A backwards step
Hi, I’m Lauren. Some of you might know me – during the referendum I wrote a letter to the Wee Ginger Dug about my journey from No to Yes. I’m a true convert, and once I crossed over I got busy – I leafleted and canvassed and worked my socks off as most activists do. I never joined the SNP because on the doorsteps I liked being able to say “it’s not all about the SNP, I’m not a member”.
But after the referendum I did join. I joined because I knew that I could still be actively involved in campaigning for independence. Within a few months I was chosen to be Branch Organiser in my hometown of Bathgate. Every time a new leaflet came out I counted 10,000 leaflets into their individual runs and delivered them to volunteers and I delivered the ones that that no one else wanted to do after I’d done my own.
I organised training days and visited new members, encouraging them to get involved. Wednesday nights and Friday afternoons were spent on canvassing sessions. For the by-election in nearby Armadale I’d get up on a Saturday morning, leave the kids with my partner and chap doors. On other Saturdays I manned street stalls.
Monday and Tuesday were spent building the constituency website where each of the branches could have space to communicate outside the confines of internal emails but in private. I went to constituency meetings and was also made Political Education Officer. I was actively campaigning full-time while having a job, four young children and a house to run.
I didn’t mind that I had very little time to see my friends, I didn’t mind that I had to give up our family time at the weekends, I didn’t mind that my petrol budget doubled, I didn’t mind that I missed my wee girl singing solo at a school opening ceremony because I was out canvassing. It was all for the cause, for a better Scotland
Yesterday I resigned from the SNP because the party told me I was second-class.
I’m not some weak little girl who needs a “gender equality mechanism” to succeed. I’m no less capable than any woman in Holyrood right now. But the amendment passed yesterday morning said I am.
I will not tell my daughters they’re not capable of achieving what their brothers can achieve. I will not sit meekly by and blindly accept these backwards, discriminatory quotas. I will not be told that all-women shortlists are only an “option” and that makes it alright. I will not participate in a party that doesn’t know what equality is.
I listened very carefully on Saturday as buzzwords like “equality”, “social justice” and “fairness” were parroted over and over as if somehow repeating them enough times meant they’d happen. On Sunday morning the opposite of “equality” happened, and it happened with the full support of the leadership.
(To the point of bad manners – it’s bloody rude to get up and walk off stage when someone is making their argument. Someone opposing also had their mic turned off after their three minutes while they were still speaking, but someone supporting the amendment was allowed to continue after their time was up. “Equality”, I suppose.)
Along with many others I’d put my card in against the amendment, but though I was told I’d be heard I didn’t get to speak. This is what I wanted to say:
“I have three minutes to ensure womens rights aren’t taken back 100 years.
I’m opposing this motion because I believe men and women are equal. I was encouraged to speak today by a fellow member, a person who’s been SNP most of their adult life. A very hard-working individual who’s commanded my respect and admiration in all the time I’ve known them.
That person felt their opposition to this amendment would be perceived by some as sexist. I find that quite ironic given what this amendment is proposing.
This proposal means biasing the system to advantage some people over others based on their gender. This idea that gender equality can only be achieved by treating people unequally is wrong.
It doesn’t address why women are choosing more men candidates and it doesn’t address why more women don’t stand. It says that Nicola Sturgeon and Roseanna Cunningham and Shona Robison and Angela Constance and Fiona Hyslop are better than you or I, that we can’t achieve what they achieved unless we get an unfair advantage.
It doesn’t address any of the issues it claims unbalance our system.
It doesn’t tell us why John Swinney is apparently less able to represent his female constituents, yet a woman would be able to represent both sexes.
It doesn’t tell us how we can address the class imbalance, where working-class women currently can’t afford to give up jobs, pay for childcare and so on, but wealthier ones can.
In fact it’ll make it worse, because working-class men – who suffer less from those issues – will now be excluded from standing in favour of middle-class women. And women with kids will be pitted against those without.
We’ve been told relentlessly that gender quotas are a blunt but progressive method. They are, in the same way you could use an electric stone-grinder to brush your teeth. It’d certainly mean never having dirty teeth again, but not in the way you really wanted.
Instead of having women standing and being selected and respected, they’ll be viewed as the best of the ones we had to have.
It also tells men that we’re the opposition, instead of their colleagues. It says to them ‘Don’t bother joining your local branch of the SNP, because you won’t be allowed to be a candidate, but hey, you can post the leaflets so we don’t break our nails.’
It means writing off half the population before we’ve considered their ability. We’ll be saying we’d have turned away the former First Minister, purely because he had a penis. ‘Sorry, Alex, we’ve got too many men at the moment, here’s some envelopes to stuff.’
This ‘gender balance equality’ is not equality. it takes women’s rights back to the days where we were justifying our right to be heard.
It’s an agenda that will see the rise of people looking at women in politics as less able, rightly or wrongly. The fact is, they wont be given the opportunity to stand against all the competition and prove their worth.
Let’s not plaster over those issues with a quick fix that will inevitably revert back to the status quo, or worse – women once more being wrongly viewed as less equal, less able and ultimately inferior.”
Agreed
Let it be noted at the start: disagreement is entirely welcome in comments on this post, but abusive arseholery will not be tolerated. Everyone clear? Super.
Excellent article, Lauren. I completely agree with you and have been saying for some time that women-only lists are a step backwards. I’m sorry that you weren’t listened to. This is a time of turmoil for the SNP with such an increase in membership. Things aren’t perfect by any means but people like you are needed to make things better.
I don’t join gangs cause eventually you will disagree with them, and may have to stick around and fight your corner or leave them to it.
I agree and think its like being a comedian or musician, if people like you they’ll support you. How polticians are treated by the media and each other has to change and I think it is changing in Scotland just not in ya boo Westminster.
I’m so sorry that you resigned. You will be a great loss to the SNP. This motion was time limited, it expires in May 2016. If the SNP wants to do this again, there will have to be another debate. If you stayed you could make you case again. You could try and mandate the delegates from your branch and CA to vote against any new similar resolutions. So please think about not resigning or rejoin if you have. Only if you stay as a member can you fight you corner. All political parties will at times pass motions, resolution that you don’t agree with. You can stay and try and overturn it or resign.Personally I don’t agree entirely with your view but it is a difficult subject and people feel strongly about it. Please please stay, we need more people like you. Fight your corner in the branch and CA.
The party didnae tell you that you were second class, you just feel that way. Is it really worth trying to fragment support for the SNP over this when you are so committed to independence, seems like backwards thinking, more so than female only shortlists.
Westminster is Democratic? The world is an equal place? Trident/illegal wars, tax evasion and banking fraud. It’s not an equal place. Westminster lies, corruption, criminality and the Official Secret’s Act.
Excellent article Lauren, thank you.
Keep up the good work and fight for Scotland’s independence.
Could someone please post exactly what the motion was? I don’ t wish to comment before I’ve had a chance to digest it.
You need a holiday.
…some people are never happy…
It is a pity you felt you had to resign your membership. But that is the nature of party members politics. You cannot get all your own way inside the party all the time. Cohesion and success come from accepting that other do not hold specific view that match your own, but that the wider aims are worth the compromise.
I spoke to a number o people who felt on the issue as you do, but although they voted against, they accept that given a few outings in the electoral arena, it will be reversed in a few years, and they will stay in the party, and work for the broader aims during that time.
The long term success experienced by the Scottish National Party is a consistent long term vision.
I would urge you to reconsider your position, and help us to
gain Independence, so that the social fabric of an Independent Scotland addresses this issue by a fairer society at its heart, rather than having to implement pro-active direct “Legislation” to do it.
Well said.
SNP should have no place for inverse discrimination.
May the woman or man get the job, whatever it may be.
100% in agreement. “Positive Discrimination” is still discrimination, whatever way you look at it. I’m glad to see that you have the courage of your convictions to say so openly. I sincerely hope that the deluded radical ‘feminists” will eventually open their eyes to this as well ( yes, I AM looking at you, WFI…)
Equality is a basic human right. Not a commodity to be traded or quotas set for.
Nicola Sturgeon: you would do well to remember this. This decision does the party no favours. You have some 80 000 new members over the last 6 months: WE EXPECT BETTER FROM YOU.
Agreed. I am very unhappy about this.
You do not solve inequality with more inequality.
I also cannot understand why all members could not vote on this issue. I could vote for my local MP candidate electronically but not something as fundamental to democracy as this.
I tell my daughter she can be anything she wants to be. She does not need a fixed list.
I am seriously considering resigning my membership.
I don’t agree with women only lists,and the not unrelated SNP attitude to domestic violence in seeing it as a “women the only victim event”, is idiotic and simply untrue (I speak from sad experience).
However, this is far and away from being the most significant issue at the present time. Given that the Labour Party have been prime movers on women only shortlists, it is unfortunate to say the least to effectively give them assistance by resigning from the SNP at this time.
In summary, I agree that Sturgeon is completely wrong on this, but it is not sufficient reason to resign.
Few will ever find a party with which they are aligned on every policy.
All this allows is ‘cereal woman’ political aspiration. Not talent.
Best people always 100% any demographic
Very sorry to here this , it’s more than disappointing , it’s a real concern. ‘Here comes the new boss , same as the old boss’.
There may be more to this so I will watch with interest any developments. Such incidents influence the way one votes.
Hi Lauren,
I’m not an SNP member – so wasn’t involved in that vote; though I have always supported independence. (I am a member of another pro-indy party, and left a neutral (anti-austerity) party in order to do so.)
Politics is often the art of the possible and/or the pragmatic, rather than the ideal. I applaud your energy and commitment and I’m sure you will continue to work for Independence. The movement is richer for having you in it!
Something I have learned in life is that nobody (except perhaps you and I 😉 ) is perfect, and we have to find a way to make the best job of what we can in the place we find ourselves; and not to judge people who get some things wrong. Looking back at my own life, it’s obvious that some of the times I thought I was most right, I was being most unhelpful. I’m very grateful to those people (family, friends, colleagues, mostly) who haven’t argued the point with me, but just got on with the next task, without holding a grudge against me for being a loudmouthed, opinionated numpty.
I wish you well, Lauren, and urge you to remember (to quote the closing lines of one of my favourite films) that: ‘Nobody’s perfect.’
I have to say that if this is the way things are going to be then my resignation wont be long in coming either. I dislike the whole party politics shuffle where those who push their way to the top impose their will, one way or another, on the rest.
I don’t believe that this resolution had the real support of the majority of either the SNP membership or the electorate, so why was it pushed through. I joined the SNP as I thought it was the best route to an independent Scotland, but if this is what is going to happen then I need to find another way of doing that.
Sorry that this is how you feel. I have often not always agreed with every thing that the SNP has done but for me they have been the only game in town. Perhaps it is the wrong thing to do, but I think it has been done with the best of intentions. Perhaps this has arisen because of the influx of new members, many like you from what we could term the opposition. I would suggest that you have now just about run out of options,your previous party holds the same position. Sometimes if you do not mind me saying this,to take this tact just before an election,smacks of the fifth column.
So who are U voting for at GE? Labour? I assume it will not be the SNP or the Scottish Green Party, (who also have a quota for gender equality of 40% in all boardrooms).
I disagree with everything you say.
There is gender bias in all walks of life in Scotland.
I saw it in the primary school where my daughter was discriminated against by the (all female) primary school teachers – who were far harsher on the girls than the boys.
In Scotland, the ‘males are best’ culture is bred deep and needs weeded out. I saw it in my great aunts who would rush to ‘feed the menfolk’ in the home, but the poor old ‘women-folk’ had to fend for themselves. The subliminal message to the young girls in the family was, ‘You are not as important’.
I often suspect this modern favoring of men goes back to the end of the First World War at the end of which there were 6 eligible girls to 1 boy thanks to our Imperial Masters ‘lovely war’.
Before WW1, the Scottish protestant education system was unique in Europe in educating girls as much as boys.
It’s time we re-set Scottish culture’s scewed gender balance.
It also gives the menfolk the chance to stand on their own feet for once, as the male shoe’ins are checked.
Where are you going to go now ? Labour have women only shortlists and the Tories would take the vote from everyone bar the landed gentry if they could.
The SNP may not be perfect but as a mechanism for social change it’s a damnned sight better than any of the alternatives.
It shouldn’t be necessary to positively discriminate but unfortunately if we want to progress we may have to. It has worked in the States.
I agree with you Lauren, but I won’t be resigning from the SNP over it. The arguments can be made again and a different conclusion reached next time.
I hope you reconsider your decision to resign. All I’ve done for the cause is post a few leaflets, but you’re a much greater loss than that.
A matter of weeks from the election where we could actually be effective in gaining power from Scotland and “we” are now doing the unionists and msm job for them! Priceless. …….I could weep.
Lauren, I am disappointed that you feel this way
I was not there to see it, however I have no reason to doubt you and the hard work you have done on behalf of the snp.I hope this issue gets addressed as a matter of urgency and not brushed
Under the carpet.
Edit.
For
Wow, Lauren. Respect. Particularly for your commitment.
And I hate to do this, but I can’t agree with you on your major argument… but not by much. Maybe we’ll get to a point where there will be two candidates per constituency, a male and a female. But until then, we can’t stuff houses of representative democracy with one gender and leverage in a few exceptionals of the other. We’re about 50:50. We need to be true to that.
I don’t know anywhere where positive discrimination runs smoothly for the first few years or decades even, but some historical methods of dismissal actually just have to be dismissed. I have absolutely no qualms that a gender-balanced house of representatives is a necessary step home.
Hi Lauren, as a father of three young girls, I can understand your issue here with the negative impact of positive discrimination. However, to quit the SNP over a single issue that you disagree with, while presumably you agree with most of their other policies, seems somewhat rash and hotheaded.
You appear to be one hell of a hard campaigner and I hope you’ll reconsider as your departure will be a loss to the SNP campaign.
I voted against the motion but will not be resigning from the SNP because it was passed. I prefer to stay and argue my view from within.
I think that the fact that this was one of Nicola Sturgeon’s policy had a lot to do with why it was passed. Had it been from someone else I suspect it would have been a more closely fought contest.
I think that the lack of women in politics is due to far more fundamental societal issues, and that until these are addressed we will not see more women putting themselvews forward. It can be fixed, but it won’t be quickly.
I find it weird that a party with a female leader and a gender-balanced front bench thinks such discrimination is necessary.
Having said that, I didn’t realise the motion was time-limited, so I’m OK with it being there for a year. If it stays longer, or is just the start of the kind of Politics-degree-student BS which helped destroy Labour, I may start reconsidering my vote.
Hi Lauren, PLEASE reconsider. I’ve yet to see the unedited debate from Saturday [the BBC one was very selective and short], but would like to hear what you said with the evident passion and values that you hold. Clearly you have managed to voice at least some of this strength of feeling on WoS today. So again, please reconsider. Don’t leave. Debate and change things from within. Stronger together. It is a weakness of political movements on either side of the spectrum that divisions occur without remedy. This kind of brings me to an issue that has been worrying me all weekend.
Lauren, please also forgive me for going a bit off topic early on in this thread but it is relevant to your ability to have a voice, as has appeared here on WoS. Indeed everyone who cares about Scotland and all issues. It is this…..
Stuart PLEASE can you consider the following?
1] That you take EVERY Sunday off?
2] That you allocate £10,000 of the crowdfund just raised for the annual cost of a part-time assistant editor or towards journalistic contribution to enable you to take a SECOND day off each week?
The reason has been worrying me all weekend whilst reflecting on the Temporary Service Interruption holding page. I know from the experience of a good friend who helped with a disability website forum elsewhere that BURNOUT can be an issue which sneaks up on folk. The overworking of one person to the point of exhaustion, or even just unfair tiredness.
I know not what your own position on energy is, and I may be way off the mark. Profuse apologies if I am out of line bringing this up. But for good health on so many levels, it seems an eminently sensible idea to lift a bit of the load and daily responsibility for WoS off of your good shoulders.
From the perspective of someone who very much enjoys reading WoS, and also sees how structurally important the website has become to balancing the debates on the future of Scotland as evidenced by the phenomenal readership statistics you recently posted relating to the Wings Over Scotland, I believe from the heart that what you have created is significant beyond words.
Not least in helping those of us at this end point family, friends and colleagues to a place where they can get a narrative that presents the other side of the argument in, and of Scotland.
As a wise person once wrote in a Wee Blue Book: “Don’t you at least want to hear both sides before you decide?” Well I did, I do, And I want to continue doing so. For my threepence worth, I also want to make sure that the guiding light behind that source of energy and enlightenment is looked after to ensure this fine facility continues.
Does anyone else think this might be a good idea to help keep our Rev in good health?
Sincerely,
Calum
P.S. Lauren, apologies for posting this here and now.
Great article.
In glad you included the class argument. It’s one that is often overlooked in the gender debate.
Scottish Cabinet 50/50 protecting NHS/Education, the vulnerable, mitigate the ‘bedroom tax’ – Good social policies, social care. Family friendly hours. Westminster wealthy, White middle class males do not.
The ConDems have lied and attacked the vulnerable, one parent families and women. They are bearing the burden of the ConDems undemocratic policies. The vulnerable are being attacked by the wealthy Westminster crooks and the colluding MSM. Predominately White wealthy middle-class males.
Whilst I generally agree that positive discrimination is still discrimination and therefore something to be avoided I have to say I’m really pissed off with people like yourself putting your own self – interest before what must be our one real goal.
Scottish independence is all that matters & throwing our toys out of the pram like this helps no-one.
I have been for many years a follower or member of the SNP. I have seen over the years many policies made – some good some bad. However, I do feel that, like others, since September 2014 so many people have joined, to be honest, it is not easy to ‘please all of the people all of the time’.
There will be motions, ideas, etc. put forward that I am sure many, many people will disagree about. The nature of the beast is to work from your Branch upwards talking with others of a similar ilk and that way things will progress. That is what has happened for many many years now.
Remember, the adage, ‘from tiny acorns’ and keep up the good work please Lauren.
Is this for real? From someone who thought it important enough to miss their child’s solo performance at school to canvas (really?)….to this being the line drawn in the sand to give up all the other positives rather than staying and seeing how it actually pan’s out? I don’t think men will be pushed into the darkness and I am in no way a feminist but I think this move is positive in promoting an equal platform…if it happens in reality is another thing…but it’s been a long time coming…or should we just go back to eating cereal?
What is potential political talent anyway and how to spot it without people being involved. Look at endemic sexist pay scale discrimination. Real world fundamental problem, lets up and walk away from it?
https://www.tuc.org.uk/equality-issues/gender-equality/equal-pay/women-still-earn-%C2%A35000-year-less-men
Win independence, get rid of parties that don’t deliver.
I am sorry you have resigned Lauren, but you have to follow your heart. I agree absolutely with your argument and any continuing contribution from you supporting the independence movement can only be welcome.
The only way to achieve change is to have a target. The only way to achieve a target is to have a plan.
I’m glad the resolution passed.
I couldn’t agree more, thank you Lauren.
IMHO, gender-based quotas are a cheep ‘solution’ that will do nothing to address a structural ‘problem’.
Surely gender equality can only be achieved by making access to opportunities the same for everyone. A much more ambitious and costly project.
Well done Lauren,
The SNP had gender balanced cabinent without having to introduce rules like these.
All these women were there due to merit not because of biased rules.
A recent vetting process saw one very goood young woman rejected and three blokes go forward – quite a few annoyed with that.
I disagree that this is a backward step and have looked to other countries with quotas to see what the actual outcome is with regard to quality of representation – studies not anecdote show that quality improves with quotas.
In WM 78% of our politicians are millionaires, in the general U.K population there are 0.7% millionaires – my point? We don’t live in a fair, democratic society, I want a truly representative democracy and we’ll not get that without change – I hope the quotas are short lived, they are not perfect.
I also think you should not give up, I am much more left leaning than the SNP but they have my support for now. I hope you can find a way to remain politically active.
Given that there are many factors in society that cannot be easily identified nor perceived on the basis of personal experience that bias judgements against women simply expecting them to succeed on their merits is a self defeating proposition.
Sure, some will succeed regardless, but those who don’t are held back by the complex nature of society, institutional biases, and the expectations and biases regarding the roles of men and women. A step-change in selection procedures was, in my view, needed to allow a more balanced and fairer set of representatives to emerge and encourage those who are currently held back by the current selection biases in Scottish society, not just the SNP.
If anyone perceives this as an indication that they personally are a second class member of society it does no more than emphasise my initial point – losing the vote is one matter but to interpret that as a reflection upon themselves is another matter altogether, one related to self image.
Why should losing a debate lead one to consider they are being treated as a second class citizen? I think Lauren needs to consider this question more deeply and reflect on what her perceived position meant to her personally.
Given that the motion is time limiting it also seems to me to be self defeating for Lauren to resign on such a matter as any organisation needs at times to reach a consensus and outwith the organisation she has little hope of persuading others that her views are more appropriate than those who currently won the debate. And who is going to argue for extending fairer representation to other groups in society that Lauren mentioned if she is outwith the SNP?
There will always be disagreement on this issue and I wholeheartedly agree with your point about middle-class women being more likely to be chosen as candidates over a working-class male but… I still see so much gender bias at work and on the street that I feel saddened that a political party should need a time-limited action to sledgehammer the issue. Having worked in England and Scotland, I can honestly say that Scotland has some way to go and wasn’t our hopes for independence supposed to be about building a better country for our kids? Logically, it follows that there’s stuff needs fixing now but also… If we’re not prepared to use blunt use tools in the short-term to achieve relatively modest aims such as gender bias in our public representatives, are we then going to baulk or stay our hand when it comes to cracking, land reform or tax avoidance? Short term measures can work but will need party members who disagree to speak up and hold feet to the fire.
Well although I fully understand the reasons why someone would oppose this measure and though I’m fairly ambivalent myself, I think in the end I would support it; simply because I believe that there ARE instances when positive discrimination is necessary to break a logjam which otherwise may never be broken. This is particularly important in politics, where our political representatives really need to reflect the population in terms of gender. So no, I disagree with Lauren on this and I believe I would have voted for the motion.
I’m not an SNP member, but think that quotas are eminently sensible.
It’s not a coincidence that men dominate political and economic positions – and it’s also not because we’re intrinsically better. Generations of patriarchy do not just melt away in the face of the ‘best’ people putting themselves forward. Action is needed.
There’s an interestingly similar debate going on in the Co-operative Group just now. Men dominate the representative structures and the Board, and they (together with some women) think that’s just fine. Given that 70% of its membership is made up of women, you would think that some people would recognise the anomaly there.
I suppose ‘principled’ resignations will now be par for the course now that the SNP has a mass membership. However, we all need to strive to create the conditions for gender equity.
I also felt torn during this vote and voted accordingly. I’m delighted you’ve had an opportunity here to voice your concerns as well as your commitment to the cause of independence, and I’m sure that will continue. However, I also feel that by withdrawing your support for the SNP you may also be withdrawing another powerful voice in the cause of good sense and obvious passion for that cause. That’s unfortunate and seems a bit rash, TBH.
Malky
I disagree entirely with quotas.
If you’re good enough you get the job.
I find it a disgrace that there is a Black police officers organisation. I find it embarrassing that Les Ferdinand wants more black football managers.
I don’t see the need for more ethnic MP’s.
I also don’t see the need for moustachioed men in hotpants to march through the streets of Brighton.
And controversially, I also agree with loony Farage in as much as we don’t need the equal rights act because we are all equal without it. We are told we live in a multicultural and equal society.
There should be no shortlists except for the best candidates at anything .
I don’t personally think all women shortlists are a great idea, but credit to the SNP, they are certainly trying to give women a equal and strong voice in the party.
not sure how else they can do this, and since they had a vote and the vote to have these lists was carried, I’m baffled as to why you are so upset about it Lauren and why you are having this hissy fit Rev.
In the real world, things are never perfect.
I am sorry Lauren feels this way but she misunderstands the resolution. It states that until May 2016 in the relatively infrequent occurrence of a death or an MSP standing down the NEC “MAY” direct not WILL direct that an all female list shortlist should be drawn up by the local organisation.
It also states that 2016 nomination lists should include at least one female candidate (which could be one of ten).
It also states that Regional List nominations should have a gender balance but members can vote for all males if they so wish.
I was at a branch meeting on Thursday where this was debated. We had two women sitting behind me who were for this while every other women who spoke opposed it.
The two behind me were rude and constantly conversed while people were speaking, not only about this but the other subjects as well.
I was saddened that this needed to be brought up at all, as I can’t for the life of me think, the application process is open to all. Women are able to apply to stand for office, equally.
I am also sad to hear someone who has worked and sacrificed so much for the cause, finding she has to resign. Someone with the drive and determination, courage and integrity that would only be an asset to the SNP.
I am sad today, but full of respect for you Lauren.
Yup. Totally agree.
As one of those “feminists” I find quotas insulting. The best person for the job should always get the job, regardless of gender.
Maybe it would be better time spent looking at why more women don’t enter politics. Our young girls need to be taught that, yes they can. Our young boys, the same lesson but also that the girl sitting next to them is equally able. Never should it be taught or thought that “she’s only got the job because she’s a woman”. That would be a major step backwards.
This is a bad policy/tactic/whatever and is a obviously unfair.
There are a quite a few SNP policies I don’t agree with in all honesty but one thing is far more important to me than any other and that’s the end goal.
Independence will require some ruthless choices to be made along the way. I’m sticking by my membership come what may.
This is, for me, a bit of a bitter sweetie for all concerned. If the SNP had turned this down it may have discouraged the very people like Lauren to engage in the future.
KNOWING you have fewer contenders for a role will surely make those with potential but not the courage to take that leap into the unknown. As for those who regard the ‘Face’ of the party being the power I would take umbrage at that. The MP, MSP or any party rep is only the figurehead. They are the one in the limelight who takes the media flak and has to be the one to take the fall, praise when needed. A political party is NOT about individuals in the limelight. The decision made SHOULD (we hope) make more women consider taking up political roles and responsibility (like here in Sweden) where there IS a far more even gender balance. Scotland is NOT like that yet (I’d say it was down to UK class control and political disenfranchisement) so something needs to be done to boost representation. The points made are completely right and I reckon that the leadership HAVE considered them BUT see the longer term as more important. It’s a shame there will be those who throw their teddies from the pram about this rather than make the best of it since it was a lose lose bet no matter how it turned out.
Still I hope the thirst for freedom burns for Scotland in Lauren and that even though this aspect does not fit 100% with her view that she will not abandon the ultimate goal.
We are all strong individualists on here, it’s inevitable that there are squabbles… but we must keep our eyes on the goal – (unlike Davie Marshall) – which is independence.
Imagine being in hospital for a major operation and a newly employed female surgeon comes in. Could you stop yourself thinking is she the best surgeon the hospital interviewed or has she been employed because of a quota system.
Have agreed with this view for goodness knows how long. Cringed when Nicola announced if a few months back, and I’m pretty sure my MSP won’t be chuffed with me if I get the chance to speak to her. However, this has been in action since November 2014(?). Is it the “equality” rule that’s the reason for leaving, or the way the decision has been taken?
