?
We also need to ask ourselves are we relying on representative groups to represent the under-represented? Or are we giving them a space in which they feel they can as both individuals and members of a wider community make their voices heard? Is relying on their representative groups to speak for them a lazy way of feeling we have done our duty in listening?
It can be a bit chicken and egg, the under-represented may feel disenfrancised because they can see no visible signs of themselves within the hierarchy. So the hieracrhy becomes “other” and not something they feel they should/need/want to take part in, therefore increasing the under-representation.
Can we honestly say that the political elite (for want of a better more encompasing word – suggestions welcome) have meet people where they are, and tried to understand there point of view? Or have they sat back and expected people (or organisations) to come to them, and play the game their way?
Another issue is political education. I know many highly intlelligent people who know little or nothing about the parliament. As I talk to them they do ask questions, and interesting conversations do start. But how can someone get into their 30s and know so little about how their own country is run? After they’ve reached a certain point can we expect them to turn round and engage? Or do we need to make sure that understanding how lives and choices are affected by the Parliament, and wider politics, and how people can engage and make their voices heard is a priority?
More questions than answers I know, but questions I feel we need to ask if this is something we are serious about really understanding, rather than finding off the bat reasons for not explore this area more seriously.
#30 by Steve on May 14, 2011 - 9:13 pm
Many disappointing comments above.
I am in favour of parties doing everything possible to engineer a 50/50 split of men and women MSPs as much as possible.
Firstly, it is not hard to do, any party will have a list of seats safest to most impossible to win, allocate them to candidates on an alternating basis, male/female. Do the same on the list, with as many men at the top of lists as women, and alternating. You’ll not get it 100% right but you’ll not end up with a Scottish Parliament any worse than about 55/45 either way I’d have thought.
Secondly as a white male who’s maybe middle aged (but hopefully not quite!) I totally get and believe that it is possible for us to empathise with other people, and I like to think I could represent and understand a range of people without having to have actually lived their lives. That said, doing that properly takes real effort. For a while I was an advocate for a person with a learning disability, and being empathetic and non-judgemental took effort; it’s not something that comes naturally and I went on some really good training that I think helped me to achieve that. On the one hand the training made me realise that it is something that needs to be worked at, but on the other, that ultimately it is possible to do.
So I agree that good people can do a good job, no matter what their gender/sexuality/disability/ethnicity etc. Also of course, a particular disabled person, woman, gay man, whatever can be prejudiced, unthinking, selfish or lazy.
So of course whoever parties select, above all else they have to be good candidates in the widest possible sense. But are there any members of any political parties out there prepared to admit that in their party there aren’t 40 women who’d make good MSPs? Really? In the whole party? Come on!
So assuming you’ve got enough good potential women candidates, then you should field them on a 50/50 basis as I’ve set out above.
And the reason is because our children are growing up in a sexist world, that constantly sells gender stereotypes at every opportunity.
Look at the adverts targeted at kids, look at the programmes (even on the “PC gone mad” Cbeebies channel), look at the royal wedding!
Our society is sexist, it’s a patriarchy, men get the money, women do the work (especially in the home). Women are getting beaten every day and murdered every week by men, and the hand-wringing stuff above isn’t anywhere near good enough.
We need to do anything and everything we can to challenge sexism in society.
One small step would be that if, when I turn the TV on to watch the news or a politics programme, just before I give in the calls to switch over to cartoons my young son and young daughter see that the people who run our country, who make vital and life changing decisions that affect us all including them, are just as likely to be female as they are to be male. That they don’t get this message is a disgrace in the 21st century. All we are doing is programming another generation of sexists who’ll then grow up and say things like “why aren’t there enough women activists”, “why aren’t there enough men prepared to look after the kids?”.
Because they’ll be living the lives we taught them to expect when we chose to do nothing about it.
#31 by Gavin Hamilton on May 15, 2011 - 12:44 am
I wasn’t sure what I thought when i read this post this morning.
On the issue of Race – my forst thought was to compare and contrast the decade I spent living around High Wycombe near London with my native Scotland.
