The SNP’s six-man shortlist for the European elections was announced at the weekend. Sorry, not quite: five-man and one-woman. In 2009, the last time the SNP selected for Europe, they managed exactly the same poor gender ratio. In 2004 they selected eight candidates, of whom only the seventh was a woman. In that election Janet Law would have been elected only if the SNP had won every single MEP slot going.
Their list for 1999 was somewhat better, with three women out of eight, although again none were in a winnable position. You have to go back almost twenty years to the pre-PR days of 1994 to find the last time an SNP woman was elected to the European Parliament: the indomitable Winnie Ewing, of course.
There’s been plenty of chatter about the gender gap on the referendum, and rightly so. Yesterday’s figures showed 47% of men in favour of independence compared to just 25% of women. What with the European elections coming just a few months before that vote (which is therefore inevitably being seen already as a mock referendum rather than the election of mere MEPs), you might have assumed the SNP would have taken this opportunity to select a decent gender-balanced list.
There’s still a second stage to go, of course. Predictions of Alyn Smith’s deselection following the NATO debacle might yet effectively come true. Questions might be asked about Hudghton’s total absence of public profile. It’s possible that the one woman on the list, Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh, will come out ahead of those two sitting MEPs, but I wouldn’t bet on it.
Even if she does, it’s no good for the sexist old guard in any party to claim they just select on merit when over and over again they keep picking more men than women. After four selections in a row, it’s not possible to claim that’s a coincidence, especially when more than 70% of the MSPs the SNP elected in 2011 were also blokes. The SNP do in fact have a lot of first-class women, both activists and those already elected, and more of them should have got the nod here, through a formal gender balance mechanism if necessary. It can be done.
Why do I care? First, I want to live in a society where the best people are selected and elected, not one where being a bloke comes with a massive advantage – and yes, I know there are other inequalities to consider too. Second, until the referendum’s won or lost, that vote is the prism through which almost all of Scottish politics is examined, and I want a win. How the SNP behave is inextricably and unfortunately tied to public perceptions of independence itself, and results like this make it look like a future Scotland will be a business-as-usual boys’ club.
Declaration of interest: Natalie McGarry, of this parish, was one of the women not to make the cut, which I think is unfortunate. This post was all my own idea, and I have shown her it once complete only for any factual corrections.
#1 by Lauren on March 25, 2013 - 8:11 pm
Points well made, James. I think the question really is how can the SNP win over this crucial female vote in the referendum when, not its leadership, but its membership stubbornly cries for ‘meritocracy’ in a party with a female minority?
The SNP has always had a ‘male, pale and stale’ issue, and while it could be that Mr Salmond is to blame as the boisterous face of the party frightening women away or that the black and yellow logo doesn’t ‘appeal to the feminine eye’ (apparently we prefer heather), the lack of female support for independence is what’s really keeping party membership down and is having devastating effect on elected gender balance.
The leadership know this, and the recently released Party Political Broadcast was definitely aimed at setting the case for independence out with a distinctive female narrative. Even Salmond, who has never had much time for addressing gender issues in his party, made specific references to the important contributions of women in his conference address and delivered news of a new childcare initiative in one of the most (tactically?) subdued speeches for him at a party conference. Yet despite all these noticeable efforts to make the party/a yes vote appealing to women, we see a Euro candidate list that far from demonstrates a commitment to balanced, representative leadership.
I guess I’d be interested for your views on whether non-party members in Scotland, especially women, will take away anything from either of these mixed signals when it comes to current views on indy?
#2 by James on March 25, 2013 - 8:21 pm
Well, I wouldn’t disparage any policy moves in the right direction. I was a bit mystified as to why better childcare provision has to wait for independence, though. It’s not like there are any blocks on action with the existing powers that I’m aware of.
More widely, it’s very hard to break a vicious circle of fewer elected women, fewer women coming forward, fewer women being selected and elected. I support the Green approach, as you might imagine, and it’s having a positive effect already, but it ought to be seen as transitional. The English and Welsh party, for instance, might have had a female leader and female deputy when Caroline was first chosen, but their rules prevented it.
It’s a difficult decision, though, picking the right time to leave that kind of structure behind, but I do think if parties are serious about equality, then formal balance is the only solution that works for the short- to medium-term.