I won’t cancel my membership over this as I joined for a whole host of reasons and referendum was just the push over the edge for me, and given the large influx of new members in the last few months I don’t think Lauren will be the last to go because of disagreement with policy.
Agree however its a shame you have resigned, you can’t change anything outside the SNP, or any other party, but you can from within. Get back in influence your local branches and the CA and there are people who will agree and support you. People don’t necessarily listen to reason or common sense when sometimes swept away on a wave of success with associated notions of grandeur but use the democratic process and as democrats surely we can change things next time round. Patience is most certainly a virtue in politics. Folk have to dig in following disappointments , dust themselves down and fight on for their beliefs. the last thing to do is resign. Remember the one about Robert the Bruce and the wee spider !
Change comes from the inside, I hope you reconsider and work to make that change happen.
I totally agree that women only lists are wrong. All discrimination is wrong, even when labelled “positive”. However, I am saddened that Lauren feels she has to resign over the issue. I don’t agree with all of the SNP policies, but they meet more of the things I believe in than any other party. I might not vote for them following independence, but they definitely have my vote until that day comes.
The Yes campaign and the SNP has produced many strong and powerful women speakers and activists.
I am very proud that the SNP has the highest percentage of woman candidates in the GE of any party.
I voted for one as she was the best candidate – not because there was a rule saying I had too.
I respect ‘taking offence’ at things. Very much. But I personally find it ill-justified here. If women (or African-Americans, c.f. US) have faced a long history of discrimination, then getting them into a system is difficult. Affirmative discrimination is a step toward that goal. It is a step, might not be the step ‘you’ would take, but I admire the step. Frankly, women aren’t being told they’re less able, they’re as well-qualified as men, but try telling that to the men hiring them. Resigning from the SNP for their sincere effort, as if, they had done a wrong, is a little pretentious. Shouldn’t we applaud their attempt to stymie gender inequality? Or should we disengage the moment the political agenda isn’t a la carte for each individual? Lets cluster around people pursuing the same ideals we hold dear, and not punish them for not holding their forks right, or storm out. I believe this Guardianesque pickiness/moral airs sets the left back.
I don’t agree with positive discrimination. Not only was it a failed tactic when the RUC became the PSNI in N Ireland ( to address the catholic/protestant ratio of recruits), it kept good candidates out of the selection process. There has to be fundemental change in society and attitudes from nursery school age up to effect change. This will take time. Every party doesn’t tick every single box for its members or voters on every policy. However, if you are a member of a party you stay and argue your case, you don’t chuck the dummy out and leave because you didn’t win that particular arguement. I appreciate that Lauren has done much to promote the SNP and fair play to her for it, however there are thousands of others out there every day doing the same thing, working towards building a better Scotland for future generations. It doesn’t happen overnight and it certainly isn’t decided by a vote
Well said.
And respect for taking what would be a hard decision
(to resign) on a matter of principle.
I, for one, wish there were more people who would
have the courage of their convictions; sometimes if
we feel strong enough about something we have to make a
stand. That people disagree with you is fine; they have that right,
but I don’t agree you should be considered selfish in any way.
I’m no fan of Robin Cook but in 2003 he resigned from the Cabinet saying:
“It is 20 years ago that I first joined Labour’s shadow cabinet. It is with regret I have today resigned from its cabinet. I can’t accept collective responsibility for the decision to commit Britain now to military action in Iraq without international agreement or domestic support.”
He certainly gained my respect for that. Was he selfish? Did he ignore the ‘common good’ of Labour or the Government.
The ‘greater good’ is all very well and reasonable (at times) but if you feel strongly enough to resign your membership then you have my respect.
Lauren, well said.
I hold some views that I keep under my hat because at the moment they do not interfere with my commitment to independence.
I would however say to you the time to leave an organisation is when you have no further use for it, not when it makes a decision that you disagree with.
Yes, let’s all fall out now when so many have worked so hard to get to where we are. It’s hardly a Watergate moment.
As I understand it the issue at here was not equality as such, it was all about power – and specifically whether or not HQ could or should be able to over-ride the wishes of the Branches in submitting candidate names. But it is specific to the 2016 election in a bid to enhance the female representation at Holyrood which currently is less than good.
A friend of mine was at a constituency meeting to organise the adoption of an MP, at the end and AOB was announced she asked if it would be possible to have a Women for Indy table in the foyer, the reply came from a prominent male party member, Yes he said we could get them to do the cloakroom. Now I’m not a rabid feminist but its comments like that which are too often brushed under the carpet as a bit if fun,but are in point if fact too serious to be ignored. This IS a good move by SNP , not to have just any woman as is opinioned by the above, but to ALLOW the voices of women who up until now have been told their place is in the cloakroom and crucially and sadly all too often we have believed it, and s o us women just scuttled back to doing the dishes and wiping snotty noses as the saying goes ..when push comes to shove… All over Scotland women are waking up to the realisation that they have a valid voice in modern politics and most importantly what this forward step shall do is not only allow them to use it but actively encourage them to do. And point of fact , its progressive steps such as this that allow “working class” women to see their own potential as its sadly the case at the moment that ONLY women from more affluent backgrounds are heading up the top positions, as the comment above would imply that to have children or be working class puts women at a disadvantage??? If your constantly told that then you begin to believe it!! We have to start somewhere and I believe this is not the end of the road for equality it’s just the beginning. Let’s not be mistaking the map for the territory.
I was sat behind you during the internal session, I had no idea you were the ‘no to yes’ person. I too thought the decision was wrong but the proposer and seconder of the amendment gave pretty poor arguments to support it. I believed Christine Grahame had a card in to speak for the amendment who would have been a fantastic contributer to the debate but unfortunately, like yourself, wasn’t called.
Well said Lauren,
Two wrongs do not make a right and this is a massively retrograde step that does the SNP no good at all.
It is unbelievably damaging to a party that has developed a tone of progressiveness and fairness unrivalled in any political party in recent years.
There is no such thing as “positive discrimination”; all discrimination is wrong. I don’t care if the person selected to represent my constituency is male, female, short, tall, fat, thin, disabled, able-bodied, black, white or an alien with pink hair and green skin so long as they are the very best one for the job.
I want Scotland to be independent because I will settle for nothing less than the best for my country and for the future of my children and I expect a truly progressive party to present nothing less than the best candidate for each constituency, regardless of whether they have a penis, a vagina or twenty-six eyes and a tail.
It also concerns me that this hands the enemies of progress powerful ammunition to break down the momentum of the SNP going into this election. Not only is it a shame that it was agreed, it is a disgrace that it was even proposed in the first place.
So there have been almost 80,000 new members of the SNP in the last six months followed by an extensive and apparently highly competitive selection process for PPCs. As far as I can tell, lots of women stood. And yet only about 30-odd% of candidates are women.
It’s certainly true that women-only shortlists are a pretty blunt instrument, but if you’re opposing them then it is absolutely incumbent on you to explain why men are outnumbering women 2:1. Are there twice as many capable men as women in the party? Did your selection panel secretly ask themselves whether a woman could REALLY focus on the job with the kids stuck at home but ask it about a man? Did they wonder if a woman could stand up to the testosterone-fuelled bearpit of the Commons but assume that a man could? Were there women on the selection panels? Are there just not many women in your branch? Why not?
There’s been a lot of talk about “meritocracy” but what “merits” are we actually assessing? Are we looking for people who can succeed on the Westminster battlefield or people who can actually move towards meaningful changes to our politics? We want representative democracy, right? Well who’s being represented?
I agree with some other commenters that there are other issues to consider. Where are the racial minorities? Perhaps even more importantly, where are the people with disabilities? These are constituencies that are important if we intend to pursue real balance and representation and every branch should be looking closely at itself to see how much effort it’s making to attract people. Are we producing large print and Braille leaflets, for example? Are branch meetings accessible (by which I mean more than just making sure there are no steps for wheelchairs to fly up)?
However, women are half of the population and at no point in history have they even been close to achieving half of the positions of power in our society, despite oodles of evidence that gender balance improves the way systems work. If you think “meritocracy” is the only way forward and that nothing needs to change, you need to explain exactly what kind of meritocracy you believe in and explain why women are falling so far behind the stellar men who dominate our politics now. If the problem is that women don’t WANT to be candidates, we should ask why not and then think about addressing some of those issues. Is your branch full of patronising old men? Are women talked down to or do they have their voices excluded? Are women just not showing up at all because of the hyper-masculine “bully boy” image our former FM was given by our friends in the media? There are often underlying issues that we need to address and I’d encourage everyone to start addressing them.
If, on the other hand, you accept that there’s a problem but don’t think this is the way to address it, then let’s hear your alternative ideas! I agree that there are bigger changes than this needed in the long-term. I happen to think that getting a step-change at this level will almost inevitably lead to changes in other areas as the idea of women in power becomes a bit more normalised, but I can see how people would disagree. But if you’ve got better ideas that can see the kind of balance we want start to appear then let’s hear them!
Finally, never forget that a woman who gets to the same level as a man in most positions is already “better” than him because she’s had to get through layers of “that’s not a woman’s job” and “don’t get above yourself” and “we’ve never had a woman here before” and “what about your family?” before she even presents herself. Now she has to go through “aye, but she’d never get picked if it wasn’t for these bloody lists.” You know what? Half the men in parliament couldn’t do the job if their wives weren’t doing twice the work they do behind the scenes and half of them don’t even do the job very well once they’re there. A lot of it is about class and a lot of it is about knowing the right people but in the end, a lot of it is just about the world always having been run by men and therefore the men in charge tend to pick people who are like them. Until you actually break the glass ceiling, it’s a real struggle for anyone to get through it. Thatcher and Sturgeon are/were exceptional politicians, but we shouldn’t imagine that because they made it (nor even that so did Goldie and Davidson and Alexander and Lamont) that any woman can do it just as easily. Trailblazing only goes so far if people don’t keep throwing up new roadblocks behind you (and in Thatcher’s case, she threw some of them up herself!)
As the father of girls, I see your point, but the best way to deal with an issue you don’t agree with is from within, not by walking away. Please think again, Lauren. You can only have your concerns addressed from within the party, not from the outside.
I think there is widespread misunderstanding of positive discrimination here. Adopting a corrective strategy is not tantamount to an assertion that the people on one side are less capable, it is a response to a *systematic* imbalance. If your car veers onto the wrong side of the road, you do not simply straighten the wheel, you correct it first, you get back on the right side of the road.
No one advocating this can be saying that the women who made it are more capable. To read that into the the situation requires believing that merit always wins. But a biased syatem (ours) is exactly the sort where merit does not win: an equally capable woman is much less likely to succeed. That is the very problem.
The mechanism isn’t just blunt, it is downright ugly. It is bitter medicine to swallow – not least to the likes of myself who is positively discriminated against in job applications. No one is saying ‘this is how it should be’, they are saying – ‘this is how it has to be, to get where we should be’.
Are they right? Is this bitter medicine really necessary? I don’t know but complaining that you don’t like the taste doesn’t address that question, it just throws mud at those trying to.
So, as much as applaud your speaking out and taking a stand, Lauren, I think you have picked the wrong fight on this issue. Tell us not why you don’t like it, tell us why it won’t work.
Sorry you resigned Lauren, the SNP need fighters with heart and today’s new policy is tomorrows chip paper. If you’re involved in party politics of any sort there are going to be those days when the vote goes against your instincts on a given issue.
FWIW I agree, men and women are equal, always have been and always should be regarded as such. I’m not a fan of quota over meritocracy, when it comes to people. You’re either the right person for a job or you’re not regardless of gender.
I think the quota solution has come about across the board of parties because of intransigence and frustration. Its the easy fix. Is it the best fix? The slap on the wrist? The bucket ice water? I honestly don’t know.
I can see where it has come from and hopefully it will have the effect of a short sharp shock to the system and we’ll lose even the perceived need for it in the longer term.
Today though? Well I’ve never been into gender politics at all. Mainly because I’ve always seen the opposite sex as equal. I had hoped in the 21st century that society wouldn’t need to have its arm forcibly bent.
Sorry Lauren that you felt it necessary to resign
In fact I think your mistaken to resign. Why?
Simple if you want to change anything your need to be part of what you want to change. You change from within, not out.
I personally think the gender balance for sake of gender balance is idiotic. Choice of candidates should be at all times 100% on the persons ability NOT on gender.
I also think that to achieve an ecumenical gender balance based pure ability, it should be done through encouragement and nurture, again regardless of gender.
So forcing a rule to ensure gender balance was wrong, but is not the reason to throw the toys out the pram, followed by getting out the pram. Get back in and start influencing
People in other countries will die in a trench to win independence.
Seems folk here will give up on the the best way to gain independence by hitting out at the SNP on a policy that can be changed.
Let’s damage the SNP just before the election. Epic.
Someone like Lauren is obviously a loss to any movement and I hope she reconsiders her membership. Welcome back.
There are many divisive issues in politics. But for people like Lauren she there is nothing divisive about Independence. The rest can be sorted and argued out after that. Nothing worthwhile will be achieved in Scotland without it.
There are several things in SNP policy I disagree with, like NATO, stop and search and I am still confused about a named family member. Nothing like that is bigger than Independence. I still respect and like Jenny MacAskill. So what. It’s not personal.
There is much more I vehemently disagree with in all the same Brit parties. The alternative to Independence does not bear thinking about. Haste Ye back Lauren and smile, smile, smile.
Politics is rarely black and white, mostly the nuts and bolts of issues resides in the grey, this means negotiation and compromise while looking at the bigger picture. Reflect on what your bigger picture is and then reflect on how it will best be achieved, as a member of the SNP or as an activist supporting their aims in some other way. But remember this, on the journey to independence there will always be compromise…….
I don’t take issue with your reasoning Lauren as there are some clear, cogent and most certainly reasonable points made in your argument. I do however have to disagree with the action you ultimately took in response to this issue.
You say that by not allowing female candidates to directly compete with the men, that it casts women in a bad light and implies you aren’t as good. That you felt the need to quit a party you were committed to and working very hard for however shows that, because you didn’t get your way, you have sadly chosen to ‘throw your toys out of the pram’ – I say this not to offend but to illustrate that your actions could also very much cast you, and possibly others, in a bad light – did true proponents of equality quit in the face of opposition?
It could equally be argued that it is simply an exercise in rebalancing the scales, and a temporary one at that as others have pointed out, but you are correct, it doesn’t tackle the underlying issues. Quitting doesn’t tackle anything either.
You are, correctly, worried about the potential message this could send to your daughters. I don’t have children so I can barely conceive of the responsibility you must feel in raising them but I would submit to you that the message of “When the going gets tough? Quit!” is an equally damaging message.
Regardless, should you reconsider or not Lauren, I wish you and your family well in whatever you decide to do.
Sorry to see Lauren go.
In general, I disapprove of positive discrimination.
For those saying there’s no issue, there is equality… Why are there still so few women? Maybe with a few more there, more women will feel like applying for open lists and we can get rid of a temporary measure.
As to domestic violence it affects men and women. Hugely slanted one way though and work on that is needed. Better done with a Scottish slant…
As a long standing SNP member and activist I am sorry this lady felt the need to resign after a resolution she felt passionately about failed. To be a member of a political party one cannot rest on just one conviction and you must be prepared to accept that sometime the party will not reflect your own particular view. In a case like this to resign is futile. stay on and fight from within, you may get the chance to speak at the big conference, If you believe in independence where else are you likely to find a party with the realistic chance of obtaining that goal. Please stay on and work for your ideals from within!
Lauren,
Your commitment is extremely admirable, i wish we had far more like you but i do have to agree with others that perhaps resigning was jumping the gun a bit and leaves you unable to fight your case from a position of strength.
I sincerely hope that you’ll reconsider your position and continue to fight for Scottish independence and the other issues which obviously mean so much to you.
We, as a movement, cannot afford to lose people with your dedication and no single issue is worth cutting off your nose to spite your face.
At the end of the day you’ll do what’s right for you, just make sure you continue with your commitment to your causes.
😉
For what its worth I disagree with positive discrimination and am sad you felt the need to resign over it. However i don’t think this is the time or the place, we need to keep out eyes on the bigger prize here. Scotland. Its only a temporary rule and I for one will suck it up, for now, as i feel we have much bigger, more important fish to fry
I rarely comment on blogs, but reading this I feel I must add a comment.
I understand your viewpoint, up to a point. However I feel that your choice to attempt to undermine the only party in the UK that currently stands a chance at creating real, progressive change in this election is unfortunate.
You will never, ever work for a political party where you get your own way every time.
Independence gives us the freedom to change our society, standing in the way of that is shooting yourself in the foot.
Good luck.
I would have prefered to have seen a consultation on opening up opportunities for political engagement rather than quotas. The Yes campaign demonstrated that with different methods of engagement, different people engage. In the run up to the GE it seems as though many of these more outward facing engagement opportunties have been disregarded in preference to traditional branch based meetings and canvassing.
As a single parent with limited childcare I can’t go to evening branch meetings – end of. That largely shuts down participation opportunities for me within the SNP. There are many structural and organisational issues that could have been addressed within the party before imposing quotas.
However, what the Yes campaign also clearly demonstrated is that creative, a-typical approaches to campaigning can have a dramatic impact. Lauren, I bet your article for Wee Ginger Dug will have had more impact on more people than weeks of canvassing. Similarly Wings, by being an independent voice, can exert much more impact than party political communications ever could.
You don’t have to be a party activist to make a difference.
Sorry you’ve left the SNP’s very democratic broad membership Lauren – you’ll not find a better Party – and the SNP needs folk with your drive and commitment.
I could have left in the huff after the NATO decision – but I’ve not because I believe at some point we’ll have an opportunity to reverse the decision.
In terms of “positive discrimination” – if we don’t move in that direction, then in 50 or 100 years we’ll still be left wailing and gnashing about women not yet being adequately represented. I believe that this is a short term measure to rectify a long term problem. It may be a blunt tool – but some jobs need blunt tools!
My initial reaction to Lauren’s thoughtful remarks are this: Feeling your point of view ignored and there’s nothing more you can do to make people listen, you resign from committee work but not from the institution.
Lauren, if you see this comment – I entirely agree with what what you say about the quota, and I can understand your reaction to this nonsensical decision, and your disillusion after all your efforts. But I do hope you reconsider. This isn’t really an SNP problem, and I would encourage you to stay in the party and to endevour to make sure that it doesn’t happen again.
“Tell us not why you don’t like it, tell us why it won’t work.”
It WILL work, in so far as achieving its aim of undermining the democratic process and telling women they’re inferior beings who can’t succeed on a level playing field.
“the reply came from a prominent male party member, Yes he said we could get them to do the cloakroom”
The correct response to that is to boot the guy’s bollocks for him and tell him he can fuck off with his sexist pish. It’s not to change a party’s fundamental democratic process. All-women shortlists won’t stop people saying things like that. Indeed, by creating resentment and portraying women as weak, they’ll probably increase it.
Sorry Lauren, but this is not the way to do it, I also do not agree with the idea that someone other than members of our branch will decide who stands for office.
We spoke about this at our last branch meeting and we all agreed it was a backward step, but because we lost that vote we are not going to resign en-mass, if everyone did that everytime they lost a vote no party would have any members.
Lauren you need to get real here, we both as a party and as individuals are going to lose the vote in some motion or another, someone has to lose one end of the argument. But we just have to get on with it and try to change things back at the first opportinuity.
We are on the cusp of something amazing, finally Scotland could have a real voice at Westminster and I would rather have you with us, when it happens.
I applaude your opinion, but not your decision.
This a such a pity. There is an election to fight in May,and another a year later. Let”s keep our eyes on the prize rather than provide the Smarts and Hothersalls with a laugh.
“studies not anecdote show that quality improves with quotas.”
I read those links on Twitter last night. They were deeply unconvincing – highly subjective judgements and data being made to fit a predefined conclusion.
Discrimination, wether positive or negative, is by it’s very nature wrong. I cannot understand why any shortlist to elect someone to any post cannot require a gender balance at that stage, thus a shortlist of four should have the two most able candidates from each. Any selection panel which then chose a weaker panel could be more easily held to account.
So no, I do not agree with the motion. However if this is a stone in the rocky road to independence I’ll accept it. For now.
This sounds similar to the person who doesn’t like the referendum result so they are emigrating. Stay and fight. “I get knocked down but I……”
I agree with Lauren, but I won’t be resigning.
Nor will I be resigning over the utterly assinine decision of whoever sanctioned final production of the SNP conference booklet to include an advert from Heathrow airport telling us Jocks how we can’t live without London hubs.
I’m pissed off about that and a number of other things about the party. But it’s miserable that we’re having to restate the line that wasn’t hammered home enough during the referendum: let’s get over the line first. We ain’t anywhere near that line yet.
Disagree with women only lists too but relieved to discover it is a time limited measure. Regret that you felt you had to resign because your vote will be required to esure it doesn’t pass next time.
Lauren,
While I do not agree with any type of positive discrimination and I wasn’t there to see the debate, just have to let you know as I have been a nationalist for over 30 years, there is only one thing that would make me resign and that would be if we ever stopped talking about independence. There are policies I don’t agree with, but when we get our independence I can at last be a floating voter. The words Nicola used in her speech were humility and knowing Nicola and John I am sure if you had emailed either one of them, they would have entered into some sort of dialogue and arranged a meeting.
I know you feel angry Lauren, but why not instead of venting that anger very publicly speak to Nicola or John, I promise they would have been very approachable.
Jacqueline McDowell
Hi Lauren
Very good article. I too have fallen out with the SNP on a couple of issues – one of which being membership of NATO. You mention their policy on gender balance as a blunt instrument. I agree, however political parties are in themselves blunt instruments and I have to choose one to represent me with all of it’s imperfections.
I feel we are fighting a huge democratic deficit in the UK which IMHO trumps everything else just now. That is the grey haired white males in the city of London who are controlling all of the main parties at Westminster and most of the media. They have brainwashed labour into being a party of austerity and there is a wealth transfer under way like never before.
I threw my toys out the pram last year, along with my membership, however I shall still vote for them in May.
This is not an issue worth resigning over.
I am an SNP member yet there are areas of policy on which i’m sure i’ll disagree. No party can be 100% correct all of the time.
What struck me during the debate on this motion was that it is quite clear there are still some deeply intrenched attitudes to women in politics. It seems (and, yes this is a sweeping generalisation) that the some of the older generation of the party still has some frankly outdated attitudes to equality and this needs to be dealt with.
If, by introducing this policy for a short period as proposed, we can encourage more women to take the next step and become prospective candidates then how can this be a bad thing.
It is my hope that when we return a large contingent of SNP members to Westminster, people will see the quality of representation provided by people like Mhairi Black, Natalie McGarry etc. and that women will feel able to step forward for the same roles.
Given that we have a membership of approx. 103,000 I have no fears whatever of any ‘watering down’ of the qualtity of our candidates due to this policy.
I backed this policy, however i did so after a lot of consideration and will be more than happy to see it revised/removed at the next conference as a result of it no longer being necessary.
Lauren, I urge you to reconsider your resignation, your deeply held views on this policy are important and reqlly need to be aired. Don’t leave us on one single issue, we need you.
Neil McDonnell (9am) is right
Correct me if I am wrong here, but is this not a mechanism that can be used by the executive as and when necessary.
I am sure we are familiar with organisations and committee’s that are male dominated and let’s be kind here and say old fahioned.
A good example, one we have all heard of, is of course, golf clubs, some even have separate entrances, ffs.
This motion is a we stick, sitting in the corner, to be used, when necessary, for branches, committee’s that forget or ignore the fact that 50% of the population is female.
I, too, believe in meritocracy over positive discrimination but this was a democratic decision and no good reason to leave the party over a single issue. I don’t think I would have missed my child’s performance for one extra day in campaigning, after all you seem to have been working very hard, continually. I can’t help thinking you have another reason for your change of mind. I am a republican and although the SNP agenda doesn’t support this, I still support them on most of their agenda as there is nobody else to stand up for the Scottish Rights of Man …. and woman.
Lauren, It is obvious that you worked hard for the SNP and what you believe in. It is obvious that you passionately believe in what you have so eloquently written. Life is full of disappointments in normal life never mind in politics. Most of us were gutted, confused, angry etc on September 19th. After a few days in a dark room we came out fighting, more determined than ever. Grit your teeth get back on the horse and fight for what you believe in but don’t quit while you are angry or your passions are running so high. Judging by what you have written here and the hard work you have carried out for the SNP you will have no problem rising through the ranks. The party is going through an explosion in membership and popularity and there will be many bumps on the road. Stay as a member, it is only from within that you can help to even them out.
Grow up woman. If I don’t get my way then I am taking my dolly home. Have a word with yourself.
Lauren,
I am very sorry to hear that you have chosen to leave the party as I agree with much of what you say and every principle that Elaine spoke up for in her speech, but the most important principle to remember is that this was a democratic decision; that’s the way we do our business and that is to be celebrated.
Personally I would rather tackle the conditions that mean we have only 7 Female Councillors from a group of 27 in Fife, as I think it can be done. However the will of the party was clear and now we must embrace this. I don’t think for a second that we’ll have second rate women usurping first class men, quite the opposite. What we do have now is an opportunity to change the dynamic quickly, and then, I hope, revisit the rules to reflect true gender balance.
I would much rather a great activist like you (whether f/m) was in the party as part of that process than lost to the team. Many of us may feel and share your frustration, but that’s part of being in a democratic movement. I really hope you give it some space and reconsider.
An interesting article and clearly thought about and passionately argued. My only point would be that objecting to quotas on such grounds suggests we have something like a meritocratic system in place. The reality is that individuals are chosen for positions for all sorts of subjective reasons (though of course many of these might be subconscious) and not because they’re ‘the best person for the job’. And so having a quota seems a necessary to enforce balance (yes, it’s ironic). But the effects can be positive:I.e. once people are used to seeing women in these positions more then it becomes an obvious thing and the quota is no longer required. So, I back quotas in this instance; but the author raises important issues about the practicability of access for those in society who don’t have the means over others that do. That’s a crucial point and one which needs to be tackled but it is perhaps a separate matter to the quota question.
Whilst we should never slavishly follow any party including the SNP..I see no point in this at present…why cause such division and doubt in the SNP’s policies at exactly the time we must be completely behind them? We miss this opportunity at the GE and the game is over for Scotland..and we lose. I find this article petulant and self indulgent to be honest..no time for toys to be hurled from the pram…there are bigger prizes to be won. Whilst I wholeheartedly agree with our political opinions being challenged..I did not contribute substantially to Wings to be peddled this drivel at this time.
Is this same Lauren Reid who moved from the No camp to the Yes camp during the referendum.
She seems to know how to get publicity.
This could be the headline story in the Daily Record tomorrow.
I really think this is all OTT.
Can we go back to slagging Labour please.
Respect to you Lauren for all your hard work and for speaking out against sexist candidate lists.
It is bad enough that political parties parachute in candidates to winnable seats without the high command now being able to interfere to exclude other worthy candidates simply because they have dangling reproductive organs.