Scotland is just not as racially diverse as some of the great conurbations of the south. At first I thought of papers like the Scotsman which sometimes like to look at wha is happening in London and New York and then make out it is like that in Scotland and look for parallels.
Then I thought some more.
I saw Yousaf being sworn in the other day. He is a character I had not come across before but i was struck at the diversity of the parliament. We are not as racially doverse as , say, Birmingham but we have ethnic groups – and we have many eastern europeans living and taking a full part in our society.
Also it is a modern Scotland and this helps reflect the modern aspirational diverse, open and forward looking Scotland. Taking what is good from our culture and looking beyond our borders for more influences – which has, in part been a strength of ours in the past.
So, after thought I think the diversity of the MSPs is important and important for a modern Scotland.
#32 by douglasmclellan on May 15, 2011 - 2:35 am
@Mairi
You do raise a number of interesting questions and with pretty much all of them I think that the answer lies not with political parties but with people and families in their own home. If people are not actually engaging or understanding politics is that the fault of the parliament or those elected (or seeking election) or the populace at large themselves. The expression “you can only lead a horse to water, you cant make it drink” is apt here because I really do believe nothing more can be done to make people want to be more engaged. As it is their head is regularly dunked under the water and if they are still not drinking its their own fault.
@Steve
Engineer a 50/50 split? So where does democracy actually come into it? What happens if a man who wants to represent the place he lives but is forced aside for a women who may have nothing to do with the local party and local constituency? Is he to be denied an opportunity to stand, only on the basis of his sex.
The recent election makes a mockery of the idea of safe seats. As I said above, Margaret Smith was the MSP in a very winnable seat (on paper) and top of the list in a region where we had always had our top candidate elected. And yet she is no longer in the Parliament. How many of the seats the SNP won did they actually expect to win? How many woman should they have put up and where?
Do you really think that having more women in parliament will make the world less sexist? What more legislation can be brought in to make the changes needed? Why hasn’t it been brought in before? There are laws against domestic violence but since it persists we have to ask why – do the police not enforce the laws? If not, why not? Or do families not teach respect for the laws. If a man expects a woman to do housework then what can parliament actually do about that – is it not about how male & female children are brought up and what their families teach them to expect? Why does a woman actually acquiesce and do the housework anyway?
Where will a more ‘representative’ parliament insert themselves into a families life to enforce these changes?
#33 by Mairi on May 15, 2011 - 9:56 am
@douglas I do agree with you that it is people’s responsibility to engage, you can’t force an agenda on to people who don’t want it. But it’s also rather passing the buck to always point at others isn’t it? After all, people need the right environment to feel that they can/should/need to engage first of all.
The issue of engagement is complex and ingrained, and essentially if we want to find a solution then it will need to be a soultion by and for the whole of society. Shouldn’t those who are more engaged lead by example, rather than sitting back and blaming other people for a situation in which they also have responsibility, by dint of being part of Scotish society too?
Also, no one has yet mentioned the media. How much does the under reporting of parliament play a part in this? Does the fact that the media likes to (almost has to) portray every debate as an issue of binary opposition mean that people are pre-disposed to not understand a lot of politics, or find its constant circular arguments off-putting? How much have scandles like the expenses at Westminster put people off from engaging? Can we really claim that the fourth estate is working and working well for Scotland?
People are not isolated beings, they are taking in information from the moment they are born, and they use that to finds out about and interpret the world they are in and also deided what they consider important and who considers them important back. All this information they take in will form the basis of how they make every decision in their lives, including if they want to understand, know more about or engage in politics.
If under-representation is a problem, then it does not help to divide politics up into groups of people (parties, parliament, government, voters) and pigeon hole them into it as thought lives don’t leak over and out of these man-made pshycological constructions. It’s even worse to blame people at the bottom of the pile for being there and having the attitudes that goes along with it, when the hierarchy was decided long before they were born. At it’s very best that’s poor marketing, at it’s worst it is dehumanising, and allows people/politicians to distance themselves and pass the buck in the worst way. After all this is a country, not a marketing exericse.