Oh, and there are definitely areas where the SNP are ahead of the Greens, notably BME representation.
#3 by scotchman on March 25, 2013 - 10:12 pm
Whilst representation of women in politics is generally poor that’s no excuse for the status quo, so more should be done. It would be good to see the SNP taking more of a lead. At least they have some good role models in key posts – Sturgeon, Hyslop, Constance, Robison etc…..
Increasingly, the arguments are going to turn towards the kind of society a ‘yes’ vote might deliver. That can only help drive family, children and women’s issues to the foreground. Ultimately this decision about people and the kind of future they want.
#4 by Indy on March 26, 2013 - 8:32 am
The really strange thing in the SNP though is that the biggest opposition to gender balance comes from women, not men. I don’t understand it. To me it is logical that if you are going to put forward 6 candidates 3 should be women and 3 should be men. There are plenty of good women available – I would have liked to see Natalie McGarry in with a chance for example. But the strange thing is that Natalie is a passionate opponent of positive action. It is just a mystery to me quite honestly.
It is not a leadership issue incidentally – both Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon support positive action. But every time a motion for gender balance comes to Conference it gets voted down after women argue against it. The perils of internal democracy……
#5 by Iain Menzies on March 26, 2013 - 1:18 pm
Ive lost count of the number of times pretty much the same thing has been said about the Tories. Back in the day when local tory associations had real independence they were as often as not dominated by women….who didnt seem to like selecting women as candidates.
#6 by Ken on March 26, 2013 - 9:58 am
Type your comment here
I know a fair amount of women (a lot on the ‘left’) from different European countries who are totally opposed to enforced gender balance. They believe wholeheartedly that people should be elected / chosen solely on their merit – and ‘positive’ action can (more than the normal process) lead to weaker, less able, less capable individuals selected ahead of more capable individuals purely because of their gender. A lot I know find it offensive that people think women can’t cut it on a level playing field (i.e. an open selection) and they ‘need’ help via enforced quotas. That is their opinion – not mine – and I think there’s some validity in that.
I’m not sure, but maybe there’s a different mindset in society towards women in general in those places – that they’re already equal and capable and the ‘best person’ will win out regardless of gender (in all walks of life, not just politics).
#7 by James on March 26, 2013 - 10:12 am
That’s fine if selection and election processes are working in a broadly equal way, and if they are already working like that, I’d agree there’s no need for any mechanisms. If existing systems are not delivering that broad equality, though, are you really suggesting that there are left feminists who think men are on average better suited to elected office?!
#8 by Ken on March 26, 2013 - 11:06 am
– “That’s fine if selection and election processes are working in a broadly equal way, and if they are already working like that, I’d agree there’s no need for any mechanisms.”
Yep, that’s why I said I think it may be a mindset in other places (outside Anglophone countries) that there is more of a level playing field. I don’t know – perhaps there’s less of a boys club / public schoolboy / frat mentality. But perhaps it’s a generational thing too (as with gay marriage), it’s just inevitable that younger generations grow and move upwards in organisations with the mentality that equality is a given, and shouldn’t be a barrier. I was never brought up with that frat house mentality, so I find it hard to wrap my head around the idea that genders aren’t equal (especially in politics) – I guess that’s why I was always reluctant to support quotas.
– “If existing systems are not delivering that broad equality, though, are you really suggesting that there are left feminists who think men are on average better suited to elected office?!”
No, from my experience with them (and they would reject the tag of feminist as it reinforces the division and the lack of equality between men and women) I think their position is that if the system isn’t delivering that broad equality, you change the system – but from a different direction. A longer, more thorough (and more difficult but more worthwhile) change to the system – you educate people from the ground up and from a young age on equality, on fairness, on ‘right’ etc. This would not just focus on gender, but actually removing people’s perception’s on gender – as an example, the ‘glass ceiling’ re women’s pay. Instead of asking why women aren’t paid as much as men, they would say why aren’t people of the same merit not paid the same (regardless of gender). Now I think I’m veering off topic slightly.
IMO and after talking with them, I think the longer or foundational approach of education from a young age might have long lasting positive effects on a wider societal mindset than enforcing quotas, which to me can sometimes come across as a quick fix if on it’s own. But perhaps some combination of both is best – and I’m sure there’s research out there to blow my argument apart. I’m not close-minded to changing in the face of evidence.