Points 2 & 3 in this BBC article are acceptable to fair minded people but point 1 should be a complete anachronism to anyone who’s truly interested in equality.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-32106445
It would be a real shame if the SNP and Scottish politics lost someone of your commitment, drive and talent. I understand your anger but I hope you can still find ways to work for the cause. It would be interesting to hear how this develops over the coming days and weeks.
Thank you.
Gutted
Snp conference weekend off
first comment when back snp attack
Six weeks before GE
Not from Westminster funded msm but from crowd funded wings over Scotland
I don’t agree with everything the snp say and i dont agree whith this policy or voting system but that’s the point of a party lots people from very different backgrounds finding common ground on certain things but you still have many personal views on lots of different items then a vote then we get behind the party
While still voicing and maintaining our own views and principles that = a united party
Or if we can’t agree on everything we leave and go our own way that = a united kingdom
trust takes a lifetime to earn and only a weekend to lose
Just e reminder – this is what we should be fighting: http://www.labourhame.com/hell-yes/
It’s a bad policy.
But reading Lauren’s account it sounds like the debate was also handled badly. Leaving the stage while people are speaking? Apparent bias in who is allowed to speak and for how long? Being told you can address the conference – with time limits to ensure it – and then being passed over after all?
Maybe if the process had been less rushed and more even-handed people like Lauren could have felt that there was room to continue arguing their case from within the SNP.
I respect Lauren’s decision to resign. Everyone must follow their own conscience.
Independence and fair government is the goal, but we will not get there by trading our principles for blind party loyalty. That is the old politics of the old parties who have led us into this mess.
Tempted as I was, I never joined the SNP before, during or after the referendum.
There will always be something you are not happy about. I preferred the idea of being able to be a free thinker. I have not always been an SNP voter but most of what they see as a vision is fine, compared to the other options.
If you do feel passionate about one thing then its probably better to instigate the process of change from within the party. It really is a long term game.
I doubt any organisation could cope with the growing pains the SNP have experienced.
Lauren, I was there, listened intently to the debate, and voted as you did ( I’m male ). I’m also a pst Inde convert and official, tramping the streets, chapping on doors etc.
However, unlike you, I came away even more determined to act for the SNP. What you fail to describe is the duration and QUALITY of the debate, and just because the vote for you went the wrong way perhaps it’s just as well you’re going to support Inde elsewhere.
The reason I voted against, by the way, is because I felt the SNP is in so many ways already far ahead in gender equality, given the starting point, and by comparison with other big parties.
Paul Wilson
Your statement there demonstrates exactly why there is a need for policies like this.
I don’t agree with the sentiments express in this article. The SNP is not to blame for the inequality and what has been done is simply a means to an end. It is not the end.
The author comes across as having immersed herself in “the cause” and whilst it is important, such an inbalance is not good for her or her family.
Her decision to resign on this issue was, as someone else said, rash and hotheaded.
Two points.
First, the title here would have been better with a question mark added to signify that this is a controversial viewpoint.
Second, we need to be very careful not to have an unrealistic vision of the perfect Scotland that is going to emerge post-GE or after the next referendum. All of us likely have a different vision of how Scotland should be, and friendly and inclusive discussion is essential if we are to move towards the best compromise for all concerned.
Personally I am not keen on positive discrimination, but I am enough of a pragmatist to know that it is sometimes needed. And we stand a much better chance of achieving the fairer Scotland we all aspire to if we can all pull in the same direction, in the short term at least.
A second class citizen, how long for, weeks, months, luxury. For what it is worth, I have been and felt like a second class citizen all my life, and now it looks like my children will have that pleasure too.
I don’t think everything is perfect, but then it’s not all about me, its about the bigger picture.
Hi
First time commenting on this site.I also am a new member of the SNP and disagree
with some things that have been passed lately.
You only have to look to the way Pamela Nash was selected to know all female or all male lists are wrong.
My personal beef is the lowering of the drink drive limit, which excludes me from 1 pint on my way home once a week but I won’t resign because of it.
I, after a long hard think and much soul searching, voted in favour of the motion. Why, because, while I agree with meritocracy, I also know that women will not achieve parity with men until there is a revolutionary change in attitude. We have been waiting a long time for attitudes to catch up with legislation and I’m afraid without a nudge or two , we will be waiting an awful lot longer. This decision is not written in tablets of stone but one that is temporary and under review. Someone argued that our First Minister won her position on merit and I have no argument with that except to point out that she is not first Minister because she is as good as any man but because she had to be a whole lot better every step of the way…is that fare?
I am also considering resigning my membership. I want away from a parliament that thinks it is above the law. I don’t want to end up supporting one.
I was worried by the sudden influx of members to the SNP and wondered just how committed to being a Party Member many of them would be, even if they were 100% committed to Independence. It seems to be a problem of the left that some individuals think their own political position is more important than that of the party. Better not to have joined at all.
Paul Wilson puts it bluntly, but correctly.
Lauren,
Discrimination already exists, otherwise we would naturally have a 50/50 gender balance in parliament. Do you believe we have a majority of male MPs and MSPs because women arent as good at the role? Surely not. Positive discrimination is a temporary step towards ensuring that all Scots, male and female are represented in parliament. This is a progressive and positive step forward and not one to resign from the party over.
I agree with positive discrimination. A brief glance at history tells you that men have used it for centuries without any noticeable detriment to their sense of self esteem and ability to wield power. Nor have they shied away from changing the law to improve their circumstances as any Trade Unionist will confirm.
As someone above commented:
“this motion was time limited, and expires in May 2016. If the SNP wants to do this again, there will have to be another debate.”. Are you not even willing to accept a time limited experiment?
I linked yesterday to an academic paper discussing the pros and cons of the Tory Party efforts to be more equal. It contains a table of where the parties stand re female MPs.
Labour, which does have all female short lists, has 81. The Tories have 49 and the Liberals have 7. Overall, women make up 22% of the MPs in the House of Commons, decades after the “level playing field” was created. Sorry I can’t reproduce the table here but the paper “Arrogant Posh Boys” is here:
http://tinyurl.com/q3gdl8v
I am sorry you feel discriminated against by losing this vote but hope you will stay with the SNP and argue your case within the Party especially after some evidence is available of how it works out.
Gobsmacked by this post….eh!..we do all understand the
danger this country “scotland” is in if we don’t free
ourselves from this rotten system ….right?
Em..peoples lives are going down the drain….some begging
from foodbanks…er..some even dying…..er…um….
…your in a huff…um…aye…….er..ok
I joined the SNP 30 years ago. During that time I have had several disagreements with decisions taken by the party at National Councils and Conferences. If you belong to a political party or any other democratic organisation you have to accept decisions agreed by the majority, even if you strongly disagree with them. If Lauren feels that the decision taken at the weekend was such that she had to resign then I am genuinely sorry.
For what it’s worth, more often than not time proved to me that most of the decisions I disagreed with turned out to be correct decisions. The morning after the 2011 Scottish Parliament elections I travelled into Aberdeen to work by bus and listened to the results coming in on my radio. I actually burst out laughing when the thought struck me that maybe some of the people I had disagreed with in the SNP over the years about various issues actually did know something about politics.
I’m glad this has a time limit on it.
Not really convinced on the measures, but I get the point that women have always been under-represented in politics.
Maybe if we get to a point where the balance is closer to 50-50, that will be self-sustaining.
Pity this couldn’t have waiited til after the election. We are at the point where we have a genuine possibility to get real power and influence for Scotland. That will be a huge step towards future independence for our country.
Getting bogged down with divisive issues is ridiculous at this time.
I hope Lauren reconsiders and fights the case from within.
I totally understand how you feel Lauren. I am also against this measure especially when it is heralded as “democratic”.
I do feel that Nicola Sturgeon wants to do what’s right, but there is a strong lobby which constantly tells us how “oppressed” we women are and how “we” should fix it.
I have never felt oppressed by being female, but definitly by being poor.
I taught my children ( 2 boys and 1 girl) to be capable, to be the best you can be and do not restrict yourself to norms.
I am disappointed that this measure was made. It removes democratic choice and says that my sons are not worth as much as my daughter.
I do hope that you can be persuaded to stay.
I will not vote for a candidate selected from a restricted list unless the list is based only upon the simple criterion that they are the best person to do the job.
Hmm, this is a really tricky one.
Firstly, I’d say that those in favour of Scottish Independence need to be very careful not to let a contentious issue like this cause internal divisions just when we really need to be steadfast and remain positive. Whether or not you’re an SNP supporter, we need them right now and they deserve our support. We need to remember that this is a thorny problem for any political party which doesn’t have an easy solution and there isn’t necessarily a right or wrong answer.
I’m not sure exactly how and when the SNP are proposing they might use these shortlists, but personally I’m hoping that this is just an option which could be used in specific circumstances rather than a policy which will be actively followed across the board.
I must admit I’m not comfortable with trying to artificially engineer gender balance but I do recognise that there may be times when it might be necessary or desirable.
Gender equality is never straightforward – we are all individuals with an infinite variety of skills and abilities. That’s what makes the human race so successful. We’re all good at different things and between us, by playing to our strengths, we can achieve more as a society.
I’m a female who works in IT and perhaps predictably I’m in the minority. This is not due to discrimination or bias and I can say with hand on heart that I have never been treated differently to the men (or other women) who I work with. I am paid the same and I receive the same recognition and support as my male colleagues. The reason I believe there are more men than women in IT is simply because the traits which make people good at IT tend to be more common in men than women.
At a Project Management level in IT, you can see that the gender balance shifts. There are more women working in the leading and organising roles compared to the technical roles. In some circumstances a natural gender bias appears for no other reason than because men and women have a tendency to be better at different things.
From an IT perspective, most people couldn’t give a monkeys what gender you are, they are only interested in getting things done and done well. Male or female is irrelevant. If you tried to artificially introduce a gender balance it wouldn’t necessarily improve anything and could do more damage than good.
However, and this is a BIG however, this is not true in all professions and is certainly not desirable in all professions.
In any profession which makes decisions which affect the population as a whole, you absolutely need to have balance and diversity. Politics, Law, the Civil Service, the higher management levels of large corporations or public bodies like the NHS – these examples shape society and need to reflect that society. This includes a balance and diversity of skills and personality traits as well as life experiences.
In an ideal world, a gender (and diversity) balance would appear in these professions naturally. Unfortunately for reasons of history, stubborn social attitudes and sometimes because of bad policies (e.g. childcare), the balance doesn’t arrive on its own.
How we solve the problem I personally don’t know.
I must admit, of the various SNP candidates standing in GE 2015 I’ve noticed, on the surface they look like a pretty diverse bunch to me. I’m in East Lothian which is George Kerevan. Then there’s Mhairi Black, Chris Law, Joanna Cherry, Kirsten Oswald, Alex Salmond 🙂 for example, all very different and all selected by their own constituency members, without any collusion.
I totally disagree with deliberately contrived all women shortlists, all disabled shortlists, all white middle-class male shortlists and all cat-lovers shortlists etc.
The best people available should be on the lists.
I thoroughly agree with the point made by Jim McIntosh 8.43.
As a student rep many years ago I argued against positive discrimination and lost but I didn’t give up being a student rep or being a student. I have had to accept defeat in my career but that early lesson taught me to how to deal with and move on from the deep disappointment I felt at not being able to change decisions I vehemently opposed. You made a choice to give it your all when you joined the party but you were naive if you thought you would always agree with every decision or policy the party would make regardless of which party you joined. You need to take some time to lick your wounds and then reconsider your position. Women like you will make their way to positions of influence through their own merit and can change systems. I still don’t believe in positive discrimination and broke the glass ceiling in what was a male dominated organisation on merit as have others, I would not have achieved this had I walked away from every decision I disagreed with. I am not an SNP member but I have high hopes the minor parties get enough votes to make a real change to the Westminster two party system and ruling elite. I sincerely hope you don’t let this experience blind you to the long term change you want to see in our political system.
Women are under represented, and that is structural rather than personal. I don’t support this measure, because
a) it will be ineffective. Time limited, only applies where a sitting MSP stands down this time.
b) it risks alienating voters!
c) it doesn’t address the macho nature of political discourse. There is no point replacing men, with men in skirts.
There is another way. Think laterally. This is:
Job share candidates. The ‘Candidate’ would be two people: one woman, one man, who would stand as a joimt
An MSP or MP salary is more than twice average – easy enough for two (and it would discourage the gold-diggers of both sexes)
The workload of an MP or MSP is insanely large. Split it between two people. Let BOTH have a life.
No need for central direction. No need for parachuted candidates. Bottom up, not top down. And equal.
Rosie Kane tells me that the SSP wanted to do this, but were told it ‘wasn’t allowed’. The days of ‘not allowed’ are behind us. Rules can be changed. Cultures can be changed. Be the change you seek.
It’s been done elsewhere – France. See Tommy Ball’s blog.
Anybody interested in taking this forward please feel free to contact me on Facebook. Derick Tulloch. That means you, Lauren Reid, for starters. And get back in here!
“Second class citizen” ?? No evidence for that. Only a few weeks to go, let’s all divide and squabble and get in the huff because something didn’t go our way. Yeah, let’s have Cameron back, or MIlliband and Murphy. Better that than have a vote at conference go against us. Pathetic!
It’s a new decision that can be overturned. I don’t support this type of action as it forces shortlists of (sometimes) inadequate candidates. What is needed is a body to review candidate lists to see that the selection process has been conducted fairly. I would not have resigned over this – I would have stayed and pressured for a review. The SNP need debate and support while the big battle is being fought. Let’s not splinter now.
Derick Tulloch.
We are living in a democracy and everyone is entitled to have different opinions. When you join a political party, or a club, there are rules, constitutions, etc, in place, but they can be changed if members choose to do so.
In this case members have chosen to adopt a particular policy, so whether you agree or not, you have to accept it.The only way to reverse the decision is to change policy in the future, and resigning isn’t going to help achieve that.
The SNP didn’t call anyone second class, it’s a personal interpretation.
The General Election campaign moves into top gear today, and all SNP candidates have been chosen. This debate is not a priority right now, and the focus MUST be on the election campaign.
Calum McLean 8:20am I welcome your suggestions about the running of Wings over Scotland. The Rev is Wings, and whilst it may well be his personal blog, it has become an important part of the Scottish political landscape. Disappointingly, a single political and personal issue caused a three day blackout and demonstrated a lack of resilience.
A strategic plan is required to keep this site, and the Rev in the best of health. Positive thinking and positive action is required at this critical time in our country’s history. Anything less would reinforce part of the mantra, “Too wee, too poor and too stupid”
@REV,
“It will tell women they can’t succeed on a level playing field”
I don’t think they can. Having sat on many selection committees through my many years,it was obvious to me that there was an integral bias towards men.Post interview discussions always threw up the suitability of employing a young woman,as opposed to a man who was settled and would be available at all times to work.Often the expression used was that he would be a” team player”,who would not cause any disruption.
I remember a discussion with some of my fellow SNP members about potential candidates for our area,and two names in particular came to the fore.A man and a woman. Whether we like it or not,the same old cliches emerged about the value of each candidate,and I was astonished at how many people thought the man should be given preference,as the Commons was seen to be a male dominated area.
Fortunately common sense prevailed and we now have a very talented young lady as our candidate. I do not believe any woman could advance without ability as our First Minister clearly demonstrates but there is I feel nothing wrong in helping them on the way..
I’m another relatively new SNP member who disagrees with quotas of any type. You encourage equality, you don’t force it. Nowhere near a resigning matter for me though, you stay and fight to overturn the motion when it comes up next time. After all, if everyone who disagrees resigned then the rule will stay forever.
Lauren, more importantly, always put family first, especially your children. There will always be a campaign to be fought, but there won’t always be a school play to be watched.
Saddened by this. Hope you change your mind Lauren. Not all decisions are going to go your way especially during a time of such upheaval. It really isn’t worth resigning each time. Please reconsider, perhaps take a long term view? You’re highly intelligent and helped move many to YES. This issue is clearly very important to you and I’m sure sense will prevail longer term. Don’t go.
O/T before I read everyone’s posts: I was poking about looking at some of the SNP’s GE 2015 campaign fundraisers, and there’s a couple of candidates who could use some help. I don’t like the idea of women-only shortlists, but I’m keeping my eye on the prize for May 7th.
Alison Thewliss to take Glasgow Central from Labour’s Anas Sarwar (needs another £2500):
http://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/win-glasgow-central-for-the-snp-1/
Mhairi Black to take Paisley & Renfrewshire South from Labour’s Douglas Alexander (needs another £300):
http://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/mhairiblackSNP
Both campaigns have 4 days to go.
Phew!
Wait a minute, wait a minute. Is Lauren, or is anybody here, Rev included, suggesting that studies are showing that it’s the best men who represent all men in politics? Is anybody suggesting that all classes and categories of men are represented by the men that are currently in politics? Is anyone suggesting that selection of male candidates is all done on merit? Anybody? And is anybody suggesting that we should throw out the current selection processes because we can’t get it done perfectly? Really?
I am hugely pleased with a lot of the male politicians who represent us. And some of them are toads. But I think we’re smart enough to sift quality from chaff… and chaff we can walk away from or remove.
I personally believe that if 50 percent of the House of Commons was women we would not have had the first invasion of Iraq in the first place.
We need to fight for proper gender balance. And that means taking to the field and taking a stand. We’ll get good and bad women representatives. Right now we need 50:50.
And one day, maybe we’ll get a lot more participative democracy and a little less representative.
It saddens me to read of Lauren Reid’s decision, but having read her post, I totally understand her reasons for coming to her decision.
I am a member who joined the SNP after the referendum and have become involved in canvassing and leafleting projects. I am in awe of the amount of work that Lauren was able to commit to given her personal circumstances.
If one thing has struck me, since becoming involved, it is the number of women at grass roots level who give up a great deal of their time to the cause. One or two just like Lauren with similar levels of personal commitment. They are the very backbone of the party activists programme.
I have also been impressed by the number of extremely able women who took part in the YES campaign leading up to the referendum. I will not attempt to name them as I do not wish to offend by omission.
I agree to a certain extent with Lauren’s summation, and I have to accept her reasoning, but if she wishes to alter that which has been decided, as she sees it, then resigning won’t help. Apart from the loss of such a hard working member who’s efforts are invaluable. To lose someone of her calibre is saddening.
I hope after reflection she might have a change of mind. Whilst nobody is indispensible, any organisation will to some extent, Mourne the loss of such a valued member.
So If I may be so bold. If you oppose this commitment to selective candidacy Lauren, stay and fight your corner. There may be many who will need your support.
Clearly this is a very emotive subject, i admit that its something i knew nothing about.
But whatever the reasons that a person as loyal as lauren is, one has to believe that the way to address these issues is from within, changing a party from the outside is difficult if not impossible. Id urge you to get back in there and fight for your rights, fight not just for yourself but for everyone, its people like you that make the difference in the long term.
Politics is a game that is not played in the short term, but rather the long term, you have to play the long game. If its the short term then often this ends up being abusive and heart wrenching, the media jump all over these things in the short term, they twist things and turn around and tell lies.
If Scotland is to have any positive future, then we have to play the long game, we have to fight the people that cause us problems in their own back gardens.
Please go back lauren, you are needed there, if the snp was full of people like you then Scotland would be one step away from winning. Its the people whom are prepared to stand up and be counted, they are the ones that matter.
Stu – “women…on a level playing field.” You’re having a laugh, right? What you’re saying is that the field is level now therefore women must just be a bit shit not to have achieved more. Get a grip.
I look forward to hearing an opinion piece from the other perspective. I’m guessing there is one as the vote wouldn’t have gone the way it did without it.
Bundestag passes a Quota for Women
The German Bundestag has today passed a law intended to improve gender equality in business. From 2016, large publically-traded companies will be required to have at least 30 percent of women on their supervisory boards.
German parliament approves female boardroom quota
The German Bundestag has passed a bill to introduce a 30-percent quota for women on supervisory boards.
The law, which Germany’s lower house of parliament passed on Friday, will make it compulsory for the supervisory boards – in other words non-executive boards – of 108 German companies listed on the stock market to be made up of at least 30 percent women as of January 2016.
Family Minister Manuela Schwesig said it was “an historic step” for Germany and “an historic day” for equality. German Justice Minister Heiko Maas said the bill was “the biggest contribution to equality since women were granted the right to vote.”
The bill has been criticized for not going far enough as it only applies to supervisory boards. The Greens, the Left party and some Social Democrats are in favor of introducing much higher quotas for women in leading positions.
The conservative Christian Social Union (CSU) and some Christian Democrats had pushed for the bill to be delayed to soften the impact on the economy, which was weaker when the bill was first mooted.
Business federations are also skeptical because of the bureaucracy involved.
The quota was negotiated near the end of 2013, but a formal accord among Germany’s three-party grand coalition was not reached until a year later. Chancellor Angela Merkel’s cabinet approved the plan in December.
Small businesses will also be required to take steps to improve workplace equality, with the quota being introduced on a sliding scale in terms of the size of the company. Around 3,500 companies would be affected.
From 2017, smaller companies and public services must report on their progress in increasing the number of women in leadership positions, but they will not be penalized if they do not meet the quota.
A quota could help women break that glass ceiling
Date 06.03.2015
“I look forward to hearing an opinion piece from the other perspective.”
You can look forward to whatever you like.
There are quite a few things in SNP policy that I am strongly against, including the named person for every child legislation.
However I want Scotland to be independent before anything else and I see the SNP as the only vehicle to provide it. As we have never been closer to achieving that objective, now is not the time to pull out.
Once we achieve our ultimate goal, I and others can decide what party and policies we want once Scotland is independent.
To conclude, I am tending to your side of the argument that merit not gender should be the deciding factor. Please stay to fight another day.
I think a good thing that shouldn’t be overlooked is that this is being discussed and challenged, openly and from all angles. Its another step forward.
However ‘as a woman’, I don’t find its the SNP telling me or any other woman that we’re second class at all. It seems to be the people who disagree with the motion who are telling me I’m ‘less’ by forcefully applying that interpretation on what is at least an attempt to address the issue. All the while people are squabbling over it, I remain under-represented in various ways, gender being only one of them. Fair play to the SNP for giving something a go and cutting through the pretend notion that we operate in any kind of meritocracy.
Great to see this being discussed on wings.What an excellent,articulate piece by Lauren.I’m torn on this issue.I think I fully understand the arguments from each side.I share most of Lauren’s concerns.That said,and whilst not wholly convinced,I’m prepared to back the leadership at this time.That will seem a bit “wet” to some people,but it’s where I am on this right now.I have the right to change my mind in the future.
I’m really disappointed that Lauren has chosen to resign from the SNP over this issue,but totally respect her reasons for doing so.I hope,Lauren,that you’ll keep an open mind to rejoining in the future if circumstances permit,just as I’m keeping my mind open on the issue of female only shortlists.In the meantime,I hope you’ll keep working for the independence movement,which is much bigger than the SNP.I hope to hear more from you in future.Many thanks.
I’ve not yet read the comments on this subject,but look forward to doing so.
My gut reaction to gender quotas is that they’re regressive, however I don’t know what the research is behind them. Is it known that women are actively discriminated against, or whether fewer women are entering politics?
There are many fields which have gender-specific tendencies, such as social work or adult education, but this is often a reflection on the applicants rather than discrimination. In fact, it can lead to positive discrimination – male applicants are often snapped up immediately, so desperate are they to get men in. No gender quotas required there!
Having said that, I agree with Scot in Sweden that politically, we are far behind other countries and that as a short-term measure it can’t do any real harm.
Lauren, I also suggest you reconsider you resignation. Having been in the position myself of walking away from something I broadly agreed with over one principle, I can only say that misery will set in when you realise that you are alone on the outside, while those you were previously a part of will carry on as if nothing had happened.
You have a lot to give the party, but if you resign you take away nothing.
Its obvious from reading all the posts that there are differing viewpoints, but most agree its nearly impossible to agree with all of a parties policys.I think ou should reconsider and work from within to try to change this policy, also its only for a year then its up for debate agian.
This is the only thing that might stop me voting SNP.
I have no interest in voting for any party which would make my daughters into permenant juveniles. I also have no interest in voting for a party which actively discriminates against my sons to do it.
If the SNP continues to go down the ‘Social Justice’ route. a route which killed Occupy Wall Street, which is being thoroughly rejected for its abhorrent use of identity politics to limit people’s lives; then I think we’re going to need a second independence party which doesn’t support such an abhorrent agenda.
It’s time for the SNP to grow up beyond the Gawker Stalker networks viewpoint on ‘Social Justice’.
I would like to say that I was one of four women who voted in favour of this amendment and did so after great thought and having listened to women who experienced many problems their careers due to gender, Whilst my intention at first was to vote against this it soon became apparent that the proper thing to do was to vote in favour of it which we did and have no regrets about, What does sadden me though is that now many of our own members and people who have supported the SNP are now doing the oppositions job for them, so well done all you opinionated but uninformed people I am sure the other side is now having a field day and we shall know what to expect from the media, once again well done, NOT
Well said and well put!
The Fitbaw SingSong Act and now this shows us one thing, The SNP, even Holy Nicola, are actually human and do indeed make mistakes, despite even when thinking of good intentions.
However, that said, walking out the tent doesnt solve any problems. Better to stand and complain and make a convincing counter argument than just walk away.
Accelerating the pace of bringing gender balance to the political world is important for reasons other than equality. I believe that better gender balance will encourage better behaviour and more collaborative people of both genders to raise their voice and participate in the democratic process.
On which planet can anybody honestly say we have a level playing field? *shakes head in disbelief*
And if that were true (which you appear to believe), does that then not lead us to the assumption that women are second-class citizens who can’t make it on a level playing field?
Great article, Lauren, setting out your rationale, and a real shame you have resigned over the matter.
Another thing I find a real shame is the title of this article, hardly neutral, nor the blurb on FB, which thousands will see. This thread shows there are two sides to this issue, and the fact it was voted on, is temporary, is being overlooked by many, perhaps deliberately, to stir the pot.
As for the likes of tartanarse, and anyone else who says we don’t nneed Race quotas, obviously think we live in some kind of harmonious Utopia, where people are colour blind, many of us know differently.
There is equality law there to protect gender, sexuality and racediscrimination, because humans exercise discrimination in huge swathes.
When it’s proven women are not being selected, and there is a current example provided above, then it’s good to do something for a period to correct the balance. By definition, there will be a gender imbalance on selection committees, and I don’t believe for a minute, they have always selected on merit. We still live in a society, where men struggle with an able female, and swerve accordingly.
BTW, I’m not enamoured of the quota approach, and announced that to the llocal Women for Indy group recently.
However, as many are overlooking, it comes with conditions, so I’m not in any way persuaded to walk away from the party.
We’ll said Lauren, now please come back to the SNP and keep campaigning.
stu i,ve been an avid reader since before the referendum but this toys out the pram stuff has just done it for me wont be back as i dont like nfantile crap
“I will not tell my daughters they’re not capable of achieving what their brothers can achieve.”
I’m a single dad with two girls. I have been their main carer since they were aged 1-3. What Lauren has said there strikes a chord with me.
I’ve had female bosses in about 50% of my jobs in life. They are no different to their male colleagues. They got there because they were simply the best.