#34 by Steve on May 15, 2011 - 9:04 pm
Hello,
I think that a lot of people want the same thing – a more representative spread of MSPs. I agree that in the main this isn’t about making more or better laws (although I think it is fair to argue that the presence of women and disabled people in parliaments has resulted in some issues being given higher priority than they otherwise would have received.) As I already said, you don’t have to have direct experience of a situation to empathise with it.
But for me it’s about our culture, what we accept as normal in our parliament, on our TV, in our workplaces etc. etc.
We get used to men being in charge, and that preserves the male advantage.
Why are there fewer women MSPs than male ones? There can be only two reasons, either women aren’t as good as men (you know all those hormones and their smaller brains, and they get easily distracted by shiny things) or the process of arriving at the selection of MSPs is structurally and institutionally biased against women.
I go for the latter. There are many parts that feed in to this bias, others have touched on them already – they include the factors that help prevent women from “choosing” not to get involved with politics in the first place.
But I can’t think of a better way to encourage us as a society to start sorting these issues out than by insisting that there is a 50/50 split in the Parliament.
Let’s say you’re a political party with a relatively small pool of talented women. At the moment, it doesn’t matter, you’ve got plenty of talented men to choose from. But let’s say you know that next election you’ll have to stump up a field of really good women, you’d better start taking the issues that prevent women from engaging in your party more seriously. You’ll be motivated much more to start reaching out to women as potential members and activists, and we’ll start to break down the barriers to women’s’ participation in politics.
But to tackle the question, does it make our society less sexist? Yes I think it does. I think that in general, the more people integrate with people who are different to themselves, the less prejudiced they are likely to be. And the more people see women and men in leadership positions in equal measure in society, the more women will be given equal status in our society, and the more young women and girls will start to see those roles as potentially for them, and not just their brothers and fathers.
A more representative parliament will “insert itself into a families life” simply by being more representative, it will enter into people’s lives through their media, their newspapers and magazines, their televisions.
If we’ve got a representative parliament, it’ll be harder to field all male panels of politicians and commentators as newsnicht managed to do in most of its programmes in the run up to the election. It’ll ripple out.
Finally, and I’m going on a bit here I realise, but I’m on my own on this topic clearly so I might as well, on to the issue of the really good local man who loses his job to a woman from somewhere else.
Well, why haven’t the party in question got any good local women candidates? Make an effort! And since when did our politics exist to protect the rights of individual empowered men over the rights of the rest of us? Oh, that’s right, for each and every one of the last few thousand years up to this very day. That’s what we’re trying to change!
#35 by CassiusClaymore on May 15, 2011 - 6:33 am
It’s heartening to hear that there are organisations such as Engender, Scottish Women’s Convention and The Fawcett Society which exist to foster sexual equality. They are no doubt appalled at the paltry 35% representation of women in the Scottish Parliament.
Since they are such paragon’s of equality, I thought I’d have a quick look and see how their gender balances stack up (based on staff/board members/trustees as published on their various websites). Here are the stats:-
Engender – 0% men.
Scottish Women’s Convention – 0% men.
Fawcett Society – 5% men (well done! only 43% left to go!).
Glass houses, stones, etc.
CC
#36 by CassiusClaymore on May 15, 2011 - 6:37 am
Obviously I meant “paragons” rather than “paragon’s”….
CC
#37 by Steve on May 15, 2011 - 9:28 am
Douglas, I’ll reply later, bit busy just now looking after the kids!
#38 by Malc on May 15, 2011 - 10:13 am
Just something I want to throw out there:
Representative democracy doesn’t necessarily mean that democracy needs to be representative of society, just that representatives need to represent the interests of those they are elected to represent.
There’s a lot of “represents” in that sentence – but the reason for that is not to conflate the term with any others. I suppose it depends what you think representative means.
#39 by Malc on May 15, 2011 - 11:15 am
I just read that back, and it made even less sense than it did when I wrote it. Basically the point is this: does a representative need to have the same background as those they are representing in order to be able to represent them well? Or can a representative fully represent their constituents if they are not from the same background? That’s the key aspect of this discussion for me.