#9 by Indy on March 26, 2013 - 1:39 pm
That is just rubbish though isn’t it, really. You are not telling me that the people we elect, whether in the Scottish Parliament or Westminster or local government or indeed Europe are there solely on merit and because they are better than anyone else. That is patently not the case. I honestly don’t know how people can make that merit case without bursting out laughing.
The quality control aspect comes into play at the vetting stage. Nobody should be an approved candidate who is not up to the job. Major parties have made terrible mistakes at that stage – Bill Walker, Eric Joyce etc. We then compound the mistake by not only passing them but selecting them – presumably on merit. That alone should tell us there is something wrong with our processes.
Too often we select people who are not actually better candidates but are more competitive candidates. There is an unspoken truth behind this problem. Generally speaking women are less competitive than men. That doesn’t apply across the board of course – there are many women who are highly competitive and many men who are not. But generally speaking women tend to be less competitive and therefore less likely to push themselves forward. So we actually miss out on some people who would be excellent. It’s daft really.
#10 by Ken on March 26, 2013 - 2:44 pm
– “You are not telling me that the people we elect, whether in the Scottish Parliament or Westminster or local government or indeed Europe are there solely on merit and because they are better than anyone else.”
No I’m not telling you that. I’m telling you it should be like that (naïve I know) – and I don’t see how gender quotas necessarily means more merit.
I doubt that many MPs, MSPs etc are there on merit, but more that they’ve played the game better. Again, the counter argument by many female opponents themselves is that gender quotas don’t necessarily mean the best female candidate is chosen – just that the female candidate who is best able to play the game is chosen. It’s not solving the wider problem of politics and merit, actually it may end up compounding the perception that X or Y got selected or elected because they were a former roommate / drinking pal / bosom buddy of key selectors, regardless of X or Y’s gender. Merit in governance is, I dunno, something we as a society should be aiming for, no? I’m not entirely convinced that quotas (in many shapes) effectively address that, but like I said, I’ve an open mind.
#11 by James on March 26, 2013 - 2:53 pm
My entirely subjective sense, having watched Scottish Green Party selections pretty closely before and after gender balance was brought in, is that the good women are now coming forward. Partly that’s because we’re trying to select candidates who’ll be good politicians. An ability to play the game is what the party needs, amongst other things (principles, media savvy, hard work, smarts, etc). No-one gets selected because they’re someone’s chum, at least in the Greens – “key selectors” for us means the entire local party membership, or at least those amongst them who vote in internal selections.
#12 by Ken on March 26, 2013 - 3:19 pm
Yes, that would tally my own observations of the Greens in Brussels (from Germany, France, Sweden) – but and I think this is where it is important, and I refer to my education point, I also feel that those societies (and maybe I’m just totally wrong) have a greater and broader acceptance of equality (including gender) which may have an affect on public perception on the selection of would-be politicians. I feel that’s missing in the UK as a whole. Perhaps it’s a chicken-and-egg scenario in fixing the problem.
#13 by Richard on March 27, 2013 - 5:01 am
So how do you propose to address the issue of people not putting themselves forward? This is not something that enforced equality can resolve; you can’t force a person to do a job that they don’t want to do.
Even if you could, who would be the better candidate: an extremely capable person who doesn’t want to be there, or a less gifted person who would put their heart and soul into it?
I do agree with you – it is daft. Unfortunately there is no quick fix for it. Ken quite rightly highlights the only real solution: Education.
#14 by James on March 27, 2013 - 8:36 am
I can assure you that, even in a much smaller party like the Greens, once you bring in gender balance, women come forward in more numbers.
#15 by Indy on March 27, 2013 - 1:10 pm
I don’t think it is about women not wanting to do the job – it is about the competitive element of selection putting them off and perhaps the values we bring to assessing and choosing candidates. We have seen examples of candidates who were patently not suitable being not only approved but selected – then they turn out to be total liabilities. Why was that not picked up earlier – perhaps because the selection process is based on this meritocracy myth where it is essentially about the most assertive candidates being chosen.