You don’t have to be a member of the SNP in order to support Scottish independence or seek a more progressive Scotland. You may well vote for them in GE 2015 as they seem to be the only party capable of achieving any real change.
I enjoyed Lauren’s well written, reasoned and argued article. I like open debate as it tends to support good decision making. There is a UK-wide political culture of stifling debate on the false premise of it making you appear weak.
“level playing field”, I doubt it very much.
Petty, petty, petty..
Stu, have you been away having a sex change? 🙂
On the issue of quotas, it’s a thorny one for sure.
Didn’t Blair try quotas years back and we ended up with Blair’s Babes? As I recall most of them didn’t last long. And when Cameron responded to criticism that he had no women in his cabinet we ended up with the horror that is Esther McVie.
I don’t believe quotas work. The best candidate, regardless of gender, should be picked. But the trouble is changing attitudes is a slow process and I can see why politicians try to give it a helping hand. We’ll just have to see how it pans out.
Positive discrimination is still discrimination, I’m immensely saddened that the SNP leadership decided to promote this idiotic policy. Will I resign over it? No, but it may make me work harder from within to make sure it doesn’t become a permanent policy.
There is absolutely no need for regressive policies like this. My own constituency had four prospective candidates up for nomination; one woman and three men. The woman won the nomination entirely on her own merit. I also can’t see how policies like this promote talent, Labour has a discriminatory selection process, and look at the non-entities they managed to get elected as MSPs.
Is this really the right time for introspective angst and publicly beating ourselves up?
the resolution doesnt really give give the executive the power to impose anything, it allows them to consider, to suggest, etc.
It is an attempt to position the party as being female friendly to attract female voters. the polls during the referendum clearly showed women less keen than men on independence.
it may appeal to some women, others may not like it…sure, the question is, which option provides the greater return. politics is a numbers game
@ yerkitbreeks, 9:28am
I was there and I agree with you that the quality of the debate was exceptionally good; very good points made on both sides of the argument.
I started off totally against the resolution until a) I read the detail of the resolution and the proposed amendment, and, b) listened carefully to the entire debate.
I was swung, with reservation, by the case for the resolution and because it is only for the 2016 Holyrood election. Thereafter, it will have to be brought to conference if proposed for future elections. I think it is a significant, but, fairly modest resolution.
A couple of amendments didn’t go the way I voted and my husband and I voted differently on them. We’re still married!
I am sure Lauren worked hard during the ref and beyond. In that, she is not alone.
Sorry, but, I am wondering the point of this article. Dummies and prams come to mind.
@tartanarse says: 30 March, 2015 at 8:38 am:
“There should be no shortlists except for the best candidates at anything.
That, Tartanarse, says it all.
I’m not a member. I respect the decision taken,I really wish though that such policies weren’t deemed by some to be necessary.I don’t pretend to know the answers to the problem of gender imbalance as everyone should be able to stand on their own merits in an ideal world.
Given that SNP membership must be a pre-requisite for standing as an SNP candidate, presumably the same moral & pragmatic case will be made to ensure that party membership gender blocked to keep it in line with the national gender?
Refusing party memberships on the basis gender will ensure that the proportions of men and women feeding into the candidacy process themselves reflect society. Mildly surprising that it appears no gender blocking took place on the recent influx of party members – we wouldn’t want either gender to be disadvantaged at party votes, would we?
Ah, political parties! Lol.
Talk about the narcissism of small differences. I don’t much care for all women short lists either. But is it worth undermining the cause over? Hell no, not in a million years. Let’s get a grip. If you left over this you were going to leave sooner or later anyway.
Hoss, I have always thought that the SNP have done everything to promote women, I was asked a good long while ago if I wanted to stand as a Councillor, I had to decline at that point work and union business were more important. I have to say to Lauren having written a harsh piece earlier this morning, that there is a lot of furtive discrimination in the world. Stuff which pertains not just to women but to men also. People being promoted because they went to the same school, club, etc as the interviewer. I think to resign over this issue which as my husband said earlier from a party which never ever said it had all the right answers but is at least trying, is ridiculous. I do worry that this has been raised at this time when we are so near to getting a voice for Scotland, where did this come from?
Positive discrimination helped the US in the promotion of African Americans into positions they would never have achieved, Colin Powell would never have become a General without it, name me one we have here, or Working class? It might eventually make women more equal god knows we do not have that here yet. I seem to remember it will take decades before women will earn the same as men and how long has the equal pay legislation be in place?
This article being published on Wings Over Scotland is extremely disappointing to read. With just over a month to go until a huge milestone in the march towards independence, the last thing we need is articles saying SNP bad.
Clearly this new SNP policy has caused the Rev to spit the dummy but man up Stu. The SNP are the only party going to take us forward towards independence. Attacking them over this policy which can be reversed after a year is cutting your nose off to spite your face.
I gave my first ever donation to a political cause to the Rev because of his excellent work in dispelling the unionist lies.
Don’t go losing site of the goal Stuart just because a single policy doesn’t sit right with you.
1. The reason the Tories have been so successful over the years is that they have sunk their differences on other, sometimes important issues to maintain their unity on THE important issue – protection of their money from whence they get everything else – power, influence, etc. On the other hand Socialists waste their energy fighting amongst themselves over minutia of ideology and hence have no power to pursue their main ideal.
The main aim of the SNP is independence. We must not fragment over the issue of gender balance.
2. Throwing yourself into the campaign is to your credit. However, as one who joined the SNP a long time ago when it was an uphill battle, I would suggest you pace yourself and have a balanced life.
3. I am a woman who has had to fight to achieve what I have (education, responsible job, marriage, offspring) so I am no shrinking violet. I know a lot of women who have reached the top of their profession with no quota to help them. I don’t support quotas for women or anyone else and will argue against it next time around.
4. From personal experience I think that women who might describe themselves as ‘feminists’ are their own worst enemy when they feel they have to attack when they are not being threatened. In a lot of cases it is simple ignorance and bad manners but it is unpleasant to be the target of this ignorance and bad manners
I have to say it’s a laugh reading comments against that ‘it tells women they can’t succeed on a level playing field’
Women can’t even work in the same workspace without suffering harrassment, misogyny and then they are sour faced, man hating lesbians if they complain. Not every female has the confidence to personally deal with arseholes face to face.
I don’t much like the idea of positive discrimination either, but I’d echo what many others have said – that any kind of group or party or collective can only ever be a democratic approximation of its members’ individual views. Choosing to belong results in compromise – you can;t hope to agree with every bit of policy unless you are very representative of the whole. Alternative is ploughing a lonely furrow, which I suppose is what you’re left with. Your choice, which I can fully respect. Not sure there’s much point in protesting that things didn’t go your way this time, though.
What? After doing all that spadework for the cause? Four words… Incredulous and get a grip.
No disrespect intended, but to me this looks like a case of over-enthusiasm followed by burn-out. It’s perfectly normal and totally understandable. No doubt this motion was simply the last straw. You’ve done us all proud, put your feet up, enjoy your kids (they grow so fast!) and return to the cause if and when your heart is in it.
If there’s a lesson to be learned it’s surely that with 100K members the work could be shared out a little more equally. Enthusiasm can so easily be exploited, with results which as in this case are counterproductive. Everyone has their limits, even if they can’t always see them.
Thank you, Lauren, for all your good work.
It is quite right to resign from any organisation that crosses one’s own personal red-line. However trivial or important the point may seem to others.
It is not only from within that you can make change. Non-members are just as able to lobby and make suggestions to government/parties.
By going along with something that you profoundly disagree with ‘for the good of the party’ or the ‘greater good’, can lead eventually to a party of yesmen/women (in the old sense). Where all moral scruples and integrity can be cast aside ‘temporarily’ for the good of The Party. Sound familiar?
Lauren campaigned for the people of her country without a political party before and will no doubt do so in the future.
‘I liked being able to say “it’s not all about the SNP, I’m not a member”.
It is enormously valuable to be able to say that and I think it has won me arguments or at least made people listen a bit more than otherwise.
Keep using it Lauren!
I can see both sides of the argument here.
On the one hand is the idea that where there is a seemingly persistent, indefensible, non parity situation then a temporary sledgehammer step may be justified. The idea being that once folk get used to a 50:50 or thereabouts, the measures may then be removed to let it fly on its own.
On the other hand, I do agree that, for that interim period, the women concerned will suffer because of it. Whenever someone disagrees with one, they are likely to think to themselves ‘Bet she got in on the list. Certainly wasn’t on merit or she would agree with me, obviously.’ That is human nature.
I am also not convinced that progress without quotas, which I am sure both sides would agree would be by far the preferred result, is in hiatus or even intolerably slow.
It has also come to my attention and concern, that several local women who were very active in WFI during the referendum have voiced concerns over, what they say, seems to be a growing feminist agenda and are even considering whether they will remain in it.
I understand the motivational power of perceived unfair treatment, something I’m sure most indy Scots have cause to know about, but I wonder if it is appropriate to tie gender unfairness into the independence movement per se?
I also wonder, whether those who are highly motivated, for admirable reasons, to push this on to the agenda, have considered just how many women it is likely to alienate. Paradoxically, perhaps even more than it does men. Unintended consequences and all that.
But my main concern at the present, is the potential for this issue to have an overall negative effect on the cause of independence.
Ms Reid, I feel sorry that you felt you had to leave the SNP over this, but I can’t agree with your article. I do understand and respect why you think that way, but the “playing field” is not level yet, and we need to continue to fight to make it that way.
It would be a wondrous thing if we woke up tomorrow and found that gender, race, and sexual equality had come true in an eyeblink, and we didn’t have to worry about it ever again, but that’s not the world we live in. We live in a world where people in “first world” countries are forced to give birth against their under anti-abortion laws, where entire town police forces still run harassment campaigns against people because of their skin colour, where legislation is planned to be able to exclude people from places of business because they happen to love the same gender, or identify as one not of their birth.
If we didn’t legislate in any number of small ways like this, do you really think the world would be a John Lennon song all on its own?
Give it a generation or two. Wait for the people old enough to remember race based lynchings to leave this plane. Maybe then we won’t need “Positive Discrimination”, but for now, I’m rolling with the punches.
Anyway, after an absolutely extraordinary SNP conference weekend, buck up people:D
Not sure how the SNP membership numbers are split by gender, but if it was say 60% male to 40% female that’s how I would expect the divide of candidates to reflect this.
wings
soaring above scottish politics
REV # fail
Rev has had a hissy fit last few days,and it’s personal
starts with a personal assistant to nicola sturgeon
woman’s quotas
I’m right everyone else wrong agenda
tweets about penis envy
then reads out a riot act before you can post
you couldn’t make it up
Lauren,
I disagree. Balanced lists is about ensuring that well qualified women get the jobs they ought to have had but don’t have because of gender discrimination (whether it is delibarate or by accident).
You argue that it demeans women, but than the same argument could be used against half of the anti-discrimination and union legislation, much of which is to give certain groups special rights.
I would argue that quotas is a bit like democracy, the worst idea for achieving the aim except than any other tried from time to time.
You argue that Nicola Sturgeon has made it right to the top without needing quotas. But shouldn’t the fact that she’s in favour of quotas be food for thought?
Regards,
Christian
Hmm OK I’m not an SNP member – reason simply because I’ve always been a free thinker; I won’t be confined by ‘group think’.
However, SNP will have my vote GE15 because they have shown reasonably good governance skills over the last 8 years. I don’t agree with everything they’ve done, but by comparison with Westminster and other parties, they’ve made a good fist of it.
I don’t agree with this motion either.
DISCRIMINATION is discrimination – whether for good reasons or bad. The problem lies in society as many have pointed out, so ultimately in SELECTORS not candidate lists.
I would tackle the problem by “blind” selection using gender balanced selector teams, thereby getting the, democratically selected, ‘best candidate’ on merit alone. I’m fairly sure this would not have had the same divisive outcome as “positive discrimination” or “all woman shortlists”.
Too often at local level one strong or influential character rules the roost (as seen in SLab), this move would avoid that situation.
Now I’m going to set cat amongst pigeons.
In my opinion “Women for Independence” has become a very strong lobbying group with, in some cases, too close links to the party exec, which runs contrary to both this very motion and ideals of ‘equality’, as well as many of the other good things which came out of the referendum. Like some private Golf Clubs opening their doors to women members at long last.
Either WfI should now open their doors to men or find some way of having an ‘associate’ membership for men who support their aims. Otherwise they lay themselves open to the valid criticism of gender based inequality. We women cannot have our cake and eat it, we’re not just better than that but should lead by example.
In an ideal world, which this isn’t, all selection processes for any strata of the working life would be done on merit alone. Unfortunately the world has been biased towards men for a very long time denying perfectly qualified women from contributing to creating a better society.
Having said that, not all women are born equal and the difficulty lies in the manner in which quotas are being implemented. If one post has 5 male applicants, including a few well qualified ones but only one female with not enough qualifications, but quotas requirements mean the woman need to be hired regardless of anyone else who has applied, does this not prove regressive somewhat? I should say that the inverse applies too.
I think the intention is positive and despite what I would like to think as a country where gender inequality is becoming less common, there is still a need to kick that balance to the next level. I also don’t think it means women won’t have to fight to prove themselves on merit alone anymore, especially if they have to compete with other women.
My opinion is that inasmuch as women should have the same obstacles as everyone else for anything they aspire to in life, including aspects of their lives specific to women such as starting a family, that shouldn’t come at the expense of creating more obstacles for men in the process, despite the opposite having been the norm for centuries.
So don’t give up Lauren, the SNP is becoming one huge beast but you’ve shown you can make yourself heard. An organisation where everyone agrees about everything isn’t likely to move forward very much.
We are really doing this aren’t we? Others who started this thread may well have been accused of trolling – look squirrel – FIGHT!
After a stonking conference with poor MSM coverage. Belting interviews with the BBC from the SNP (take that Brewer and Taylor) and a car crash from Murphy despite soft balling GMS interviewer this am we are really doing this…
Not what I crowd funded for. Bonnets should be de-bee’d. I thought that was what the interuption was supposed to do.
Not sure how this is going to play out with the page views. It will either rocket or take a nose dive. Time will tell.
A lot of people seem to be missing her point. What she believes these lists will do is create a system where women are viewed as having gotten in because of the lists and not because of their own merit. “Second class citizen” is used to allude to the fact that by saying we need these lists you are saying that women do not have the same chances and rights as men. The lists do not address the fundamental reasons why less women are in politics especially since men and women are equal under law. Womans only lists are a sledge hammer to crack an egg.
This is the first time I comment on WoS: I find the ‘it should be on merit’ argument, sometimes with ‘100%’ in it, naive. Of course it should be on merit, but currently, all too often, it is not.
quoting: Jim McIntosh says: 30 March, 2015 at 8:43 am
“Imagine being in hospital for a major operation and a newly employed female surgeon comes in. Could you stop yourself thinking is she the best surgeon the hospital interviewed or has she been employed because of a quota system.”
Jim, can I ask you to replace ‘female’ with ‘male’, ‘she’ with ‘he’, and ‘a quota system’ with ‘being a man’ – and then reconsider your argument? Thank you.
Tens of thousands of years of discrimination against women are not going to be overcome by wishful thinking. Quotas are necessary for progress to be made. Ireland has made it mandatory for political parties to have at least 30% female candidates if they want to receive public funding. Quotas have been in place in some Nordic countries for many years, countries that have much better records on gender and wider social equality than Scotland. Quuotas are a necessary measure to counteract millenia of discrimination. People who are opposed to them would do better to look at the practical results achieved in other countries rather than base their arguments on spurious reasons which fail to account for thousands of years of discrimination.
I too would feel very angry if I had been treated in the way you describe in your post.
I am totally opposed to gender equality discrimination for the reasons you have stated and, in my opinion, all forms of positive discrimination are negative in some way.
Did you resign because of the gender equality issue or the way you were treated? If the former, and this was a red line issue for you, why join the SNP. Nicola Sturgeon, as FM, has made her position perfectly clear on this subject.
I would hope you would reconsider the stance you have taken. Th collective fight for Scotland’s voice to be heard should be above, for now, any single personal belief no matter how strong.
Well sales d, bookie from hell.
We can see the fruits of his Labour on FB now, tearing lumps from each other.
Margaret Thatcher always said that she got to the top through “merit”.
But I think marrying a millionaire Tory grandee, spouting the policies that her oligarch backers wanted, hiring the expensive services of Saatchi and Saatchi are more likely reasons for her success.
If this is a meritocracy all these idiot male Labour MPs and MSPs which this site has been successfully lampooning over the past year are now to be regarded as the creme de la creme?
Lauren,
Is this you?
https://archive.today/H4nVa
And this?
http://batemanbroadcasting.com/features-referendum-journeys-lauren-reid/
I ask you again, please reconsider and fight from within.
😉
I’ve posted in support of Lauren regardless of the topic but after some googling, from “wee orange lamb No” to YES to joining SNP to resigning from SNP all in the space of 8 months? One could be forgiven for thinking the timing, of her well documented path, is suspect. Maybe time for Lauren to be left alone to reflect on her decision and a new topic raised to get us back on track.
The SNP are a party with over 120,000 members who have thoughts of their own on every subject. The SNP are NOT the perfect party and I have had many disagreements with them in the last 50years about certain policies. NEVER have I thought of resigning. You sound like a spoilt child throwing your toys out of the pram, because you have not got your own way.
The SNP are the only party that will get us Independence and whether you agree or disagree with a policy would it not be better to debate it WITHIN the party!
I am ambivalent about this policy, you can all fight about it if you want. I want to concentrate on higher goals for all SCOTS and that is to get as many SNP MPs in Westminster as possible.
Don’t let Lauren’s post take your eye off the ball folks. I reckon we will have lots of anti SNP crap to deal with before May 7th. Just vote SNP.
I’ve now read all comments and have to say I am impressed. Though there are many here who obviously don’t like debate!
I haven’t changed my opinion, however I do feel that as it is time-limited I can live with it and await outcomes.
Lauren, really reconsider resigning, the SNP need people like you.
How odd, while reading this post and the comments I am listening to a programme on R4 where the lack of women in politics and the difficulty in getting women to be in places of power or influence.
The SNP have voted, in a democratic manner, to give prominence to all women quotas. This may be good or bad depending on ones point of view however it was a DEMOCRATIC decision and can be challenged or changed at a further conference.
To spit the dummy because a vote didn’t go as one may have wanted smacks of political naivety.
I have 5 daughters and at every turn in their lives they have fought the casual discrimination of a male dominated world. For most of my adult life I was in Human Resources and fought the same discrimination from male managers and sadly from some female.
Don’t like a particular policy? Tough. Scotland deserves better than any individuals itsy bitsy ego.
I’m going to add to my earlier post…
Lauren said:
“I have three minutes to ensure womens rights aren’t taken back 100 years.”
Whilst I am all for you standing up for what you believe in, and you do make some good points about quotas and real equality, I think you would serve everyone better if you tried to stand up for what you believe in with more of a touch of reality, and less of a touch of rhetoric and hyperbole.
It is IMPOSSIBLE for a party that is led by a woman, who has a gender balanced cabinet, who is leading a party into a general election with women candidates that ALL WOMEN CAN VOTE IN to “take women’s rights back 100 years”.
Just have a think about it…
2 things; First, seems like the disagreement is with the means not the aims. The aim is to promote a more inclusive and representative political system – who would argue against that eh? Female only short lists may help in that. I don’t agree as I think the log jam starts for women (and for other groups), before the shortlist stage. Closed shortlists can make those elected under such processes vulnerable to being seen as not the best person for the job. It also raises the question; what about other parts of the community who are not well represented? Would BME or disability only shortlists trump women only shortlists? So whilst closed shortlists may be well intentioned – they can create more problems than they solve and the arguments they engender can consume a lot of energy that could be better used on more pressing priorities. In this case there was a vote and a majority wanted to introduce this measure. It is a time limited measure so perhaps Lauren could try to win the argument next time it comes round? In the meantime please don’t be saying things like the SNP said you are a second class citizen just ‘cos a vote did not go your way. That’s your interpretation (hard to see how you come to that conclusion), but not something the party said.
The second point is about the need to get things in perspective – the prize is independence – once that is secured then there will need to be the space (and the constitutional framework) to address this and many other important issues. In the meantime please do not try to damage the mechanism for gaining independence, just because of a clumsy attempt to achieve a worthy end. As someone above said – people throughout history have died in ditches for their independence, let’s not undermine that goal.
Move on.
Nothing to see here.
Agree entirely with Lauren, but please come back into the party and fight.
2 other points: Derek Mackay’s chairing of debates is increasingly rude and insensitive, especially to those with minority views. Secondly, the SNP is increasingly centralised in its attitudes and control, and any resolution which gives more power to the centre should be scrutinised carefully.
I am totally in agreement with Lauren. Positive discrimination is always going to lead to the suspicion that a woman has been appointed for reasons other than merit. Furthermore, my experience of the TU movement supports her comment on the class aspect.
I haven’t much to add to her excellent article. However I will give another example. There is strong pressure to apply positive discrimination in the NZ Public Service and some years ago the relevant union pushed for quotas for women executives to reflect the numbers of women employed by a department. This would mean that in departments with great numbers of lower-paid women (Treasury at the time had a large pool of female accounts clerks), women climbing the executive ladder would be be advantaged, in my view unfairly.
I imagine if you were a female clerk on a low salary married to a more senior public servant, it would be galling to be contributing to a statistic that contributed to your husband being passed over for a woman on principle, i.e. purely in the interests of ‘equality’.
O/T: I haven’t heard anything more about the Katie Higgins appointment but have done some research on her. The idea that she may have been given a position with the SNP is truly appalling and I totally support Stu’s views on this.
Mrbfaethedee,
Smiley-thing!
I know Nicola wants to hold up Scotland as a shining example to the wider world,this is how things should be done,why not,it is healthy to aspire to be the best of the best.
What’s not too like with this,try it,if it does’t pan out,then drop it and move on,nothing ventured etc. I don’t mind honest mistakes,that’s how we learn.
I believe that in declaring a position up front,the SNP are being honest about it,that’s not to say it is correct,I have a neutral stance on this one,interesting to read strong views on either side.
Complicated issue but not a deal breaker for me.
Lauren,
Excellent article. What do you want to happen? We build a new party (that has to be perfect). Nothing that humankind ever created was perfect, and the SNP is no exception. BUT it’s a dam sight better than the opposition. What do you want us to do: leave the SNP ; stop working for them; let them fail. ? You were working for Independence, the SNP is just a vehicle to bring about that Independence. It’s all we’ve got. If the SNP fails Independence fails.
Lauren.
There’s not much to add to what has already been said by yourself and others; namely that life and the achievements therein is and should be of a meritocracy.
I have two daughters and would be / am pleased to see them succeed in the world, but from their own efforts and convictions, not from me or anyone else giving them an ‘extra’ hand.
But, I can agree that where necessary we should ensure that there is a level playing field. This is not delivered via quotas. This is achieved by continued education into installing intolerance of negative sexist thinking.
Too much in my own profession it’s a matter of being a part of the ‘boy’s only club’ in order to feast at or aspire to feast at the top table. The mentality that accompanies this progression is often a great bar to women. But men too, who don’t feel the need to beat their chests are often also considered too weak to lead.
As this site shows; Mahatma Gandhi is an inspiration to many as he showed the world that it’s not all about table thumping and testosterone in order to achieve.
This is caveman hunter gatherer attitude played out everywhere in society and is borne from thousands of years of apparent required masculine dominancy. Through the efforts of a more aware and educated modern world this is slowly but surely being eradicated.
What we need are people like you to STAY on the road and fight along with all of us to secure a progressive attitude that is still sadly lacking in many spheres of life.
I have to disagree strongly with you for having taken the ultimate sanction against yourself. You actually weaken your own argument by stepping back.
I think something needs to be done to change things in this country. Whether this gender equality works is open to debate. However it’s a basic fact that change doesn’t happen without a catalyst. Walking away helps no one but yourself.
Stay and make change happen and be part of the process.
Incidently I fundamentally disagreed with the SNP over the currency union. I still think we lost the referendum, as we were weak on this issue. Guess what I am still here in the SNP.
If people were selected on merit only, there would automatically be an approximate gender balance. Unless you believe that women are inherently inferior or more unsuitable in some way. There are in fact many subtle facets to discrimination in favour of men. All this does is put in place a piece of balancing discrimination, unfortunately not subtle. I also truly believe that this will disappear in the future in this party, because genuine equality will emerge as the number of women grows to a natural proportion of the population.
Was thinking this through after reading all the comments and wonder if Lauren would have been a nomination for the President’s Prize, albeit there are many contenders.
Thought provoking piece Lauren, thank you. I also find all women shortlists more of a gimmick than a real solution. They might help in the short run but for sure it is not the answer. Social justice, is something that should ideally be achieved by improving society via, schools, better education, community centres, engaging communities to actively improve their community.
Positive discrimination can be useful, but there is a reason it is not over used, it should be used when the differences in candidates are minor, which can be subjective.
I personally feel the SNP are the best of the big parties, but at the scottish elections, my regional list vote will go to Solidarity, I think only a socialist party, anchoring the SNP to the left can make the SNP seriously try to achieve equality.
I don’t believe the SNP truly believe in equality, although I am sure they believe in it more than, Tories, Labour, Lib, UKIP, but hey that would not really be hard. The best the SNP seem to want to offer is token gestures, I still have not heard any serious policies as to how they plan to achieve equslity, the living wage only scratches the surface, it needs to be much higher to truly rebalance the economy for starters.
A look at our hospitals and prison systems as well as care homes show desperate need of revaluation too, too much emphasis on big pharma medicine, too little emphasis on rehabilitation and too little care for the elderly.
I’m really not sure where I sit on this issue! I can see it from both sides. I’m a woman, and I’d hate to think (or for others to) that I was only there to make up the numbers, and not on merit. But we do have a huge problem with gender imbalance in politics, and lets face it, most of the men in politics can hardly be described as having got there on “merit” either. There is so much vitriol being flung around at the moment about the unfairness of it all, but I don’t seem to hear the same uproar about how unfair the current situation is.
Quotas may help in the first instance to “normalise” a larger number of women in politics. Yes, it is unfair, but so is the current system.
But how do we go about attracting women (and other under-represented groups) to stand in the first place? That seems to be the root of the problem. Personally, I’m not interested in a career in politics, but if I was, I’d have to think long & hard because it does seem like an exclusive club that I’d have trouble breaking into (and I say that as a female who has worked for many years in a traditional male dominated industry).
The Scottish Parliament seems light years ahead of Westminster in this respect, and perhaps this is why we see greater representation (and witness all the female leaders in recent years) here, so perhaps it is mainly a Westminster problem? I think if you read interviews with female MPs, many say Westminster is very old fashioned & macho, witness PMQs etc, and wasn’t there a study that showed rather a lot of female MPs did not contest their seats at the next election? Witness also the media’s treatment of female politicians and that’s another thing to put women off standing.
I don’t know what the solution is. Quotas, although not the best, could go some way to “normalising” female representation. We will only change the atmosphere and attract more female candidates by having more females there in the first place! So, quotas while unfair, may help for a short while by giving the current system a kick up the arse!