For what its worth, I don’t have any problem thinking a man can adequately represent a woman – and vice versa. I’ve been quite happy to have a woman be my MSP for the past 3 years – I don’t think that just because she was a woman she couldn’t represent my interests. But equally, I would like to see more women in parliament – and more representatives of minority backgrounds. But not because I think parliament needs to represent society, just because I think parliament needs to stop being seen as the bastion of the white middle-aged man. That’s not saying they can’t represent other groups, just that it doesn’t have to be that way.
#40 by Indy on May 15, 2011 - 4:16 pm
I disagree with that fundamentally. Our politicians should be broadly representative of the nation as a whole and should, collectively, have a good understanding of what problems and barriers people face. Their job is to address those barriers so that we can, both as individuals and as a society, make progress.
#41 by Graham on May 15, 2011 - 11:27 am
I wonder what the gender/sexuality/ethnicity/disability make-up is of the more than 50% of the electorate that chose not to vote last week. I’m greater fussed about why this more than 50% chose not to even voice their opinion than I am about the SP reflecting some perfect balance of special interest groups. It is the job of elected representatives to represent all of their constituents and the job of governments to govern for all of the people, not just those who shout the loudest.
Douglas, far from wanting every aspect of my life legislated for, I want less of it legislated for.
#42 by Baron Sarwar on May 15, 2011 - 11:34 am
I take a great deal of issue with the idea that wholly undemocratic organisations like Engender, the Fawcett Society or the Scottish Women’s Convention should crowbar themselves into parties’ selection procedures. The first automatically excludes nearly half the population from membership, buffers’ golf club style. The second is a collection of union branches dotted about the country, mainly UNISON. And the latter appears to be just a meeting place for the quangocracy and public/3rd sector elite, with seemingly zero impact on the body politic despite 8 years of existence. If they have had an effect, they ain’t exactly trumpeting it from the rooftops.
The idea of mostly self-appointed and self-anointed members of the professional upper middle-classes flying down from their perch and over-riding internal democratic processes to achieve their particular objectives, with little or no thought for the wider policy objectives and aspirations held by potential candidates of either gender, is a dangerous step and should be resisted by all parties in Scotland.
Anyone in Scotland can sign up for the political party of their choice, and use their influence and vote to help ensure a better gender balance within politics. For example, £12 gets you SNP membership (just to get the plug in there!) and from then on you attend branch meetings, get involved and earn respect from your peers, nominate folk for vetting and ultimately decide who gets selected and who doesn’t. Or indeed put yourself up for same. Obviously that can be a fairly time-consuming and occasionally tedious grind – Corrie can sometimes seem very appealing in the face of a wet Monday night in a draughty Corpy hall somewhere – but is the only truly democratic and (god help me for using this word) “empowering” way to go about things.
And by the by, I’ve been involved in seven parliamentary selection processes at various levels of involvement, from approaching folk to ask them to stand, to simply sticking my hand up to vote for our next PPC. Not once has anyone, at any of those meetings, at any time, required anything other of those putting themselves forward than being the best person for the job. And five times out of those seven, a woman was the best qualified. So a woman was selected.
#43 by Indy on May 15, 2011 - 4:26 pm
That’s all true but it doesn’t really address the problem that most women with family commitments – and I’m not only talking about women with children but also women who care for older relatives for example – simply don’t have the time to commit to political activism because women remain the primary care givers and home makers in our society and therefore have less time to devote to political activities. They may have just as strong political beliefs as men, they may even have some ideas about how to improve policy, but they do not have the time to make politics a major part of their lives.
That is about sexism and the unequal nature of modern Scottish society. It’s not the fault of individual political parties, it’s about wider society and its attitudes which in reality political parties have only limited control over. I would however like to see them use that limited control a little more effectively.
#44 by douglas clark on May 15, 2011 - 3:34 pm
The Burd,
I have commented elsewhere on this issue. I voted for a female to be my MSP, Nicola Sturgeon as it happens. Had I set down roots a few miles away instead I would have voted for James Dornan. These two people have a political philosophy in mind rather than a gender. Without all parties agreeing to split the constituencies and the regions in two and putting up only men in one half and women in the other, there is no prospect of a perfect balance.