#16 by Ross on March 26, 2013 - 2:54 pm
Broadly agree with this regarding women selection.
It’s probably less of a worry amongst the chattering classes of Scotland’s Blogosphere/Activism (as we’re all part of it) world but I’m probably more concerned about people being moved up into these positions from a basis of only knowing about party activism
Getting a hashtag trending, knocking doors, and organising events is important for our representatives in getting elected and knockinga about ideas but I’d much rather have people (men, women or those imbetween) with a track record in business and honest employment.
Having a look at some of the hopefuls of some husting for various political posts (I haven’t looked at the one mentioned in this article) I’m seriously concerned that there are good activists but people with very little experience of proper employment.
#17 by Danny on March 27, 2013 - 2:54 pm
Surely the SNP, and any other parties for that matter, ought to be selecting the best candidate, regardless of their gender?
For example you say “First, I want to live in a society where the best people are selected and elected, not one where being a bloke comes with a massive advantage”
However I would reject your conclusion that being male carries the advantage, but simply that, in the opinions of SNP constituency parties, the best local candidates in, say, 70% of areas, were males.
I’d argue that the bigger tragedy would be fantastic male candidates being overlooked in favour of positive discrimination.
Whilst I’m all for encouraging more women to get involved, they should not be selected as candidates unless the local party members genuinely feel they are the right person for the job.
#18 by James on March 27, 2013 - 6:43 pm
Of course I think we should get the best candidates, irrespective of gender. I just don’t think that men are more than twice as likely to be the best candidates, and I don’t think we’re getting the best now from most of the parties. Just see Indy’s comment above for some counter-examples.
#19 by Iain Menzies on March 27, 2013 - 7:05 pm
The problem is that all you are offering in way of evidence is that we dont have a 50/50 spli in candidaes and or MSP/MP/MEP/Councillors.
Unless you can show that in many insances an inferior man was selected oevr a superior woman then we aint gonna get anywhere.
And thats before you get to an election where the idea that a certain proportion of victors should be one sex or the other is eye wateringly undemocratic.
#20 by James on March 27, 2013 - 7:08 pm
I don’t think anyone’s suggesting that. If parties want to present all-male slates that’s up to them and their members (such as UKIP’s 11 sitting MEPs, all male, for example). I wouldn’t vote for a party that behaved like that.
Also, how would your supposedly objective “inferior” and “superior” assessments work? All I know about specific selections is who I think’s best. You can’t generalise from that. It’s preference.
#21 by Iain Menzies on March 27, 2013 - 8:00 pm
Well if you arent suggesting that then whats the point of any of this? If your saying that you want a certain amount of cadidates to be women, but that it doesnt matter if none of them get elected then whats your point?
Also i aint suggesting an assessment. The party i used to be a member of is the party that provided the Uk with its first woman PM…so im feeling rather smug here :).
I dont care if 1% 2% or 99% of what ever body are women. So long as those in that body aint crap.
#22 by James on March 27, 2013 - 8:18 pm
Not at all: the discrimination takes place before the public vote, not during. I don’t have any major fears that the public are still sexist in the ballot box.
#23 by Iain Menzies on March 27, 2013 - 9:13 pm
So what your basically saying is that a party that doesnt put forward a certain percentage of its candidates who are women are sexist.
Are there women that dont get selected because they are women….aye probably. Are there men that dont get selected because they are men…aye there are. I dont see the difference.
But then i dont think that all men are sexist and that women cant be sexist, as some people do.
The problem with what your saying is that you think there should be more women in politics. I dont think that most people actually give that much of a damn about the ratio so long as politicians actually get things done.
#24 by James on March 27, 2013 - 9:57 pm
I’ve never met anyone who thought all men were sexist and women can’t be. I want the best people, and I believe on average those are about 50/50 – having gender balance doesn’t guarantee you’re getting the best people however you define it, but having one woman out of six repeatedly absolutely guarantees you aren’t getting the best.
#25 by Una on March 28, 2013 - 4:04 pm
Good post James – the SNP need to stop fiddling around the edges on this issue. I think fewer women support indy not because of fear of change, but because they don’t see the point if it’s just going to be more of the same – or perhaps even a more macho society. Ads and warm words about a better future won’t convince when chances to do things differently now aren’t grasped.