Resigning from the party over this issue does seem a bit rash & childish though! As others have said, if you feel so strongly then stay and affect change from within!
Lauren,
I would urge you to stay.
The use of quotas is discriminatory, you are quite correct. The argument to use them is a way of breaking
a pattern or entrenchment. The measures put forward look,
on the surface, to be more permanent than that.
I would urge you to stay.
If you do not, who will be there to argue these measure should be repealed or time limited ?, voices such as yours are required to make the debate inside the party.
I ask you to stay, the SNP will be less without you.
James.
Never been a member of a party until after the referendum. The reason being I’m unable to do the “for the good of the party” thing. But after the indyref I realised along with 100,000 others that SNP was the only route to our destination. So I joined.
I’ve argued against gender balancing ever since Lie Bore did it. It’s a great way to lose potentially great candidates. Surely you have to select the most capable person irrespective of race,religion,creed,or gender.
That said, I won’t be resigning from the party. That’s just playing into the hands of those who would wish us harm. When the country is free, I’ll consider my position.
Keep your eye on the big prize, and don’t be blown off course by what is right now a distraction
How ironic. A motion to try to bring equality to the workplace causing someone to resign from the political party that attempts to bring it. Look at Sweden, they have a similar law that is not time limited and they are nearing gender equality. Sure it has caused heated debate but throwing your toys out of the pram and leaving said debate is a little self-defeating.
Whether you like it or not, women, regardless of how hardworking they are, are not treated as equals in the upper echelons of business.
And I’m a man.
I had the impression Lauren’s reason for resigning was more to do with perceived manipulation of the debate by the party hierarchy/debate chair than the substantive issue of quotas. Or what???
“but throwing your toys out of the pram and leaving said debate is a little self-defeating”
That’s enough. From now on anyone using the phrase “toys out of the pram” or anything similar gets deleted. Everyone has their own red lines, their own views on which compromises are acceptable and which aren’t. By all means debate the decision to resign, but I’m not having it in such insulting terms any more.
As a new member of the SNP,and one who attended conference this weekend,I can understand not every member will agree with every policy passed.
I dont agree with NATO membership and was bloody fuming at the Trump golf course intervention!
But the SNP has a large number of women members,and men too,who wished to propose this ammendment,and as we are a democratic party it was up to members to vote for or against this.
It was voted for and therefore I respect that,so lets see where this gets us and in 2016 members can have their
say again.
Seconded, can we get back to slagging SLabour, please? 🙂
If only the unionist media were so self critical, we would be Independent now.
To be honest this post looks like a bit of revenge for the Rev,after the Kate Higgins thing ,which is still not been stated officially.
This site has at times quite a misogynistic leaning, and i feel this article/rant was selected to reflect this. 78% of Westminster seats are held by men.At Holyrood it is better at with Women at 34.9%, still way short of equal representation.
Quotas have always been controversial but the blunt truth is that there are few alternatives available. Gender inequality is real and continues regardless of reams of toothless regulations.The poster for all her claimed enthusiasm is quick to jump ship when the majority want something different.
I am curious where she will now jump ? If she is genuinely a believer in independence her choices are rather narrow. Perhaps she could bounce back to Labour, women are always welcome with them , maybe not!
http://wingsoverscotland.com/a-hero-of-scottish-labour/
@Patrick Roden says:30 March, 2015 at 8:39 am:
“I don’t personally think all women shortlists are a great idea, but credit to the SNP, they are certainly trying to give women a equal and strong voice in the party.
not sure how else they can do this …
I actively fought for women’s equality, (from within the Trade Union Structure), way back when doing so was most certainly was not popular. I managed to have the women in my workplace elevated to the same pay scale as the males but under the understanding they actually undertook the same duties as the males.
I am 100% for gender equality. What I am not for in any way is for restrictive lists to achieve that goal. How I achieved the equal pay scales for those women was to have management include females in the courses for handling heavy items. First of all the males should not have been moving heavy items around by brute force as proper equipment was provided for doing so.
Thing was that the women were not put forward to be taught to use that gear while males were. Then the males just ignored their training and continued to bodily shift heavy items wile the ladies were pushing brooms, dusting offices and mopping floors.
One course on using the lifting and moving gear had the ladies and the men using the proper gear. The benefits were instantly obvious – less time off with injury. The men complained of having to sweep, mop and dust until they realised it sure as hell beat heaving heavy equipment around all day.
Moral of the story is that if they want to get more females onto candidates lists they should train both sexes to improve their skills.
Now remember Craig Murray case? He failed to be selected, and correctly so, for he failed to properly address a fundamental political fact. That fact was, as a candidate, he would have gone against a democratically agreed party matter.
He is, as an individual, welcome to disagree with party decisions but not as a candidate or elected member. So Lauren Reid should not resign but should retain her right to disagree while respecting the party’s decisions.
So there is your answer, Patrick, The party should not have restricted lists but should hold unisex instruction courses for candidates and select from those successfully passing as good candidates – thus only on ability.
I totally agree… a step backwards. I believe men and women are already equal, and if a few individuals have self-esteem issues that result in them trying to say we aren’t… well that’s their problem and we women (and men) can handle that!
I was on an interview panel last year. One of the other four panelists was a woman. The best candidate, a female, was rejected by the other panelists. I didn’t understand why until afterwards when the FEMALE panel member told me that the candidate was childless and in her 30s and would probably just end up costing the company a fortune in maternity leave.
We don’t have an HR dept but a quick chat with a colleague told me this was hearsay and nothing was discussed at the interview in front of the candidate at the time to prove it.
So don’t tell me there’s equality in the workplace, it’s rife actually, regardless of the legislation that exists. And it’s not always men that perpetuate it.
You either accept discrimination exists and you choose to tackle it or you accept it exists and choose to do nothing about it.
If you think all female short lists isn’t the solution what’s your suggestion for an alternative way to deal with it?
If you’re happy with the status quo then this means you’re happy with a society that discriminates against women. If you think that trying to tackle this makes women 2nd class citizens then sorry, I just don’t understand your logic.
“the last thing we need is articles saying SNP bad.”
No, the last thing the Yes movement needed was some fucking halfwit deciding that five weeks before an election was the best time to raise such a divisive issue at the SNP conference. Someone needs their arse kicking up and down the corridors of SNP HQ for a week for that.
I care that people as massively politically engaged and committed to our common goal of independence as Lauren are being driven from their party by stupidity. I don’t think that’s good for either the SNP, the independence movement or politics in general.
My initial reaction to the proposition of quotas was that they are a bad idea and only merit should count in becoming an elected official. Subsequently, taking a hard look at our already elected officials and understanding that the male population had one hell of a head start in political involvement, I have changed my mind in that they should be a short-term measure supplemented with initiatives on how to support women entering politics at representative level.
Structures to facilitate greater involvement instead of only fielding female candidates could ensure that the best person really does win, but for now she hasn’t been discovered because of having to work all hours of the day in a crappy job, kids demanding her care/time, domestic-gender-roles-which-we-like-to-think-don’t-exist-anymore… That should be our goal in terms of overcoming gender bias. For the short term, however, I support women-only shortlists as a way to kickstart female interest in representation. Let’s just make them the best candidates we can.
To Lauren, specifically, I think you made a mistake. I was a No-to-Yes, post-indy SNP recruit, and there is stuff the party does/stands for that I’m not totally crazy about either. But we need to think about the end game, and not screwing over the mechanism which can lead to a better life for all by doing well in an election only weeks away.
Disagreements are the stuff of life. Don’t let it get in the way of the general cause that we have.
To Lauren I say. I agree with your general sentiment of not wanting to be talked down to but I do not see it as a way in which you present yourself as a second class citizen based on gender. The fact is that something has to be done in order to redress gender imbalance ( I hope that such devices are only temporary until equal participation is normal 50:50 split). I agree they way that the SNP hierarchy have handled was heavy handed and very old style top-downish (something we can all agree is something we want to move away from). However they are still learning as much as all the new members are. Patience is required from all participants in the grand project.
To the SNP I say.
Get better at listening and discussing things openly. Be conciliatory. Be different from the the other machine parties out there. Be a party of the people, by the people, for the people.
Great atricle Lauren. Although I disagree, you put forward a very convincing argument!
We need to change the system in my opinion. And the good thing about quotas is that it takes the onus off the female. That’s positive , because from my experience there tends to be a lot of ‘benevolent sexism’: females are treated nicely as long as they’re subservient to the demands of the (currently gender unequal) status quo. As soon as they look like challenging something, they’re called a superbitch or a ball breaker or something . The point is that females have to adapt to the system at present. Quotas – far from being regressive – take the pressure of subservience and acquiescence off the female. Thus, we can remove some of the aversiveness and the psychological barriers that may be felt by a female stepping into the world of politics.
total RESPECT for Lauren and her p.o.v. BUT the current situation results in one in six msps being women. IT DOESNT WORK> Women get a rotten deal completely. This ‘discrimination’ may not be perfect but it can be modified to address the system that doesn’t work. Come back swallow PRIDE. not worth leaving for. It is a broad church. agree to disagree and work within the system to change it.
I understand the arguments on both sides of this debate and I appreciate why Lauren has quit (although I have say she has done a power of good in her short spell in the party).
I am crap at the PC thing and have had my knuckles rapped over at the Guardian (and put on moderation) for what I thought were amusing quips but I can see that women have not had a fair crack of the whip (50 shades aside) in the political arena.
I personally think that all women lists or all black lists or all blue whale lists are counter productive. On the other hand doing nothing doesn’t seem to work either. There must be some sort of happy medium but I am not sure what it is and clearly neither can the political parties. I can see why the SNP and Labour and others reach for this hoped for magic bullet.
I do think the party needs people like you Lauren but I respect your wishes on the matter.
Give it a chance see if it works. Snp run by 50/50 men and women. I think you need to lighten up, “second class” yeah right.
I assume SNP members and activists who promote the theory of “better to stay and make changes within” have certain limits on the application of said theory?
Oh look – more junk mail from the postie today…
@Donald 10.09am is correct. There’s no point in joining any party if you are going to put your own personal feelings above all else.
Why do we get so caught up in all of this?
We’ve been fighting with each other over religion, race, sexuality and yes gender equality for years. Why do we continue to do it? It achieves nothing other than drive wedges between us. Who wins out of it? Us? No chance!
We shouldn’t even be debating this, it’s complete nonsense.
Instead of having a pop at people who are trying to make the most of what they can, let’s start tackling those who are perpetuating it – The media!
For years women have been portrayed as second class, objectified and sexualised. Religions have been demonized and nations vilified by these corporate agenda driven wank stains.
If someone can find a way of blocking out their divisive narratives we could put a stop to this shit.
The motion plays directly into the hands of those who created the need for it to be introduced.
Some may say the SNP took a backward step yesterday and I’m one of them but I won’t hold it against them. They’re simply dancing to a tune on a hot plate like the rest of society.
Jet says:
30 March, 2015 at 9:25 am
Gutted
Snp conference weekend off
first comment when back snp attack
Six weeks before GE
Not from Westminster funded msm but from crowd funded wings over Scotland
I don’t agree with everything the snp say and i dont agree whith this policy or voting system but that’s the point of a party lots people from very different backgrounds finding common ground on certain things but you still have many personal views on lots of different items then a vote then we get behind the party
While still voicing and maintaining our own views and principles that = a united party
Or if we can’t agree on everything we leave and go our own way that = a united kingdom
trust takes a lifetime to earn and only a weekend to lose
Well said Jet. Couldn’t believe after a weekend off this was the first article crowd funded wings put on.
Very disappointed
It is a sad state of affairs that when ‘Equality’ is the goal of everyone, it appears the only way to ensure it happening is to legislate for it.
Such legislation will not resolve the issue as this is requiring a fundamental change in mindset of a great many people.
I hope I can be considered a ‘well-balanced’individual who fully understands and appreciate the fact that both men and women contribute greatly to society with no one group claiming they hold the moral or ethical high ground.
However, there is a section of the population with views that may be considered opposite to mine in that they consider any threat to ‘a mans job’ by a woman to be a threat to their own livelyhood.
I consider it a mistake to pander to that small group by enforcing ‘equality’ upon us all instead of recognising that we can all do more, voluntarily, to ensure that discrimination between the sexes becomes a thing of the past.
I concur with the Rev at 10.51.
So much for party discipline and keeping the eye on the ball.
I am not, never have been nor ever shall be a member of the SNP.
Let’s wait till the MSM run with this.
Stuart. I think you should take a longer break. I think you are overreacting to this issue.
Remember that it is not only independence supporters reading this. The unionists will use any weakness against us. In the grand scheme of things this is a mildly polarising issue that shouldn’t be blown out of all proportion.
Strange definition of ” loyal member” that only lasts 6 months, then quits after first vote they don’t agree with.
Meanwhile Paddy Ashdown is on BBC breakfast, ” The SNP marching south will be the first sign of them burning Westminster and the separation of the UK, I watched it happen in the Balkans”.
Focus people !!
Well, I’m off to have a read at Alex’s book. @Patrician got me a copy yesterday at conference.
It’s a signed copy though, I’d heard that unsigned copies are scarcer than hen’s teeth!
😉
While I’m drifting off into off topic (having had my say on this subject earlier) could I ask anyone with a spare tenner (or fiver even) to consider passing it to a crowdfund. There’s a 20,000 Labour majority to overcome here.
http://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/phil-boswell-election-campaign/backers/?
See you at the “Bairns not Bombs” demo on 4th.
Until then, get out leafleting.
You resign from a political party if it doesn’t do what it says it will do, if it lies or if it moves so far away from it’s original ethos that it is no longer the political party that you joined. You do not resign from a political party because one motion is overwhelmingly passed that you do not agree with. No one will agree with everything the party does the whole time, but this is the nature of being in a democratic party. I actually agree with the sentiments in this article, but I do not agree with the author’s reaction, and I certainly do not agree with her attack on the SNP at such a crucial time.
Conference, somewhere in the order of 3000 with a large number of voting delegates from all over the country, a gender mix which appeared to me proportionately higher in men, approved overwhelmingly of the resolution.
No matter what we personally think, given the arguments presented at conference, that is probably a fair reflection of the views of the general public.
What an energetic debate! Once again it reflects very well on this site, and on the passionate commitment to exploring these issues in the country more widely. Things aren’t going to improve instantaneously on all fronts, but in the long run, on this issue, I feel sure it will have helped the argument that Lauren made the decision that she did, and that she argued for it here. (And stimulated these responses.) The movement that this is all a part of doubtless has the resilience to see past the apparent pettiness of her decision and understand it as contributing positively to what is not only a real and substantial but also a long-term forum for discussion. It’s all a matter of thinking for ourselves, as individuals and collectively. Well done, Wings.
Sorry to hear this Lauren, not every decision within a party will go your way obviously we all just need to work out at what point our tolerance breaks and we call it quits. Personally theres a couple of things I dont agree with the snp on but ultimately as Im desperate to see Indy for Scotland ill stick with them because despite some flaws I still belive them to be the best vehicle for positive change. But aye, a close eye at all times must be kept on any political party.
Few if any members of any political party agree with all the policies of the party. For the moment, the SNP is the only game in time for G!15 so let’s put this one to bed and focus on getting as many SNP MPs as possible elected to Westminster to represent Scotland.
Divide and rule was always the strategy of the Establishment, whether that be by agent provocateur, planted stories or merely exploitation and magnification of any perceived differences in the population as a whole.
Let’s stop doing the Establishment’s work for them and promote the positive opportunities facing us in GE15.
If I had left the SNP every time I disagreed with a policy position or decision I would have worked out by now that I was not a suitable person to be in a political party.
I have very serious reservations about the proposals put to the party yesterday and the decision not least because I feel it patronises women but rather more because I feel women are already becoming more involved and more committed and the situation was steadily resolving itself naturally.
I also feel that attitudes in the past were as often fashioned by the fact that women themselves were very were reticent at coming forward as by any bias against them.
I don’t know any man who would make a decision of candidate selection on the basis of gender. Three of the last five Westminster candidates in my constituency have been female.
The most vociferous objection to yesterday’s proposal I have heard has come from women actually.
I abstained on the vote. I won’t be leaving the party. From inside I will argue against any direction it takes that I disagree with (as should Lauren Reid).
@ Lauren.
You sure have had a bumpy ride on this road to Independence.
All women shortlists did the Labour party a lot of good (Kezia dugdale Johann Lamont ) being a prime example & the many Westminster woman MPs,fast tracked without ability to do the job their elected to do,but are only there as window dressing for other women voters ( am ah woman,ah dont like Alik Salmonn).
I hope you take time to reflect on your decission to quit the SNP ( like you im a grassrooter & I didnt join an party ).
Its people like you that bring practicality & sanity to politics , not because of gender but on ability.
You fought hard on your journey, ( leaving the OO)where you were a second class citizen,& the harder uphill battle to justify yourself to Family & Friends.
( Remember why you started, Your Childrens Future)& that wont get better under the Westminster System.
As someone has previously said the motion is time limited,grind your teeth,but stick in there,For Your Children & all Our Childrens Futures.You cant effect change without,only from within.
Snode
Paddy has got a wee bit weird about the SNP of late. He is like Corporal Jones running around going “Don’t Panic!”
Completely agree, this is a backwards step for equality for every human being.
You cannot beat sexism by being sexist. Just as you cannot beat racism by allowing people to be racist to white people, it just shouldn’t exist.
I was part of the SNP during their election for a standing MP and there were men and women standing, to know i could have had what simple but important democratic right in the selection progress removed to achieve some quota is shocking.
The female candidate was not the best candidate for the job, and to remove a better candidates right to stand to meet some quota decided by the National Exec. – How is this democratic? How is this equality?
Who then calls the shots on when this policy ends? – What man would possibly stand against it now? – He would more than likely be accused of being sexist.
I was also disappointed the Greens Patrick Harvie also sided with this step
“Challenge it? It’s a progressive move. They should be congratulated.”
So on this issue i’m disillusioned with politics and yes this is one issue but its a core and important one.
Equality should not be achieved through inequality.
I have a great deal of sympathy for Lauren’s position. I am troubled by 100% lists for women and, indeed enforced 50% representation in institutes of office. I too believe that people should succeed on merit and suitability alone, that the ‘best’ person for the job should get it.
But how is ‘best’ defined when, with few exceptions, the structures and processes of our institutions, organisations and companies have all been designed for, and by, men?
Fundamental changes are required at every level before we can hope for fair and equal representation of women. I believe that this long term goal cannot be achieved without some short term measures. So whilst I don’t like 100% lists, I think they are a necessary evil for now.
A couple of points I hope helps to diffuse any bitterness which unfortunately seems to be surfacing.
This website is not pro SNP but pro Scottish independence.
Stu always posts from his view point and rightly makes no apology for doing so.
I’m a member of the SNP but can happily object to individual policies, debate is healthy and progressive. If it wasn’t for people standing up against the majority then we wouldn’t have an independence movement to all get behind.
We’re all together but none of us are the same, keep the bigger in mind. 🙂
It’s virtually impossible to see the SNP as a party that is non-discriminatory and empowering to women after this clunk fisted gambit.
Bad move.
Lauren has not been “driven” from the SNP. She has chosen to leave because one decision, democratically voted on, did not support her strongly held point of view. That is admirably principled.
Stuart at 10.51
I agree entirely
There is no such thing as positive discrimination.
It is very sad to hear such disagreement, disagreement that will only give fuel labour/Msm/Westminster to attack the SNP, at a time where the SNP are on the brink of giving Scotland and it’s people a voice in Westminster. A voice that hasn’t been heard for over 300 years. Failure to achieve that immediate goal, and then ultimately Independence for our Nation due to misunderstanding or overreaction would be madness.
I agree with both sides of the argument, but you have to do something to change the present UK mindset where males, and the “old school tie brigade and the Bullingdon club” dominate society.
I hear the argument that the best person for the job, whether they are male, female or alien should get the job. I whole heartedly agree,but here is the rub: WHO GETS TO CHOOSE WHO IS THE BEST CANDIDATE?
If the selection committee are of the old mind set then you will always get “The Old school tie” mentality and tribalism in the decision making and therefore not the best candidate for the job. Therefore nothing will change. This, I believe, is an attempt to change that mind set and level the playing field giving all the chance to put themselves forward as the “best candidate for the job”.
http://caltonjock.com/2015/03/29/the-ukraine-russian-aggression-caused-the-crisis-dont-believe-the-hype-the-blame-lies-with-the-usa-uk-and-nato/
Too many people prepared to put up with bad decisions for the good of the party. Sound familiar?
The SNP was regarded as a chance for change, for a better way of doing things.
If they can’t or won’t listen to genuine concerns of avid supporters like Lauren, who do they listen to?
Why no proposals for all non-white?
or All Muslim?
or All LGBT lists?
or did those demographs not have a radical support group?
The SNP has very strong candidates of all sexes. It seems putting in a filter for quota purposes is a bit counterproductive.
Best candidate becomes filtered to best female candidate even if she would have been the best overall because she has had an easier route.
They still get my vote as they have always got it since 1981ish, apart from once when a ‘get malcolm rifkind out’ tactical vote went to the liberals….just at an snp surge which actually put snp from 3rd to second in the result. At least that reinforced the pointlessness of tactical voting and the political nuance of the ‘scotsman’
Addition to my earlier post, let’s continue this debate but let’s put every bit as much effort into the excellent critique of the Unionist party lies and deceit that is so under represented in the main stream media.
There are times when we all feel like this.
All aboard the independence express. The platform is buckling under the weight of a hundred thousand new passengers.
The doors open and in we go. Here are the pushers and the shovers, there are the dawdlers and the inbetweeners.
It’s a heck of a squeeze. Look at the amount of baggage!
Excuse me, is this seat taken?
Hoi, stop elbowing me! No need to be rude.
If that blowhard doesn’t shut it I’m going to scream.
That one is quiet. Too quiet, I reckon.
OK that’s it. I’ve had enough. I’m getting off at the next stop and sailing to Rockall where I can run my own train set.
But wait. Here’s the driver with an announcement on the tannoy.
Listen to them all heckling, a hundred thousand 2ps thrown in the air. And yet she seems calm and determined. She knows what she’s doing.
Then the portly conductor appears. Full of charm, possibly full of something else. But he seems committed to the job.
Okay, I get it. It’s time to take a deep breath and calm down.
I’m not delighted about some of my fellow travellers, nor some of the stops en route. If the driver takes a wrong turn, I’ll let her know all right.
But I guess we’re all in this together and the destination makes the journey worthwhile. Doesn’t it?
I agree with Stuart that it is unfortunate, from an indy perspective, that this issue managed to achieve main stage prominence at conference.
However, having done so, I am glad conference voted for because if it had been rejected the UMSM would have had a real field day.
It was always a lose, lose very badly, type scenario.
I was at conference yesterday and did not support this resolution but I wasn’t completely against it. I felt there was a lot more scope for doing something to address gender inequality and the symptoms of it as seen in the candidate mix in Holyrood without resorting to these measures which are wrong on numerous levels.
I really wish I had an answer to this but smarter people than me have been poring over this for a very long time.
We should be doing all we can to encourage and promote the nurturing of talent and be looking to identify and overcome any obstacles that are preventing people from contributing fully.
On a local level we could stop having meetings in pubs and find somewhere more family friendly instead – I’m not suggesting all women are watching children, this would be of benefit to me too.
We definitely should not have a situation where the executive “may” do things without being told explicitly when and why these powers would be used. It is somewhat ironic that the resolution on Saturday called for TTIP to be explicit about when its powers could and would be used but that same benchmark is totally absent from this new rule.
We definitely should not have candidates parachuted in to a constituency for any reason; I believe a great strength of the SNP is our attachment to local politics which is strengthened by having local candidates. It would be a great shame if those local candidates were sacrificed because they were the “wrong” gender. There is more room for this kind of thing to be done on regional lists where the link to constituents is less direct, perhaps that should have been focussed on first.
I don’t think we did ourselves any great service by changing the rules yesterday but it is still unclear exactly what effect those changes will have, it depends so much on how the power is used.
I’m staying a member and will try and make sure they result in fairness and equality; I’d rather be working from the inside and trying to change what I disagree with rather than standing outside waiting for things to change of their own accord.
well if divide and rule worked in the past have another go it will work again as has been shown in a lot of the posts get a grip ! give the motion a chance if it dosnt work or is unpopular it will fall christ Parliament has only been dissolved for less than 12 hours and here we go doing LAB/TORY work for them
Rev the reason I like this site is its ability to get the facts straight. You shine the light on the media. This article sounds dodgy at best. I want my facts on this one.
The wording of this resolution is so vague and it doesnt give the executive the powers to enforce anything, so i doubt it will even be used. this resolution will be quietly dropped in 12 months time. No one will be able to oppose it since it wont even be on the agenda. by that time it will have succeeded in its aims, which is to position the snp as a pro women party, the party which stands up for women. Sturgeon will achieve what thatcher never could, and johann lamont….er probably the less said the better.
The UK media would have spun a negative line about the snp conference regardless of what we did, except this time they will need to find a negative spin to sturgeons attempt to promote women into positions of power and greater participation in politics… good luck with that daily record.
all in all, I think it was a very clever pr stunt which has the media dancing to the snp tune.
meanwhile, jim murphy should have kept his powder dry, with only one policy on labours manifesto, vote snp, get tories, this is beginning to sound a bit thin. with 5 weeks left, it looks like he has shot his bolt prematurely 🙂
Quite a lot of talk about keeping eyes on the bigger prize.
Thing is I want to live in a country where people get opportunity, reward and recognition for being the best at what they do not because of inherited privilege or money or contacts.
Or because of the use of gender/race/etc quotas.
This is at the heart of why I want to break away from Westminster establishment -opportunity for all then you get to where you want to be based on talent and ability
Opportunity for all is a foundation stone of what I would want to see in an iScotland.
As a principal the use of quotas is the opposite of opportunity for all – it is also anti equality.
This is why it is so important and why so many get upset about it.
It is the bigger prize
Even if you are only in the SNP to get independence, and disagree with everything else. You need to stay until independence is achieved. Until we are independent nothing will really change in Scotland.
We are saddled to a corupt,out of date Anglo centric parliament. Don’t expect change from this morally bankrupt country. Get Scotland out first,and then shape the new nation. We all have things we disagree on and thats life. If we all agree on an independent Scotland,that’s where we need to unite and not walk away over personal issues.
Well, this should finally put to bed ‘Wings is an SNP site’ myth, and for that well done Stu.
For me the function of Wings has always been as a forum to highlight issues of concern. Unashamedly pro independence – Yes, but not at the expense of being uncritical of pro independence parties.
During the referendum those engaged in Referendum Agent duties (to the best of my knowledge) approached the task from this perspective, ensuring fairness without favour to one side or the other, and long may that continue.
I happen to agree with the policy (with certain reservations) but am more than happy that Stu has highlighted the concerns that some people have.
i think its stupid as well but not really worth going on about, you’re in Danger of getting sand in your vag rev , id get cellotape out and remove before it builds up, been more important shizzle going on since then you been away too long lol
Alexander McKenzie says:
I agree with what you say, we should not be throwing gifts to the MSM and the Unionist bloggers.
I am disappointed this has become an issue of the moment.
Right now we need to be committed and have tunnel vision to reach our goals. Of course this is valid, and open to discussion, but there is a time for everything.
We have a good crowd on Wings, good people with largely good and optimistic views, with really excellent contributions.For now, lets keep it that way. We do not want any discord among us when it comes to our aims.
This post is causing some discord, that we do not need.
It’s a shame you’ve felt the need to leave, Lauren, and I hope you come back one day. I used to be against things like all-women shortlists, zipping lists etc, for many of the same reasons Lauren makes. But I’ve come to a point where, if I don’t necessarily support them, I’m certainly not against them.
Nicola made it clear as crystal when she came into office that she was making gender equality a flagship of her time as First Minister, so when it came to selecting candidates, it was pretty obvious that there was an expectation – or at the very least a hope – that we would return somewhere close to a 50/50 split, thus leading the way for the rest of the parties.
The result? 36% of our candidates are female. Barely more than a third.
So I can see why all-women shortlists (AWS) have come around. Attempts have been made at local level for years to get more women involved in active politics (I’ve previously seen Christina McKelvie mention efforts she’s involved in to encourage female participation), and we’ve had Nicola making her feelings as obvious as she could without going on TV saying “wouldn’t it be nice if 45-50% candidates were female? HINT HINT”, and yet we’ve still got almost twice as many male candidates than female.
If you want behaviour and attitudes to change, there comes a point where you just have to force the issue with a blunt instrument. It’s why governments impose bans and restrictions – like banning certain types of songs in certain situations because certain people just won’t take a hint. It’s the same with government-imposed targets – often it’s more effective to set the desired outcome and get folk to work towards it, rather than making a multitiude of wee changes and hoping things improve organically.
The thing is, a lot of the arguments against AWS are based on false premises. For instance, the argument that we’ll lose out on outstanding male candidates in favour of mediocre female ones just doesn’t wash. If an AWS had been imposed in Banff & Buchan in the run up to 1987, does anyone truly believe Alex Salmond would never have become an MP? Nonsense. At best, he might have had to wait a bit longer, but talent (dare I say male talent?) like that finds its way to the top eventually. Besides, it’s not like Alex Salmond won the candidacy for that constituency because he was the hardest-working member of the Banff & Buchan branch – he was chosen because the SNP wanted him in parliament, and it was a winnable seat. Unless people think Alex commuted from Strichen to Edinburgh every day for his previous job at RBS…
This argument also implies – unintentionally, mind – that we’re not already losing out on outstanding female candidates in favour of mediocre male ones. I know of some brilliant women who stood for candidacy this year but didn’t win (and many others who didn’t even stand for nomination). Does that mean the men who won instead are there because they were better qualified for the job? It depends on your definition. In some cases, it’ll simply be because they’ve done a better job of climbing the ladder at local level. In others, it’ll be because they are a councillor, and therefore the only person that non-active members knew when casting their vote. In both cases, since there are already gender imbalances in terms of branch executive positions and local government, men (as a whole, not necessarily individually) do indeed have an inbuilt advantage.
The argument that candidacies should be won solely based on merit implies that this is currently the case. I don’t believe that people are consciously choosing more male candidates than female because they think men are superior – and it annoys me when proponents of AWS seem to make that argument, because it is just inflammatory – but what if the things we take into account when deciding “merit” are already weighed in favour of men?
Another argument – that the stated need for more female representation implies men can’t represent women – makes an invalid assumption about the reasons for doing this. I’m not surprised this comes up, because the way some people argue for increasing female participation in politics does seem to imply that men can’t represent women – but that’s not what this is about for the majority of supporters. It’s simply about saying that if you accept that men and women are equally capable of doing the job – and I’d like to think we all think that – then why are there not as many women in politics as men? If it’s not because there is something about men that makes them inherently better at it, then it must be because there are things which prevent women (in general) from wanting to become more involved. Well, do we continue simply trying to encourage more female participation, or do we say “right, one of you has to step up to the plate now”?
Sometimes folk just need a shove. Some folk say that the existence of successful politicians like Nicola Sturgeon, Ruth Davidson, or indeed excellent activists like Lauren, proves there is nothing currently stopping women from succeeding if they want to – i.e. women have the same opportunities as men, it’s just more men take them up. But this isn’t about addressing an imbalance of opportunity. If opportunity was all that mattered, then there’d be no imbalance. The numbers suggest there is something currently stopping women as a whole from trying to take up that opportunity. AWS are a way of giving folk that shove, getting them to step up to the plate, making them step out of their comfort zone.
In my local branch, it was pointed out that only two women were elected to the executive positions at our AGM. It was pointed out by a woman who didn’t volunteer for any of those positions. My initial reaction was to think “well I don’t remember seeing you stick your hand up” and the inevitable “there was nothing stopping any of the women in the room from volunteering”. It was even a struggle getting someone to volunteer for the Women’s Officer role. But the more I thought about it, the more I realised that this is exactly what the gender imbalance thing is all about. If it hadn’t been for that Women’s Officer role, we would have had one woman in the executive. That second woman is no less capable than the rest of the people on the executive, but it wasn’t until she felt compelled to volunteer that she put herself forward. Currently, there is no compulsion for women to volunteer for candidacy, because there are always plenty of men who will do it. AWS rectifies that.
Folk say that implementing AWS implies women need help to get involved, and that this in turn implies they are inferior. In reality – and this is where I definitely risk sounding inflammatory, but I don’t mean to – it is the women saying “I didn’t need anyone’s help to get involved” who are unintentionally implying inferiority, because their argument says that needing help makes you inferior. But it doesn’t. I spent years not being active in the SNP, and the idea of knocking on doors for a political party absolutely horrified me. It took the referendum to force me to work past that, and now I’ll happily chap anyone’s door asking how they’re voting. That doesn’t mean I’m suddenly less inferior than I was, it just means I needed a kick up the backside. The same applies for standing for candidacy, which is a far more terrifying prospect than chapping doors.
(And maybe addressing the gender imbalance will also help make politics feel less scary to men who currently find the prospect too daunting – we could end up with better candidates all round.)
There are steps that could be taken to try and do this more organically – ensuring all branch executive positions have at least one female candidate, implementing 40/40/20 quotas (40% male, 40% female, 20% either) at branch level, or gender-pairing consecutive seats so there is always an opportunity for the “best” male to be elected, for instance – but I can see why people have said “enough is enough” and gone for this route instead.
(And besides, it could have been worse – the amendment tabled by the SNP Trade Union Group, which would have forced a 50% minimum limit on the number of women on lists, was far more blunt a tool than simply giving the NEC the option of implementing AWS in a seat.)
Of course, all of this is premised on the initial assumption that there is a problem to be fixed at all – if a person doesn’t agree there is, then I don’t think it’s possibly to justify AWS to them. But I do, so I’ve stopped being resistant to this measure – especially as it’s only for the 2016 selection process.
I agree with you Lauren, the SNP will make the same asinine mistakes every other party makes in pursuit of/to keep power, a halfwit with no penis has more chance of election than a talented person with a penis, idiotic nonsense, I’ll continue to stay out of any clubs, power always corrupts them IMO.
Gender quotas are a blunt and ultimately futile attempt at bringing lasting equality. The problem of women not being as equally represented is far more complex than quotas can fix. The real problem lies behind the scenes. How are the branches set up? Who is it that is on selection panels? Are women even putting themselves forward as often as men and if not why not?
Get it right behind the scenes and you will see it reflected in the selection of candidates.
I do not need ‘help’ as a woman but rather to be ‘seen’ as an equal person with valid ideas and not to be hindered in my progress by predidace.
The idea that someone checking a box is the best way to help quite frankly offends the hell out of me.
And lets not beat around the bush. Quotas mean deliberately barring men from even being considered. Why should someone who happens to be male be prevented from even attempting to be considered. It is not form him to pay the ‘price’ for the sins of others.
I will now return to being a lurker (my prefered status). 🙂
I produced a series of short female written plays at the Edinburgh International Arts Festival, all on female themes. The intention was to give a platform to female writers new to script writing who had not written a play before.
I called the compilation ‘Hemlines’.
Each writer chose a term of a woman’s life, from child through to old age, and concentrated their thirty minutes illuminating that aspect in dramatic form rather than essay or journalism.
One of the writers was poet Liz Lochhead. She honoured me of late by expressing her gratitude publically for the chance to write stage dialogue and have it professionally produced. (Her contribution was a marvellously funny take on female maturation.)
Another writer I hoped to include was the fine novelist, Muriel Spark, by then living abroad.
I received a courteous, short, sharp hand-written reply:
“Nothing could be further from my thoughts than to be ghettoised in an evening of women only plays. I never, ever accept invitations to take part in such events.”
Kind regards, Muriel Spark.
The lesson was learned – women of ability and skill rank as well or better than men, and indeed, my wife takes the same attitude as an internationally respected figure.
However, both Spark (back then) and my wife make plain they believe in equal opportunity. In other words, there should be no barrier on women applying for specific jobs or getting promotion or attention for their work. Sadly, that is still not the case.
I’ve met woman who shimmy up telegraph poles to fix phone lines, drive trucks, foundry blacksmiths, studying sharks, construction workers, and so on, and so forth.
I don’t get it. Surely women only lists are there to address he gender imbalance so glaringly apparent at all levels of UK society? Those lists can obviously be abandoned with a vote in the future once women are seen to be on an equal footing with men at the nation’s top levels(or even lower levels, for that matter); but that isn’t the situation that holds currently.
I’ve been in the party from the days when women were going places within the SNP and a lot quicker than any of the unionist parties; but it’s a shame that you are willing to stomp off in a hissy fit, so quickly after joining, over one policy stance.
Most members I know put in hours of effort: canvassing, leafleting, fund raising and going to meetings etc. At such a crucial point in SNP’s history, you are giving yet more rocks for a right wing, London-owned, unionist press and biased BBC to chuck at the rest of us members who’ve been carrying the banner for so long.
Respect to the Daisley Mail’s Wings parody for providing some essential humour amid the wrangling of the last few miserable days.
I write as a non-male who sees no misogyny on Wings. I have a visceral resistance to women-only shortlists.
But are we not all here (trolls apart) because we want to do something about the massive inequality between London/Westminster and Scotland?
Have we forgotten how often we had to repeat the message that the YES campaign was something bigger than the SNP?
Just adding my voice to the chorus calling for focus on the task in hand. Please!
My god, I find this pretty sad. Firstly, I in no way agree with positive discrimination. The best person for the job should get the job, always
I find it quite incredible that for this one thing, which I can understand they are pushing with the best of intentions, you feel it necessary to resign from the party
I joined the SNP a few years ago as I saw it as the best way of obtaining independence. If enough of their policies changed significantly, I would leave soon enough without batting an eyelid. I did not agree with keeping the monarchy or the pound for that matter but I am prepared to go with the majority
If I followed your stance, I would be out. As we lost the referendum, I would have to give up and leave Scotland also, going by that logic (not agreeing with the majority)
I think it’s a bit much to imply that you are being classed as second class. I do hope your resignation and writing of this article were done in the heat of the moment and that you’ll reconsider. If not, all the best
I also have a feeling, and I’m not accusing the author of the article, but there does seem to be some newbies popping up with the ‘I think I might resign too’ rubbish. Agent provocateurs?
As a side, isn’t it funny nobody calls for 50/50 quotas for nurses, brickies, midwives (midhubbies), secretaries, plumbers, lorry drivers, sewage workers. Why politics and management?
This is not the way to tackle inequality or to reform parliament.
Politics might be an old boy’s club, but there are an awful lot of men who aren’t members of that particular club either. 33% of MPs went to private schools. In the wider population, that figure is just 7%.
The SNP motion frames political selection as a narrow gender issue, when the inequalities of politics are much much wider than that.
A policial movement which says to its supporters ‘toe the line until the election’ and ‘now is not the time to rock the boat’ seems to me to be the antithesis of the genuine debate and engagement we saw last September.
Last year NATO, this year NATAL, que sera sera…
As an older woman I can see the point of ‘affirmative action’, unfair as it sounds. We need to get the women into the positions of responsibility so that men stop feeling that authority is their God-given right, and that just because someone is a woman, doesn’t mean she can’t perform as well as he can. I see WoS as being a short-term tool to help fix a long-term problem.
The SNP have passed by democratic means a policy. That is their right and they have done it in a fashion than only leaves members who disagree with the policy a few ways of dealing with that.
Wings over Scotland is not the SNP. It is not bound by their policy decisions.
Personally I feel Scotland is in a better place in some respects towards gender equality both in politics and in society in general. Holyrood and the referendum have seen to that in politics. I bet there are fewer women in Scotland who don’t vote, and fewer who let their husbands decide who ‘they’re’ voting for. As a smaller population the luxury of discriminating in favour of men over better qualified women is more detrimental to most organisations and institutions.
But there is still socially acceptable gender division, still pink toys only for girls idea ( worse now I think than in the 70’s), still girls being brought up to put the needs of others first while boys are indulged, still society making excuses for men while blaming women. All those things are not going to be fixed by quotas on one political party’s candidate list ( or even two political parties).
All current equality legislation needs to be prosecuted. Councils need to stop challenging equal pay claims. Companies need to pay equal wages and behave equally towards their workforce. People should know that they will be protected if they blow the whistle on discriminatory behaviour including rumours that affect interview outcomes.
Less Political Correctness and more straightforward rational behaviour would be helpful. If someone is ill informed about gender, about gender abilities then they need to be educated.
And finally out of curiosity where does this quota list leave a transgender candidate?
Gender is a false flag, the sexuality and physiology of human beings is a spectrum.
Douglas Daniel
Outstanding comment at 30 March, 2015 at 11:32 am
Positive discrimination.
The clues in the title.
I thought the primary aim of Wings was to critically engage with the MSM that lets Scotland down so badly.
Personally I dont think its helpful for Wings to get involved in the policy making process of the SNP – that is for the membership of th SNP to decide.
Get back to doing what you do best… please!
As a woman I understand Lauren’s view and of course she is right that men and women are equal and should be treated as such but I don’t agree with her decision. What about the old boys network or getting a job because you went to the right school. Inequality is everywhere and it is all very well having these strong views but where does it get you? The coalition cabinet, company boards, etc etc are nearly all made up of men and simply waiting for this to change is not working.
I don’t know what the answer is but no political party is perfect and it is naive to think you will always agree with all their policies I believe in looking at the bigger picture.
I have some reservations about positive discrimination in the realm of political parties (look at how Labour central have used any means to control candidate selection over the years and where it has left them). But there is an obvious problem with under representation of certain sections of society. I remain undecided on the issue.
However, I am disapointed that this issue is the primary focus of attention here after the SNP conference a few weeks away from the GE. An election for which the SNP candidates have alreday been selected by what appeared to be a very fair and open procedure – the SNP dropping some long term rules to allow the large recent influx of members to both offer themselves for adoption and to vote for the candidate of their choice (non-members could I believe even be adopted as candidates).
This appears completely divorced from the Labour Party school of central control of candidate selection which has dominated since Tony Blair’s time. I am not ans SNP member but I trust their leadership far more than that of the other parties when it comes to this.
This issue really does not seem to me (I emphasise IMHO) be a top priority at the moment.
Chris
This raises a wider question – how long do you stay in a party that broadly matches your priorities but differs in other areas?
I reckon this is what has happened to Labour, it has been hollowed out before its members’ eyes and is no longer the party most of them joined. It is rotten because too many of its members shut up and accepted the party line as it veered further and further off course into neo-liberal waters.
On the other hand, if a party member quits every time there is an issue they don’t agree with, it all gets a bit People’s Front of Judea and the strengths of the party system are dissapated.
Will the SNP split into multiple pro-indy groupings in the coming years, or will the majority stay for the next referendum?
I would guess that unionists would hope for the former, and do everything in their power to encourage discord. Divide et impera after all.
@ Doug Daniel
Great comment. Could have been a new post. I’m glad I stayed to read it as I was thinking of giving up this site.
Divide your opposition!
That is how the BRITTISH establishment created and controlled their EMPIRE.
Starting with Wales, Ireland and Scotland. How you divide them is immaterial JUST DIVIDE THEM then you manipulate and control them. JOB DONE.
People also argue this was a democratically elected, well i have to asked based on this new rule what was the gender split in the audience was it a fair 50/50?
Rev: in the interests of balance will you be putting up a post from someone who agrees with gender quotas?
“Democracy is dictatorship of the many over the few”.
In any democratic vote the minority will always be dictated
too by the many, a vote was democraticly called for, taken
and this time you were, “the few”. You must get your message
out to more people for conference next time where you will
have another chance, this time, more than likly, you will
win because your argument is right, a new way needs to be
found for a better selection system.
I am minded to put forward Johanne Lamont as a perfect example of how “positive” discrimination doesn’t work but then, upon reflection and careful consideration, I have concluded that she did get there on merit.
Maybe it’s just me but I don’t walk into a doctors or look at our MP’s and MSP’s and view them as anything but doctors or MP’s regardless of if there male or female. Infact I don’t think the difference of gender enters my thoughts anymore.
It is not unusual for folk who have joined a political Party to resign at some point over something or other. I feared that when he SNPs membership exploded that many not previously enthused by politics would become disillusioned.
I wont go into which policies I disagreed with here as that might take a whole book of space,I became disillusioned with several SNP policies years ago but the one thing I never stopped believing in was Independence.
I might not be member of the SNP but I will never give up arguing and campaigning for it in one one way or another.
On the specific issue of quotas, well I don’t like them personally. As a former employer myself the only things that really interested me when recruiting was firstly can the person you are hiring do the job and secondly will they turn up for the job, that was always the bottom lines, quotas for me got in the way of that.
I don’t like quotas since I always preferred to hire women, they tended to turn up and do the job better than most men I hired, now I can see the day coming when this comes full circle and we will have a reversal of policy to men only lists. It is a bad policy almost as bad the bias of a post code lottery that existed, I don’t know if it still does. That is my perspective as a former employer.
As for all women lists … Cara Hilton
And what about equal representation by age? How many MSPs are over 65? Why are old folk not well represented in Parliaments? Maybe if we had had more old folk in the Party we wouldn’t have gone for the Referendum so soon.
A piece of nonsense surely but equally as valid as the argument that there is some special quality that women bring to representational politics
Whilst it’s admirable that Lauren wants to take a stand against another form of discrimination, the unintended consequence of that point of view is that we will have to wait for women’s equal standing in society to continue to come about in a natural way.
The problem with that approach is that gender equality is therefore not likely to happen for hundreds more years. In the meantime , is it not better that a message should regularly be given to society that attitudes MUST change?
I can understand people standing up for a point of principle, but think there’s a case for being pragmatic.
When I was a teenager I thought it was totally wrong to try and influence anyone’s political opinions because logically speaking there was no reason for my opinion to be preferable to anyone else’s opinion.
Over time I’ve realised that being right in glorious isolation is a pretty bad position to be in. Get involved. Argue your case. If you don’t, it’ll only be other people arguing theirs and your voice might not be heard.
It’s an argument for principled pragmatism. Disagree, but from within. Just don’t become New Labour. And if you can’t stay at on a point of principle so be it. Find a new grouping.
This is a great site. Don’t always agree with the Rev (sometimes too dogmatic), but it’s always worth reading.
Totally agree with her. This is about how people feel they are treated.
Oh,look! There’s a squirrel.
LOOK. Hunners an hunners and days and days of em.
Election.What election?
I had my say on this subject a couple of days ago on a previous thread so I won’t repeat it however I do understand that at candidate selection there were some constituencies that had no nominations for women & never had in the past. That would for me flag that there is a problem in those areas which needs looking at.
As an employer I also have to be aware that there are basic differences in men & women putting themselves forward for jobs, promotion etc. Men are more likely to be over confident of their abilities whereas women are more likely to play down their abilities & self select out of the competition. Whether this is a product of conditioning since birth & throughout the process of attaining adulthood or whether it is naturally ocurring, no one knows for sure. (Nature or nurture debate)
Yes we need to do something but I don’t see all women shortlists as the way forward. It starts in the home, schools, colleges, society, the worplace & our own inbuilt biases etc. To change the attitudes of society takes generations & for this reason I can see the reason for this decision.
Yes I’m a member but I also have to remember that I chose to join a movement that has the same aspirations as me but each person will have different ideas on how it’s aims are to be achieved. I am one of many but on the whole, I do believe SNP are the best we have or are likely to have in the forseeable future.
I spoke out against this issue earlier but to some extent am calmed by the fact that it is a time limited measure & is not irreversible.
I am also of an age where I’ve learned from experience & Lauren, I’ve done the walking out bit in disgust at a decision I strongly disagreed with. On reflection that turned out to be a mistake on my part.(I’ve always been a stroppy cow anyway!)Life experience has taught me that it’s always better to work from within as a critical friend & gather support for your point of view so that you end up with a stronger challenge backed by evidence for your argument.
Please reconsider your decision-SNP needs critical friends within it’s ranks otherwise it will turn into just another party without them. Scotland doesn’t deserve that fate.
Give it a chance please-you are clearly so immersed in all the work that you do for SNP that you can’t see the wood for the trees. It isn’t about giving up your own opinions,it’s about being open minded enough to be able to agree to a temporary change, giving it a chance to succeed on it’s own merits as a practicable policy. If it doesn’t work it will be dropped, believe me.
I tweeted Nicola when I saw some of the comments coming out of conference on this subject. My reaction was immediate but having found out since that it is a time-limited change I decided that I could live with that. But like you, I do see positive discrimination as being discriminatory against others.
Come on Lauren-you were brave to put your views on WoS & credit is due for that but to my mind you are the only one who will be hurt by your decision. Get back into the fight & help to show that whilst not perfect, SNP is still miles better than any of the alternatives 🙂
I don’t agree with NATO either but that’s an argument for another day when independence has been won.
Having studied body language for over 50 years it is quite easy to pick up everyone’s “agenda”, body language combined with the spoken word can bring an almost immediate picture. The written word and the framework of the sentences and paragraphs can highlight an agenda that is in fact much easier to decipher than the average person would believe. Many devious criminals have fell foul of all the aforementioned. Just thought I would let you know.
I don’t agree with quotas for a number of reasons, but one stands out: namely, that it implies the problem is fixed and nothing else needs to be done. It’s like saying the poor are responsible for their own poverty – it absolves society from taking any steps to solve the structural problems that lead to poverty. The structural and attitudinal problems that result in gender imbalance still need to be fixed and that’s where the resources need to be directed.
Incidentally, quotas also mean that there could never be more than 50% women in parliament. Would that be a good thing? I would be happy with a majority of women in parliament.
Bare your teeth Stu, and get it out of your system. You are a star turn.
I am not in the snp, but maybe their debate was a bit tight on time, and may even have been no more than rubber-stamping the will of the leader. But, well, the issue … it’s a biggie.
Putting women’s rights back 100 years is just about to the hay-day of the sufragettes… When you see what the suffragettes went through to get the vote, how they were brutalised by the police and how they were treated in prison and then what their families did to them afterwards… You have got to see that women in politics is a tooth and claw issue. We either sort out gender inequality in the legislating houses or we let the big beasts roam the plains.
And the big beasts love their plains where Jim Murphy on a crate can terrorise pensioners and Gordon Brown can go around saying money we spend on the nhs in Scotland will not be affected by decisions outside Scotland and George Robertson can tell us Trident is there to save the world from terrorism.
50:50 is a political issue – it is an issue not only of gender equality but of proportional representation.
I’m slightly disgusted to hear people ask what to do when poor decision-makers keep having to choose between 4 good men candidates and a woman. Well, dig into what you’re looking at… what you have there is a problem. Possibly a little bit of misogyny. Possibly the problem of our age. And an opportunity to tackle it.
I have a feeling we need a bit of positive discrimination until attitudes change. It’s a bit like the 5p bag tax. People didn’t take their own bags to the supermarket until they were penalised for not doing so. Once people are in the habit of taking their own bags, we can probably remove the 5p tax and keep the attitude change.
Weird analogy, but I think it’s a similar situation. Positive discrimination can force attitudes to change quickly, and once we’re all in the habit of having 50% women in government (or business, or whatever), we can remove the quotas and keep the attitude change.
I don’t agree with all women short lists but it was debated in full and passed democratically. That is what being part of a political party entails.
Likewise, I believe everyone is able to express an opinion and the weekend discussion on Wings has shown diverse opinions, long may it continue.
Cant believe Paddy Ashdown absurd comments got said, its comments like his that give democracy a bad name.
I’m not going to get into the rights and wrongs of the SNP’s gender equality amendment: plenty others have said their piece so I’ll leave it be for now.
Remember, this amendment decision was passed by democratic process. If you are in favour of the democratic process and agree to abide by its mechanisms then you surely agree to abide by its results. You will have one vote, the same as the others taking part. There will be occasions when a result is not the one you prefer… that is what makes the democratic process what it is; basically: you win some, you lose some.
Yes, it can hurt and hurt badly when the result does not go one’s way – the Scottish referendum being one example of a massive hurt for many – yet, one must agree with the majority decision, move on, and, if the issue is one of great importance to the individual, continue to work through democratic means to encourage others to vote to your favour if, and when, the subject is brought up again for voting on – the next referendum, whenever it should take place, being a case in point.
No matter how strongly she felt about the subject, that the author of the article believed it was a decision that she had to resign from the party over seems to be quite an overreaction. Better to stay within, surely, to fight the good fight, rather than from without.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/11/24/valley-boys
gender balance
There’s a cartoon going round social networking sites at the moment. It shows three wee boys watching a sports match from behind a solid barrier. One boy is tall enough to see over the barrier, one is able to see over if he stands on tiptoe but the third has no chance.
The second part of the cartoon shows all three we boys standing on different sized boxes in such a way that each of them has an equal chance of seeing the match.
The point is that equality isn’t about treating everyone exactly the same. It’s about looking round, seeing that the CURRENT system gives men a much better chance than women of getting elected and doing something about it. The bias within the current system is clear and obvious. If it was not there we’d have equal numbers of men and women in parliament… and we self-evidently don’t have.
Of course, women-only short lists are not the only possible answer but they do help and should be supported by everyone who understands and believes in equality.
O/T Shut that door, dont you,s know the Quin is in session wie the lavvy Cooncil n Davy Cameron ( he,s the toilet roll holder).
I don’t agree with the stance and decision outlined in this article and I don’t understand how this will help further your own personal views, especially when the measure is time limited.
I am a member of the SNP myself. As of now, the SNP does not support the policies that I consider most important to me – things such as Gender X recognition and legalisation and taxing of cannabis. However I can’t change those policies from outside the party. I can have an influence from within and come the Holyrood elections I can cast my vote as SNP / Green to try and push the SNP even further towards the left.
I also think quotas are important. I will point to http://misssymartin.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/calling-all-chicken-lickens.html for a good example of this within the political sphere and will mention that I believe quotas are necessary to resolve all gender imbalances including discriminating positively towards men in academic areas of psychology and biology and even sub disciplines such as crystallography (see http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/15/gender-imbalance-teaching-nursing-male-carer-young-people-jobs
http://www.apa.org/gradpsych/2011/01/cover-men.aspx).
In doing so, the person is not being told they are a second class citizen. They are instead made aware of institutionalised biases that act against them – irrespective of other legislation or regulations that are in place to promote equality.
I am also very saddened by the tone of some of these comments and a creeping feeling that makes me feel much less welcome to even read WoS, never mind add a comment. I don’t fit into the usual description of a person that would be reading or supporting Wings and some of the material published in the past here and on Twitter has been very hurtful on a pretty personal level. I’ve already stomached a lot of my feelings as I understand that if we show unity for one major goal we are stronger.
I’m stating the bleeding obvious here, but can I remind people that the Rev is NOT and has NEVER been (according to his own admission) a member of the SNP
This website supports independence, it is not an SNP mouthpiece.
I agree that the SNP are the best vehicle for getting an independence Scotland, but slavishly defending them on every action is just as great a menace to Scottish democracy as Westminster is.
As someone who was driven to resign from the best job I ever had, because I was “negatively discriminated” against in favour of a female colleague, I perhaps am biased in my view on this.
Lauren, I urge you to reconsider your decision. As one or two other posters have noted, by resigning, you have forfeited your right to challenge SNP policies from within: Better in the tent peeing oot, than oot o’ the tent, peeing in.
I can see the sense of positive discrimination, to overcome the years of suppression of women, but, this can be a double-edged sword.
The SNP has an election to fight, for Scotland. It needs everyone it can get on-message. Please, put your toys back in the pram and get back in there fighting for Scotland.
“Positive discrimination.
The clues in the title.”
That it is a net positive or that it is discrimination? :p
Really there is nothing wrong with it so long as we are willing to enact it in all directions. That means aid to encourage more BME people where the numbers are reflected poorly, pushing the agenda of more men when the area is predominantly women, encouraging women into male-centric areas.
There are, debatably, areas where the establishing of quotas is pointless. However politics is not one of them since we should expect politics to speak and be representative of the population – which is 52% women.
And let it be known that we have the exact same issue as the representation of women in politics when it comes to the proportion of people that are state school educated, from a working class background, that are of an ethnic minority, that are gay, that are transgender, that are disabled and so on. And this leads to the issue of a class of politicians that do not understand and appreciate the real world and end up caring only for those most similar to themselves.
Discrimination is NEGATIVE.
‘Positive’ x NEGATIVE = NEGATIVE.
My personal view is that you can lose talented people who feel their path is now blocked as there is no longer a meritocracy.
Not quite the same thing, but an example from S.Africa is Kevin Pietersen who couldn’t get a game for Natal/Kwazulu due to ‘positive’ discrimination. He left S.Africa to get an opportunity elsewhere (ie England). S.Africa therefore missed out on one of the most talented cricketers of his generation.
OK, he’s an arse, but he could’ve been an enormous asset to S.Africa, instead he plied his trade with one of their opponents.
I’m sure the SNP wouldn’t want that sort of thing to happen.
A mistake in my view, but not a fatal blow.
This is NOT a GE issue and all candidates have been selected for WM, so let’s debate this after May.
Graham, two things:
1. There are no quotas. The resolution does not commit the party to introducing AWS to meet any specific percentage.
2. Your poverty analogy is the wrong way round. On the contrary, saying that there are less women in politics because they choose not to get involved (which is the argument made by many) is blaming women for their lower participation, and therefore the same as blaming poor people for being poor. AWS are more akin to, say, training schemes directed specifically at folk in run-down areas.
I too agree that this is a bad move Lauren, for a whole load of reasons that people have succinctly expressed here and elsewhere. Howver, I do think you decision to resign is hasty and regretfull. No one can ever agree with their parties policies 100% of the time, and anyone that does probbaly doesn’t have amind of their own. There have been a few SNP policies and decisions that I have strongly objected to, but I have to balance these out and accept that’s how a democratic party operates. A debate took place and a vote passed the motion. I would say, speak up and influence from within rather than bail out over a single issue that you don’t like.
from now on, i want to be called loretta 🙂
I have a great deal of sympathy with Lauren’s view of positive discrimination. I voted for the motion only very reluctantly because I see gender imbalance as an affront to democracy so serious that extraordinary measures are required in order to rectify the situation.
Positive discrimination of any kind is an extraordinary measure. And measure which is intrinsically undemocratic should be considered only in extremis. The form that the measure takes must be considered with the utmost care and it should be implemented with great caution. But I am firmly persuaded that positive discrimination is necessary if the we are to achieve gender balance in Scotland’s politics within an acceptable time-scale.
When systemic bias is as entrenched as that which perpetuates gender imbalance then resort to extraordinary measure is fully justified. But if the measures proposed are so offensive to people like Lauren that they are prepared to resign in protest, then we are self-evidently doing it wrongly.
Lauren must first be persuaded that positive discrimination is justified. But, more importantly, she must be persuaded that the method proposed is acceptable. There is an unfortunate attitude which simplistically assumes that because people are in favour of gender balance they must be in favour of achieving the desired outcome by any means.
There is also the problem that anyone expressing even the mildest reservations about the form of positive discrimination being suggested risks being branded a misogynist or extreme feminist, depending on their sex.
Rather than condemning those who are uncomfortable with positive discrimination we should understand that such reluctance to resort to extraordinary, undemocratic measures is a perfectly understandable and eminently reasonable position for any democrat to take. We should be asking ourselves what it will take to win them over.
I think at least three things are required. Firstly, people like Lauren must be assured that positive discrimination is not itself going to become part of an entrenched systemic bias. Any positive discrimination measure must be limited by time or target.
Secondly, everybody must be assured that the measure will not impeded the selection of the best candidate.
Finally, the chosen method must be something that even somebody such as Lauren can live with. This is not likely to be a crude and clumsy measure which does nothing to moderate the undemocratic nature of positive discrimination. Ideally, it should be a subtle shift of power across the gender divide which influences the selection of female candidates rather than levers them into place.
As an example, I have suggested ensuring that candidate selection panels are always gender balanced and then weighting the votes of the female panel members according to a formula based on the level of imbalance in the body for which the person is being selected to stand as a candidate. Weighting to be on a sliding scale of 0 where gender balance is perfect, to 1 where gender balance is non-existent.
I can’t be certain that even such provisions would win Lauren over. But if they had at least been part of the conversation then perhaps she might have been encouraged to stay and argue for her own moderating provisions from within the SNP.
“The point is that equality isn’t about treating everyone exactly the same. It’s about looking round, seeing that the CURRENT system gives men a much better chance than women of getting elected and doing something about it. The bias within the current system is clear and obvious.”
Really? Explain it to us, would you?
“I see WoS as being a short-term tool”
Yeah, well your FACE is stupid.
no-one can agree with every policy the party they favour put forward, impossible
Can I just say on a personal note over the last 9 months I have been constantly telling people I speak to (yes and no’s) “go check out wings over scotland”. Well over the last 3 days I haven’t wanted to send folk here. In fighting, racism, sexism, you name it. It’s been flying around here like wildfire. Now I understand some of us don’t have a great ability with words so some points might have came across wrongly but Ffs folks.
This is off putting. And I don’t like this “as long as it’s something we agree with it’s ok” censorship that’s starting to emerge either.
The Rev puts up posts that he thinks are appropriate. Yes we should discuss them but when folk start throwing in “English shouldn’t get to vote even though they live in Scotland” when in the next sentence they’ll jump on the band wagon of “this isn’t democracy when Scottish votes are less than English in westminster”. Well Ya get the idea.
Yup simple solution is independence to that situation but we aren’t independent yet. And what then happens if we do become independent. Some of yous monkeys start to chip in on who’s welcome in Scotland and who’s not. Some of yous should be ashamed of yourselves.
Hi Lauren.
An interesting insight, I’m a bit of a fence sitter on Quotas myself and not a party member. But the main point I want to make is that leaving the party at the first decision you don’t agree with kind of allows the people you don’t agree with to continue to make those decisions and to push (even manipulate?) things in the way you describe.
The party is in flux with a huge new membership most of who are new to the internal workings and with many of the old timers no doubt feeling insecure as to how things will pan out. It needs dedicated people like yourself sticking with it to make sure all sides of all arguments are heard.
Lauren – My Plea to You.
Oh Boy. First Lauren let me say thank you so so much for all you did during independence and by elections. It sometimes breaks my heart to think of how hard the grass roots of YES worked, when all the No side needed to do was fire out 24 hour anti-independance garbage from the safety of the BBC newsrooms.
We lost because of such powerful forces, and the historic way some Scots love to fuck up our future time and again.
We are nation that seems to revel in ‘Glorious Defeat’. In not going to go into a massive history lesson, those who know our history will get exactly what I mean.
I’m sick of it.
And now we have this. I’ll be honest with you Lauren, I have no real opinion on the matter of all woman shortlists. I welcome women getting on a equal footing with males – its the freaking 21st century for crying out loud, but you know if society is left to its own devices you might be waiting another 80 years for true equality (estimates of some academics). Sometimes things need a kick up the arse. Yet on the other hand while I can see something like all woman shortlists helping to address an issue like gender imbalance it’s dong so in a very artificial way.
It most certainly should not make soneone feel second class, like you do, and if it has then this can’t be good – you won’t be the only one.
Why of all times did this issue have to be brought up at the point? Btw I’m not saying you are wrong, you have every right to feel the way you do I shall tell you no different. But I despair that Scotland has now lost one of its hard working daughters when it comes to campaigning at the moment it faces the the most Important General Election of our lifetimes (or for those who desire a true voice for Scotland in Westminster).
How many other brilliant campaigners like you will think the same and quit when you’re needed most? How many votes might be lost to unionist forces because many of you campaign veterans where not around to convince or covert more to the SNP. What if on election night some Labour wasters squeak back into power by a mere 100 votes or so, and I’m left wondering if it is because the SNP drove a lot of female ‘ground forces’ away with this shortlst policy? Could they have swung the balance with their words and know how on the doorstep?
I’m not actually an SNP member myself, there’s a few bits of policy that I disagree with, not least the idea Independant Scotland would retain the Queen. However they will get my vote from now until independance and I will be offering my help at my local SNP campaign offices. And I do find Salmond and Sturgeon great leaders in the cause for an independant Scotland. What choice do we have?
Labour – austerity, happy to betray the vow
Tory – austerity, happy to betray the vow
LibDs. – sure austerity for the good of the U.k economy
UKIP – want to Close the Scottish Parliament. Racists.
Greens/SSP – no hope of returning 40+ MPs or overturning the large labour majorities in the way SNP can.
We are once again going to face the full force of the Union in this next battle to keep the hope of independance alive. If we fail we don’t get anther chance for Five years. Sure, scottish elections next year but we won’t get new powers for Scotland there, we need to be in Westminster. We will need everyone, absolutely everyone we can get out there in order to oust Labour in as many seats as possible. We actually have the chance to leave the Unionists parties in the MINORITY. Just think about that – it not only gives Scotland a proper voice but weakens unionist mandate to rule Scotland.
Lauren, im not asking you to rejoin the SNP or work nearly as hard as you were for them. But Scotland will need your talents. Perhaps you are again in the position to tell wavering voters that may not agree with some things about the SNP, it is still worth voting them if you believe in a Strong Scotand. No matter what its other sins, you can not deny they always put Scotland first.
And Scotland and her freedom needs to come before all other issues.
Or we can become divided by this and other issues 39 days before the election, do the Unionists job for them, and chalk up yet another ‘glorious defeat’ for Scotland, and watch and listen to the Unionists on the telly and radio chortle at how feeble Scotland really is. I can’t take another glorious defeat, I’m not sure others could either. There’s only so many times you can have your hope shattered before you become forever jaded.
Please don’t give up on the cause Lauren, we need you. And if you do, well it won’t be you I blame, it will be one badly timed policy.
I look forward to the day when there is a political party with whom I agree in every facet , argument and policy.
Actually , I don’t. I want a party which openly presents its ideas and policies and folk can vote the outcome through or not as the case maybe – a democratic result.
I am more than a little suspicious of anyone who feels obliged to stomp off when that democratic vote is the opposite of their desires.
I’m also quite fascinated by the ” hurt ” expressed by those who feel some opinions have been agin’ them.
I really haven’t read anything but robust opinion either accepted or rejected and I have never thought of Wingers as shrinking violets offended by their own shadow.
oh the insanity of it
Just think if this was forced on employers – 50/50 workforce
Every single woman would be tarred with you only got this job because your a woman – not because you are capable of it
Well done Lauren, that needed saying. I’m a feminist but I am fed up saying feminism is about equality and that the bigget threat to equality in this country – overwhelmingly – is social class and not gender. Yes, we need more women in politics but to exclude men from shortlists is not the way to do it. What message is that sending out?
However I will keep up the canvassing and leafleting as I see that backing the SNP at this election is the best way to combat the austerity policies of the unionist parties and the road to independence at the moment. The referendum was about where power lies – we want it back to run our own country. That power resides with an upper class elite in Westminster just now. I can fully understand why you resigned – but think again – independence for Scotland and a better country is not about the SNP – it’s about the people of Scotland. Maybe at the moment the SNP is the most realistic way of achieving that aim? ie I joined post election but I did so for the future of the country and not the SNP. The SNP is a channel to achieve that and not the be all and end all – however it’s people like you this country needs.
If anybody is in any doubt that the major form of stratification in our country is social class (way above gender or even ethnicity) check out the following info –
However, premature death is much more common in Scotland than in England and Wales. For example, throughout the last decade, the rate of deaths amongst those aged 55 to 64 in Scotland has been at least a quarter higher than in England and Wales for both men and women. Indeed, Scotland has by far the highest rates of premature death of any region in Great Britain, for both men and women. Furthermore, all bar three of the local authority areas in Scotland have a higher premature death rate than the England and Wales average, which shows that the high Scottish rate is not just due a high rate in a few local authority areas.
Life expectancy at birth is also less in Scotland than in any EU country apart from Portugal.
The standardised mortality rate for stomach cancer, lung cancer and heart disease in Glasgow is almost twice as high as that in the best areas.
Total deaths of those aged under 65 show a similar geographic pattern with the rates in the worst local authority (Glasgow City) twice as high as those in the best (East Dunbarton).
The standardised mortality rate in the 10% most deprived neighbourhoods is a third higher than in the most prosperous 50%.
The difference in male life expectancy between the most and least socio-economically disadvantaged local government districts in Scotland was 7.6 years in 2001 (Glasgow City had a life expectancy of 68.7 years, whereas East Renfrewshire was 76.3 years).
For those that are interested this article/study aims to show that positive discrimination of women to achieve a gender balance in an organisation actually raises the overall talent pool across both sexes:
http://curt-rice.com/2014/07/03/2-ways-quotas-for-women-raise-quality/
I have a major disability, and yes, I’ve been discriminated against. I don’t like the idea of restricted shortlists, though, because it risks creating a distracted climate of trying to balance every single characteristic instead of concentrating on picking the best people and getting on with the job.
I think there are better solutions to this issue. For example, I’ve always ticked boxes on job applications that offered me the option of disclosing my disability in exchange for a guaranteed interview.
Getting in front of an interview panel was the hard part; once I was there, I could stand or fall on my own merits. In the vast majority of cases, I was offered the job.
Measures like that are good, because they create a firm nudge in the right direction by giving everyone a chance, but without any elements of compulsion that might alienate people.
Translating that to politics, perhaps a better option for the SNP would be to require constituency branches to present gender-balanced shortlists for their members to choose a candidate from.
I also like Derick fae Yell’s idea of a male / female job-sharing system for political representatives. I’d definitely support that, because I think it would improve the system in several ways at once.
Having said all that, I do have respect for the fact that the SNP have time-limited their measure. I much prefer people who are willing to try something and come back to see how it went, as compared to people who batter permanent changes through and assume that they’ll work, as the big Westminster parties do.
On a related note, I’ve never joined any political party, because there’s always something I disagree with in any given party’s platform. Instead, I prefer to pick the best party on an election-by-election basis and vote for them. For me, that’s still the SNP for May 7th.
I won’t comment on Lauren’s decision to leave the SNP – that’s a decision for her and her alone – but I do thank her for an informative and well-written article.
This is obviously an issue which will not go away, it can’t be sorted at this present time & remains unfinished business. The words election & long-grass spring to mind.
Murphy missed a trick and failed to mention this issue when interviewing Gary Robertson this morning, Murphy’s concentrating on food-banks and people not getting enough grub to keep body & soul together, not female short-lists. He man doesn’t stop to draw breath, hence no further questions from Gary.
Who’s zooming who ?
“Yesterday I resigned from the SNP because the party told me I was second-class.”
Really ?
And so publicly, on a blog where gender discriminative lists, & the appointment of viciously manipulative, duplicitous ladder climbers have been irking (justifiably so) the proprietor ?
Hmmmm
Careful Stu, eyes on the (main) prize kid !
Am fairly new to this debate, and certainly haven’t read even a fraction of the debate, so it may have been said, but this policy may have hidden traps.
I think it would be the ultimate irony if a woman MSP (this policy is for Holyrood only, is that the case?)elected on the basis of an all women short-list tried to argue for equality of opportunity based on democratic principles in a Government debate.
They’d be slaughtered.
I agree with you Lauren – I’m gutted that the party has taken this decision… for me though, it’s my job to make sure that this gets reversed in 2016, and that we do the best for Scotland in the general election.
Lauren you were already a second class citizen along with the rest of us Scots male and female alike.
The fact you were ever a No in the first place means that like everyone,we all make mistakes and will never agree about everything all the time,no matter what Party.
I respect your decision,just as I respected those who resigned over NATO membership,everyone has their own ‘big issues’.
For me nothing is more important than living in an independent country free of ,’ British values’ ie. corrupt war criminal imperialists.
If you were happy to be part of that for most of your life,then your thought processes are a bit behind the curve.
That said,you have done more than me to further the cause of independence,so I thank you unreservedly.
Brian,
As an Irish member of the SNP, I will not have
the privelege of being able to attend meetings or see and
feel the progress that is being made by the party. It is thanks to activists like yourself which makes the party
and therefore I am able to see the good results in the press.
The party needs your services and I hope you will give those
who have erred a second chance. Thanks for all your efforts
which should manifest in gains in May.
@Helena Brown says:30 March, 2015 at 10:09 am:
” … I seem to remember it will take decades before women will earn the same as men and how long has the equal pay legislation be in place?”
There is a very good reason, Helena, for why it will take decades for equality of pay in spite of legislation and it is the very same one that will prevent positive discriminatory methods from getting more females into male dominated jobs or even more males into female dominated jobs.
You cannot legislate of make rules as a cure for the problem. Problems all have one thing in common and that is to solve them you must first identify both the problem and its cause or causes
@ loretta
” schrodingers cat says:
30 March, 2015 at 12:21 pm
from now on, i want to be called loretta :)”
Loretta are you well?
By it’s very nature “discrimination” cannot be a positive thing and so I do agree with Lauren on that issue, I DO NOT agree however with her decision to leave the party.
If you are reading this Lauren I would urge you to reconsider your decision, you simply cannot effect change from the outside and if this issue is one which you feel so strongly about then stay, fight your corner, make your case heard and at the same time make the party stronger by adding to it’s diversity. The SNP should never be filled with mindless clones, blindly following the leaders we should be challenging and questioning their moves and motivations to ensure they are exactly what the claim to be ….. for the betterment of Scotland and it’s people.
I think you’re missing Lauren’s point.
By your logic, you’re reducing her to a third class citizen.
It’s ironic that the Rev. is saying someone at SNP HQ should have had their arse kicked for the timing. That’s not really very democratic, is it?
Secondly, it was well known out in the community that this issue was being raised, and SLab were actively jeering about it, so it would have been an own goal not to deal with it openly. They are an open and listening party, as far as they can be.
Some interesting background information now emerging about Lauren. I was polite in my comments about her article, whilst disagreeing.
It is Laurens choice to resign, it was also her choice to miss her children’s do. There seems to be some misunderstanding about the term volunteer.
There are party members in my local branch, that have trouble walking, but they volunteer, and I don’t hear them looking for payback, in terms of their individual gripes.
There are also lots of party members that leave quietly, without the need for a giant whinge, and getting access to a pro Indy site to do that.
With all due respect,Lauren,it seems to me that you may have taken on far too much in the way of involvement and commitment and that this may be colouring your thinking.This is not to question your abilities or talents in any way.
I can well understand why you have decided to resign, nonetheless, I fail to see in what way your decision will help bring about the end that you desire.
My wish is that will stand back for a while and reconsider your position.
I should say, I am not an SNP member, it’s just that I hate to see talent and ability go to waste.
One of the reasons the SNP is where it is, is because of people like you doing 100% for the future of Scotland.
Stay in the Party and fight for your beliefs to be heard.
Be the type of woman that NS would be proud of. (And all of us.)
Nation 11.38
Exactly correct about the monarchy. I am a staunch republican and so is Roseanna Cunningham. Does that mean we abandon the party?
Must be the shortest membership in history. If you walk away from a job a club or even a marriage over a single issue. You miss the whole point of getting together in the first place.
I will probably get shot down for this. I will say it anyway. Unfold your arms and think about your nation not your own ambitions or opinions.
I am genuinely ambivalent about this. I can see arguments on both sides, and Lauren’s use of the class argument makes it even more interesting.
However, I don’t think there is enough being done to give women a place in our legislation chambers, and I have noticed that none of the opponents of AWS actually say what they would do instead to level the playing field. AWS seems to be the least worst option.
God knows, there’s no lack of mediocre men in politics. If this means we get a few mediocre women instead, so what? No blinding genius is going to be held back.
Incidentally, when Fiona, Nicola and Shona joined the SNP, there wasn’t a career. They did their jobs during the day, and they spent all their free time doing SNP (and other political) activities for free. So did all the male members of that generation, and, in my opinion, its the most valuable asset the SNP has in the public realm.
Now there is a career path in the SNP, and the party will really have to guard against ending up with a cadre of professional politicians, and they ARE usually men!. Personally, I’d refuse to select anyone who hadn’t worked out in the real world.
One thing I am glad to see is that they aren’t “Queen Bees”. That was a phrase used in the 80s to describe women – Thatcher was the ultimate example – who had got to the top, then refused to help any other women, claiming that if they could do it, anyone could. Particular popular among women from rich families, or with rich husbands.
Maybe you just weren’t cut out to be a member of a political party, Lauren. I know I’m not!
Thank you Doug Daniel – you explained what I was trying to say in a much more coherent way!
There’s a lot of decent arguments on this subject from many respectable people.
If truth be told I don’t think anyone has yet nailed the argument on the head one way or the other .. yet.
If I’m honest I have to say that I’ve been both in favour of and in opposition of this type of action in the past. Ultimately though I have to say I am currently in favour.
I’m an active trade unionist and my normal reaction is simply that discrimination in any form is wrong. Normally I wouldn’t countenance it in any way.
However, we only have to look at equal pay in this country to realise that, although it has been illegal to pay a woman less than a man for several decades, it still happens to this day. Can anyone truly wrap their heads around that? Men and women should be treated equally in all things, the best person for any job should get it and I don’t doubt for a second that a more equitable balance of men and women will sort itself out over time and the centuries of discrimination against women that has led to a male bias in politics will eventually be a thing of the past. But how long will that take? Another decade or two?
This type of action, although unsavoury and blunt, will force change to happen much sooner than it would if we allowed things to happen at their own pace and that for me makes it a positive step to take.
So although I agree in principle with many points in this article, I have to say I think that your opinion is unfortunately wrong on this subject and that you’ll miss out on some of the things you so obviously want to be part of while working to improve our nation for the better. I hope you reconsider your position and either rejoin or retract your resignation.
I can understand both sides of the argument on this issue and for that reason am pleased it is a time limited motion. What concerns me more is the fact that Lauren feels the need to go so public with her resignation. What purpose does this serve, if not to play into the hands of the opposition? The Daily Record/Mail are going to love this!! Well done Lauren, you have succeeded in giving them another reason for accusing the SNP of being a dictatorship over a motion which was upheld by the membership, a fact which they will not let get in the way! Are you 100% sure you switched sides? The cause is greater than the individual and most of us realise this and just get on with it.
“I can understand both sides of the argument on this issue and for that reason am pleased it is a time limited motion.”
Exactly. It is time limited.
If it works well to the extreme extent that quotas aren’t required by 2016, then it can be repealed.
If it works well but progress is slow, members can debate if they wish to continue with it or if they wish to try something different.
If it becomes obvious that it is having a negative impact, it can be removed.
We wouldn’t get anywhere in life if bold experiments were not undertaken from time to time.
Norma, as Stu himself has made clear many a time, the Daily Record etc don’t need a reason to demonise the SNP, they’re perfectly capable of making their own up.
And Lauren is entitled to say what she thinks on the issue without nudge-nudge accusations of being a unionist mole. If people are being silenced, then that really *is* undemocratic.
“I see WoS as being a short-term tool”
0 Yeah, well your FACE is stupid.
Let it be noted at the start: disagreement is entirely welcome in comments on this post, but abusive arseholery will not be tolerated. Everyone clear? Super.
You should follow your own rule rev!!!!
Positive discrimination is discrimination. Won’t resign over it though. I’d be seriously worried about any party that thought exactly the same as me about everything – seriously worried! I also thought the “no public criticism” thing is highly dodgy. But I want to be free and no other party has a serious prospect of achieving that.
too many comments here to read. Mine is brief, I do not come down on one side or the other. Best thing to do is park this issue until after the election. If you really cannot do that then leave quietly so that you don’t siphon publicity away from the very important campaign to get as many SNP candidates into Westminster as possible.
Well thought out and well presented and I agree wholeheartedly. This is just another way of dividing up “people” and getting them fighting amongst themselves instead of against a common enemy. What a shame you didn’t get to speak.
Number of SNP members who have resigned over this issue ?
1 ?
Number of SNP members who didn’t get to speak to conference on this issue, who have resigned ? 1
Best for all, if that’s that then.
Move along now, nothing to see here…
Lauren,
I should have added I am not an SNP member either, though I will be posting the NHSNP leaflets tonight and tomorrow after work.
They are still the only realistic chance we have,and on most issues they are better than the alternatives,so I hope you will still support the campaign.
Otherwise,good luck with the Brit Nats.
unfortunately this kind of story will be more frequent than most of us would want it to be,it comes from a lot of people joining a political party without really knowing what a political party is and the SNP are no different.
Politics in the present UK is a dirty world and the reality is to become bigger they must appeal to a wider audience than their core vote ,this is something the SNP now face ,there will be policies that many of the new members will disagree on and there will be policies the old members will disagree on this is the nature of a political party,loyalty to the party values must come before your own personal values to be a member of a political party dont ask me why it just is.
So to all you newbies out there who joined as a kind of protest vote for Indyref listen up you have to ask yourself why did you join a political party? if the answer is im not sure then you dont belong inside the party and there is no shame in this not everybody should be in a political party ,however if the answer was because you wished to serve your community ,to help out people ,to stand for your ideals and secretly hope one day you can be in government then yes you should be in the party, it is not a part time job and even some of the slabites you hear getting ridiculed on here are pretty hard working people ,i know who would have believed it lol
If we truly want independence there is only one party who can maybe deliver and that is the SNP they are not perfect and will move in a direction that most of us will not like but they must capture the central ground in Scotland and really looks like they might have done it so please Scotland be patient.
Now we are in the big game and they dont like it and if you thought project fear was an eyeopener well you aint seen nothing as to what is coming our way so buckle up Scotland its going to get real bumpy, do not be distracted by what might have been ,keep focused and spread the word the goal is another chance at independence and i dont know about you but i will sell out all my own political views for that one chance.
All women shortlists are a great idea until you put the results to an electorate who are free to reject you choice. Now if the election of list MPs in Scotland was modified to include an element of STV so we weren’t forced to elect the otherwise unelectable, such as with any luck Jim Murphy in 2016, then a gender balance in those lists might not be a bad thing but certainly not an all woman list.
Fortunately this is a time limited and low impact trial rather than a gung ho attempt to derail the GE. If anything the only political capital to be made out of this decision right now is that any female candidate standing for the SNP in this GE is there because of her own merit and not due to some misguided quota system.
If you someone is going to respond like this, when a large multi-member organisation does something they don’t agree with – then they are better not joining it in the first place. The public ‘toys from pram’ routine is not helpful – particularly right now – and comes from their own unrealistic expectations.
It is indeed a sad story of disappointment, but I don’t think WoS should be giving this stuff oxygen that it doesn’t deserve.
I resigned from the party for a wee while and then rejoined, but that was because of a general direction shift at the time where even the policy on independence seemed to some to be under threat.
I have noticed an unfortunate tendency in Scotland (I’m from elsewhere, but have lived here nearly 30 years, and have been an SNP member for more than 20 of them) to resign from groups whenever a disagreement arises, or somebody doesn’t like somebody else. This tendency to schism off and form other groups, in hopes that 100% agreement can be found, is counter-productive. Just have a look at what has happened to Tommy Sheridan and other left-wing parties.
Nobody is going to be in full agreement all the time with everything everybody in a party does, or with everything anybody in a party does. There have been times when I’ve been opposed to things the SNP has done, and times when my side has lost a vote at Conference. But until the party totally abandons its principles, they’ve got me on board. There is no other way forward. You work from within to make changes, or you stand on the outside and shake your fist. Not much else, really.
I really hope you will reconsider and rejoin the party …unless, of course, you find a party that represents your interests more accurately.
They do say revenge is sweet, Tell me Stu is it true
Lauren, it is sad that someone so committed should decide to resign on a single issue.
I can see both sides of the argument and I don’t agree with all SNP policies but for me the bigger issue is which party will best represent the interests of the people of Scotland and that undoubtedly is the SNP.
We will all have different views but don’t lose sight of the big picture.
I have not read all the comments to this post by Lauren,
so this comment may have been made already.
It is about having ‘second thoughts’ after a period in which to calm down.
When offended or hurt, all of us can react with an outburst.
But no one would argue, that words spoken while in the grip of emotional combustion, would form a reliable basis for future action.
It is certain that Lauren will overcome her hurt, and then
she will think the same way, I hope, but with a little circumspection.
Lauren says ” I didn’t mind that I missed my wee girl singing solo at a school opening ceremony because I was out canvassing.”
I wonder if her wee girl was hurt by her mum’s absence,
and I wonder if she resigned from the family as a result.
In her little girl, Lauren has the example to follow in the matter of women only lists.
I was very much for a merit only approach on this issue
But then, I listened to the arguments for it and rationalised
Reason against, the debates were concise and clear and I am fully
in support of this resolution, it makes sense, resigning because you didn’t
Get your way doesn’t, we need thousands of more women like you but we need
People who can accept what the majority have decided is right and at the moment
This is the right course of action.
Sigh! For heaven’s sake people. Wake up and do a little thinking. All problems have one thing in common and if any problem is to be solved then that commonality must be addressed. The common thing is that to solve any problem you must first identify clearly not only what the actual problem is but its cause or causes.
Now it seems the SNP have failed at that first hurdle in not only failing to clearly identify what the problem is but what the basic causes are that brought it about in the first place.
The problem as they see it is that there is gender inequality in the numbers of MSPs, MPs, MEPs and Councillors. However, that is but the result of the problem and the problem is something else.
Here’s some questions for you – Is the problem : –
The system of selection discriminates against women?
That women have less desire to become candidates?
That female candidates are not as good as males?
I may be wrong but I think none of the above applies but what does strike me as true is the same old problem I met as a Union Rep way back in the 1970s. Back then women were less inclined to seek employment in, particularly, Heavy Engineering. Ergo, to get a more equal workforce the solution was to find how to attract more females into the Industry?
It certainly was not to ban males from doing so, or as my old Granny would have put it, “Dinna pit the cuddy afore the cairt”.
If the problem is that women are less attracted to political positions then the solution is to make the positions more attractive to women. You won’t do that if you attempt to solve the problem by debarring males from politics.
What that will achieve is only to drive the rejected males into a different party and also make the females who do want involved feel they were not good enough.
Now can anyone doubt that the SNP, for a very long time, has had a wealth of highly capable ladies who graced the politics of Scotland? (And folks, I’ve backed every single one of them). Not because they were females but for the sheer quality they brought as elected members of the party.
If females are to form an equal number of posts then they must first be of at least equal quality and if there are fewer in the queue as candidates then we must attract and train more female candidates to join the queue.
There are enough astute, and politically aware, ladies on this site alone to fill many a long list of top quality candidates. Thing is – how many of you have sought to become candidates?
While I agree that women only short lists should be unnecessary and yes the best candidate should of course be selected, let’s face it women are still under-represented. If as suggested this is time limited, frankly I don’t care and we should not be flouncing off in a massive huff over a minor issue. There’s a bigger picture here – getting our country back. For that I couldn’t care less if all-squirrel short lists were agreed.
@ Defo
SNP has in the region of 102.000 members.
3,000 attended their conference.
Again, the SNP are supposed to be a different, better way of doing things.
A conference only vote is reminiscent of the block voting of Labour. It denies all members a say in the direction of the party. Nothing to see here, expect the usual undemocratic processes that are ingrained in the Westminster parties.
If the SNP fail to address the aspirations of their new membership in favour of courting opposition voters, than I feel many more will see them as just another political party.
Far more worrying is the decision (passed in closed session) that MPs are to be forbidden to publicly criticise party decisions and policy. Failure to obey “will result in disciplinary action”.
Join the SNP, toe the line!
I agree with you Lauren. This was a sore point with me, too.
By setting a minimum number of women (or any other group), implies that either there is prejudice inherent in the system which acts against that group, or that the group is somehow less capable than those outside that group.
Clearly Nicola Sturgeon is not saying that women are less capable, but that there is prejudice in the system which makes it harder for women to be selected.
However, the solution to this shouldn’t be to introduce a counter prejudice to balance it out.
That’s undemocratic.
There is nothing stopping women from standing as SNP candidates. So if they aren’t being elected to 50% or more then presumably it’s because people aren’t voting for them.
I don’t think it’s right to say, “If people aren’t voting the way I want them to, I will restrict their choice so they are forced to vote the way I want them to.”
You can’t scrap democracy in the name of equality.
I think Nicola has made a terrible decision here. I’m sorry to see you go Lauren. No doubt there are many more of us who feel the same way you do.
Golfnut says:
30 March, 2015 at 9:19 am
Correct me if I am wrong here, but is this not a mechanism that can be used by the executive as and when necessary
..
This motion is a we stick, sitting in the corner, to be used, when necessary, for branches, committee’s that forget or ignore the fact that 50% of the population is female.
——————-
That’s a good point.
In the meantime we have an election to fight, and the likes of Murphy and Curran and McTernan must be laughing at the sight of any SNP division just weeks before the vote.
BTW, I listened to Lauren’s previous interview on Bateman, and it is so disappointing to lose someone like that at this time.
The SNP isn’t perfect, and people disagree on many individual policies – but let’s be honest – what better chance do we have in moving towards self-government?
Especially with a First-Past-The-post election system.
If Labour gets in again with a clear majority, then we can kiss goodbye to any more significant powers.
A really thought-provoking article Lauren. As an SNP Branch Convenor I am truly sorry that you are deciding to leave the Party and hope that, at some time, you may reconsider.
The sheer volume of comments, and range of opinions expressed, shows that it is an issue worthy of further debate – the problem … hearing all voices in a Conference attended by 3,000! Which is why many of us at Branch level are seeking to improve and localise our decision making process. I hope you (and the others who contribute here) might play a part in that reform.
@CyberMidgie 12.30
Thanks CM. That is one of the best and most sensible posts I’ve ever read on this site – here is a taster –
“CyberMidgie says:
30 March, 2015 at 12:34 pm
I have a major disability, and yes, I’ve been discriminated against. I don’t like the idea of restricted shortlists, though, because it risks creating a distracted climate of trying to balance every single characteristic instead of concentrating on picking the best people and getting on with the job.
I think there are better solutions to this issue. For example, I’ve always ticked boxes on job applications that offered me the option of disclosing my disability in exchange for a guaranteed interview.”
Thanks for that!
Brian
That is exactly my point.She will be a third class citizen if she thinks of gender positive descrimination in this way instead of empowerment.In fact if she is Roman Catholic she will be fourth class(Act of Settlement).
I’m not sure either way about it.Reading her speech I would say I think I probably agree with her on it not being necessary.
Whether it really makes her an even a lower class citizen and is cause to leave the party in a public attention seeking way,when there are other even bigger issues ongoing is what I’m asking her to think about.
Lauren
Having read all the comments, what’s you view now, same or changed?.
Dear Lauren, the only serious issue I have with your post is the belief that resigning is the correct way to argue your case. It would be far more difficult for a man to make the argument you are making in your absence – you need to keep on doing what you were doing – but arguing your case – or arguing for maybe a 5-year limit – or a more clever way of doing it.
This is a difficult subject, fraught with the dangers of PC minefields for a minor politician like myself.
As one of a tiny number of environmentalists elected in N.Ireland, I have see the positive and negative impact of the roll-out of positive discrimination on the other politicians around me first hand. Especially in the SDLP and Sinn Féin – Unionists don’t seem to go in for it – their women where they exist are in the Thatcher mould of feminism.
It is a very blunt instrument.
On the positive side I have seen Sinn Féin in particular ruthlessly promote women and it seems to work especially well in multi-seat constituencies where they are the dominant party and are dividing up the votes between the various candidates and the ‘vote leader’ has several quotas. This has enabled SF to bring in serious thinkers and academics into their ranks and as Ministers and be promoted upwards to MEP’s like Barbre De Bruin was.
But seems to be most ineffective where they are just less than a single quota or in a first past the post situation where victory is not assured and the party machine is not overwhelmingly strong. In these cases the smart thing to do is to pick the on-the-ground fighter with the best chance of winning the seat regardless of gender.
Positive discrimination damaged that party even to the point of alienating activists in constituencies where male working-class activists have built up a vote over many years – only to have the seat snatched from them at the constituency after 20/30 years work. Witness the likes of Christy Burke in Dublin – or Keogh in the same constituency from whence SF has developed their likely future female leader McDonald.
However, pursued relentlessly over the years, this policy does serve to redress the traditional balance of men v’s women that plagued SF down though the years.
One can argue that there is no gain without pain. Anyone who has followed the subsequent stellar career of McDonald in Dublin can see that the SF leadership were probably right to over-ride the particular concerns of that constituency even though they may have secured the seat quicker with the male working class candidate.
In my area, which is not a SF stronghold. They selected a young inexperienced female candidate to jointly run with their local vote leader in preference to a well-known sitting councillor and postman last May. This probably resulted in failing to win the fifth seat when my area was reduced from seven seats to five seats at the last election in May 2014.
Their tally showed the number of expected SF votes did not increase as the candidate was not from the area and women voters did not flock to support the new candidate even though she was the only woman running. Their tally showed they were just under two quotas. The subsequent need to divide out the first preferences likely to be available resulted in their star candidate being knocked out.
While I would like to think they would have knocked out the trailing SDLP candidate had they done things differently, in truth my being re-elected again last May was the result of a botched exercise in positive discrimination in SF.
While SF are the largest party in my Council area – one could argue that they would be in a more commanding lead had they not embarked on the policy of positive discrimination.
It remains to be seen of the pain of implementing this policy in my area will be rewarded by a stellar rise in the new young female candidate in the same manner as McDonald in Dublin. They had many other excellent women candidates elected locally – but these were mainly in their stronghold areas.
Overall, I think it is the right policy – but it needs to be done without the benefit of a blunt instrument that would prevent the party from tapping its best human resources.
I commented earlier. Since then I have written to SNP HQ and also spoke to people who were at the conference. Haven’t checked my emails yet but those I spoke to weren’t aware of the mike being switched off to only one side of the argument (which was my main concern).
As I said earlier I am against quotas but this is one subject I do not agree with. I agree with more that the SNP are doing. In a democratic vote the view I had was defeated by the majority, I accept this. I will be an SNP member and would never pack my membership up on one subject I didn’t agree with.
Doug Daniel; Simply wonderful contribution, covers the nuances, expands on the realites…Just Outstanding!
(11.32 am)
Thank you.
Doug Daniel
Whilst I wholeheartedly agree that Lauren is entitled to say what she thinks on the issue and no one should ever be silenced, my concern is that she chose to do this so publicly. You rightly say, the Daily Record, etc. do not need any reason to demonise us, so why does one of our (ex) members feel the need to provide them with ammunition? It reduces the issue to the Jeremy Kyle of politics! Out of interest my partner was in the conference hall when this motion was being discussed and he voted against it. He did, however, say that both sides of the argument were fairly represented.
During the referendum I made numerous calls to the SNP and Yes Scotland to change their strategy or lose the vote My pleas all fell on deaf ears. I do not agree with several of the SNP policies but their goal is the same as mine and at times you have to live with the differences. For yourself Lauren it was a step too far and that decision has to be respected.
Hi Lauren,
Thank you for such heartfelt and honest account of your experience. I don’t really have a view one way or another about women only shortlists, what struck me was how closely what you describe resembles falling in love or almost joining a cult.
You describe your passion, your sacrifice for a cause you believed in and your sense of betrayal when your cherished cause did something you didn’t agree with.
You’ll hate me for saying this, I think you have made a mistake.
If you join a political party, they’ll be some stuff you don’t agree with, if there isn’t, then you are not being critical enough and that’s dangerous. (or you are being coerced into silence, which is much, much worse )
If you quit after all that work; you have given up an hobby that was giving you a lot of pleasure. Not to mention that success only precedes support in the dictionary, they need people like you!
“In fact it’ll make it worse, because working-class men – who suffer less from those issues – will now be excluded from standing in favour of middle-class women.”
A good example of the unintended consequences if you simply have an ethical ends in mind without an ethical means, imho.
I’ll still be voting SNP though 🙂
maybe put a time limit on it? 2016?
One cycle of local and regional elections should be enough to fix a problem in a party that was doing pretty well on gender balance anyway.
This will allow women to come though from the vast new membership – but thereafter allow the party to reflect on local needs and tactics locally thereafter?
More trolls than usual writing on this thread. As per normal I skimmed through the presenting article in the first instance. When I got to the bit about resigning from the SNP I lost interest in the reason for it. If the SNP ever decide to support the incineration of innocent people in the name of democracy, abandoning the unemployed, state sponsored poverty, xenophobia etc I will work against them. Until then all I can say to Lauren and anyone else who CHOOSES, at this time, to undermine the movement for Scottish independence is – think again.
The SNP can never be more than a ‘good enough’ political movement that one day may carry the majority of Scots with it. ‘Absolutist’ movements the world over have achieved nothing but mayhem and human misery – movements that some of the trolls clearly align themselves with as being ‘principled’.
The debate on this post should tell us NOT that we are divided – because WE wouldn’t allow ourselves to be divided by differences of perspective on how we can best achieve the positive end of gender equality. WE have got more sense.
Well firstly Lauren I applaud the work you did in the referendum and have continued to do for the SNP since the referendum. Your dedication to the cause of independence is there for all to see. I am not a member of the SNP despite being a suporter of independence for most of my adult life I suspect I am too “maverick” to fit in easily with a one size fits all political party whatever the cause.
My main reservation was that a political party might take a turning that I didn’t like and I would be forced to argue for something that I not only did not whioleheartedly support but that might actively be at odds with my own ethics and values. It’s only important to me but I can only live my own life my own way and I don’t want people judging my views by membership of a political or religious organisation.
It doesn’t mean I don’t support or vote for the SNP but independence will come when the majority of people of Scotland are sure that is what they want.
One of the bones of contention with any political party is that it is subject to the vagaries of those who are in charge of it and their world view.
Whisper it quietly but the SNP has done things in government that I don’t like. I couch that in terms that they have done loads of things I wholeheartedly support and that is why they have been such a successful Scottish government but I have had reservations about things like Police Scotland, and some other issues mainly to do with the justice brief.
I believe in gender equality but it must be that. A fair chance for everyone male female or TG regardless of colour class or orientation. For that debate to be heard it needs to be clearly debated in depth with the membership. I don’t really think deals done in smoky or other halls make everyone feel part of the debate. It’s done a lot by Labour and well… look where that got them.
If we are to teach Labour anything about democracy we can’t start acting in exactly the same way.
There are five weeks to the General election, potentially with a chance of returning the greatest number of MPs in the history of the SNP the idea of debating all female shortlists especially when the candidates for the GE have been chosen and are in place seems to me an insane decision, devisive and to time bar the motion just adds insult to injury. Next year the SNP will be going for a Holyrood election on a record of great governence by their MSPs. What a slap in the face if someone successful is told “You did a great job, but we need to have a woman in this list/post”
And what a feeling to be told “well actually you are the candidate because you are the only woman and we need a woman candidate”.
That isn’t equality, it’s just a warped version of discrimination. If you are a good enough candidate to win a seat you should be picked for your ability.
I don’t support it but I just don’t get the timing of the whole thing which is almost like sabotage. It has alienated Lauren and I suspect that the very people who will be most offended will be the strongest women candidates who would have got there on their own merit. If we substituted any other group for “woman” it would just sound as wonky thinking made with good intentions but not properly debated which seems to be the biggest failing of the policy.
For all those people with daughters whom they want to achieve everything purely on their own merit – I can only assume that you help them on their way by telling every BOY you see damn near every day of their lives that being pretty is more important than being clever, that no-one likes a boy who sticks up for himself, that things like science or construction or politics aren’t very manly careers and ensure that someone pulls every boy aside after he makes a speech to tell him why he’s not really understood things properly.
Add in to that a bit of unwanted groping and catcalling, a constant fear of sexual assault, being judged (often brutally) for what he’s wearing, having his parenting called into question if he dares to seek promotion or public office and after he’s done whateever it is he does all day, still going home to do the housework. Once you’ve done all that for every boy in the country, THEN we can talk about how girls are achieving everything on a level playing field. Until then, can we stop talking about “merit” because of all the factors that go into these things, merit is not always at the top of the list.
We are fortunate in having a superb set of utterly dedicated women at the heart of our campaign (most of them joining the SNP post-Yes). The problem is (and I imagine our constituency is far from alone in this) lies in persuading them to stand for selection/election. There are all kinds of good reasons for their not wishing to – but lifestyle change is probably the most important.
So there is maybe an argument that an insistence on an occasional all-female shortlist may be a useful method of persuading women who otherwise wouldn’t have done so to stand for selection. It gets rid of the excuse that ‘there are perfectly good male candidates, so no need for me to stand’.
I’m not, in general, in favour of gender-based shortlists, but I know of one case(not in this constituency) where a woman was only persuaded to stand for selection on the grounds that shortlists should have at least one woman. She was selected and is now happily running for parliament. So, maybe there are pragmatic and psychological advantages which go beyond the gender-balance thing?
I’m far more concerned about the centralisation implicit in the decision. It is a constituency’s right to select the candidate it wants – nae parachutes if you please – and we need to watch that this time-limited amendment to the constitution isn’t abused. However, while it is in operation it will no doubt put constituencies on their mettle to make sure they can produce a suitable shortlist from their ain folk if required.
Like many people I find the idea of discrimination abhorrent.
However simply sitting on our hands and saying people should be selected purely on merit has simply not worked.
We still have gender inequality in our Parliaments and no signs of that changing anytime soon.
So sometimes positive discrimination is necessary, for example with the police and ethnic minorities, in order to effectively police some areas they need to be seen to be representative of the population or else be perceived as oppressors and indeed become institutionally racist.
I think politics is a special case. The basic idea of democracy is to represent everyone’s views, how can we do this effectively and fairly with such a large section of our society being under represented?
With independence I thought people wanted to overturn the current way of doing politics.
I see gender inequality as part of the problem in politics.
We have a political system built on macho sound bite arguments.
If this is what passes for talent in a merit based selection system, then in this case I welcome some positive discrimination.
Sorry, but reading this sounds to me like “I did this and that.and my family and friends suffered and without me the whole party will not survive so I resigned.”!
This is then to me not interesting any more what it’s actually all about. Instead it’s feeding the SNP haters and I’m sure they will love to share it to prove their case. Staying with the party and arguing within is the way parties work.
@FIONA
I don’t agree with positive discrimination. Not only was it a failed tactic when the RUC became the PSNI in N Ireland ( to address the catholic/protestant ratio of recruits), it kept good candidates out of the selection process.
That is quite incredible. The RUC was over 90 per cent Protestant, even when there was a Catholic population in Northern Ireland of over 40 per cent. The RUC were involved in collusion with Loyalist paramilitaries to murder Catholics. The RUC were by and large incredibly sectarian, and a bigoted police force. They presided, and policed over, the Protestant supremacy in Northern Ireland, where ironically Catholics were second class citizens.
It seems a little strange that such a divisive issue has come up so close to the GE. Perhaps the unionists have a plant in the SNP.
After careful consideration, I’d have to say, it was always going to be difficult for such a large party not to have some divisive issues, and judging by the comments, this is as divisive as they come, but as I understand it this issue isn’t permanent so we can change it in the near future.
Is this not what they really want? To divide us?
I think its best not to get carried away just now, although the issue will have to be dealt with, maybe now is not the best time. Although, who chose this time is something I’d like to know, maybe they’re worth watching.
As i have had to be reminded many times, it’s the bigger picture we have to look at isn’t it.
Thank you, Terry.
There are some extremely good posters here, so I consider that high praise indeed.
She’s not the only woman who worked hard during the referendum but she’s the only one publicly throwing her toys out of the pram because the amendment vote didn’t go the way she wanted it to! You’ve got to question just how committed to the SNP she actually is by her actions! The amendment was debated and voted on – it didn’t go her way – the delegates voted in favour – that’s democracy – deal with it!
The amendment is only a short term measure and is only in effect until 2016 so it’s hardly worth throwing a strop over.
If she really cares about the issue she needs to stay in the party and affect change from within – not to stomp off in a huff when a majority of delegates disagree with her point of view!
This kind of childish behaviour is what brings the SNP into disrepute and gives the other parties ammunition with which to criticise the party, particularly bad timing with such a short while until we go to the polls!
Norma, @2.22, agree with what you say, however, it was up to Rev. Whether he posted this piece, and he made that choice.
I’m not sure why given that it is one person’s subjective view of the issue, and its branded as – a backwards step, and that’s as a statement, not a question.
I am heartened that many Wingers chime with my own thoughts on the piece.
A wee song from Laurie Anderson on meritocracy:
“I just want to say something.
You know, for every dollar a man makes
a woman makes 63 cents.
Now, fifty years ago that was 62 cents.
So, with that kind of luck, it’ll be the year 3,888
before we make a buck”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4d1GccRMCk
Lauren,
I agree with you. The idea of positive discrimination is ludicrous. Unfortunately the same gender balancing processes which the SNP are about to partake, have been forced through the Scottish Greens and also many branches of the Labour Party. The problem this creates, is that some excellent candidates will end up de-selected, or placed further down a proportional representation list system. To select or de-select candidates based on gender, rather than their expertise or what they can bring to public office, is doing precisely what the ‘equality’ agenda is trying to prevent. So I’m afraid any party which has micro-management over gender balancing is in fact shooting itself in the foot. Party members will almost always vote for who is best and will win the election, regardless of their gender.
@Karmanaut
I don’t see how you can go from;
“implies that either there is prejudice inherent in the system which acts against that group”
to
“There is nothing stopping women from standing as SNP candidates. So if they aren’t being elected to 50% or more then presumably it’s because people aren’t voting for them.”
You answered your own later statement. The reason that women aren’t representing 52% of candidates (let’s be fair by population distribution here) is because there is indeed a prejudice inherent in the system which acts against that group. And indeed, that may well be because people aren’t voting for them because of their own internalised prejudice and mock concerns about families and entering into a “man’s world”.
Quotas serve to solve this. They aren’t the quotas I would like to see personally but it is at least a start to addressing the issue that means 22% of our MPs are female despite 52% of the population being female. A meritocratic regime would be very unlikely to end up at such a non-normal distribution and there is likely positive discrimination for men by men occurring.
“Party members will almost always vote for who is best and will win the election, regardless of their gender.”
That would be true in practice if people did not have their own inherent prejudices that act against a candidate. This simply isn’t true and I saw such occurring first hand at our candidate selection meeting with one candidate needing to mask their sexuality. If party member selection was purely on the basis of who was best to fight a seat, any contesting individual should feel totally at ease with announcing the gender of their partner.
I agree with Lauren I am not in favour of all women shortlists, however I think her actions were a little extreme. Was it worth resigning over? There are many reasons why women are not in politics, one of which being, disinterest. Baring in mind this is only my opinion. It’s a sad fact that women are out numbered in politics but I don’t think all women shortlists would sort this. In many places I don’t even think we would be able to get enough women to stand. I do agree with Lauren when she says that these shortlist take away members choice. Many women work hard at branch level as members, however, when it comes to electing office barers for the branch there are only a few women that put their name forward for positions.
I never expected to agree with everything the SNP do or say, but this issue definitely stands out as one that is a bit disappointing. That’s politics though.
Regrettably, the only other thing so far was along similar lines. At Tasmina’s adoption meeting, her acceptance speech consisted almost entirely of several long-winded, un-funny and frankly cringeworthy “aren’t men useless and rubbish” jokes. One of which, in the story, the female protagonist “won” by sleeping with another man because her husband wouldn’t change a lightbulb, or something.
It was genuinely quite uncomfortable. And I say that as a feminist.
I get your point Valerie and I must say I am a wee bit disappointed in this too. I have no idea whether contributors to this site are vetoed or not, or even if it would be right to do so. What I do know is that this sort of publicity can only be bad for us and we know that no one in the media will look for the facts!
I don’t know what the answer is. We need to change the way we think, that’s for sure. Maybe forcing society to change is the only way. Most people think that they’re quite reasonable but laws are put in place for those who are UNreasonable.
Always view actions that can damage the party at election Time with suspicion. End off
Agree with VAlerie and Heather points!
While you all get agitated arguing over gender equality, I will continue not giving a shit whats between (or not) someone’s legs and judge them solely on their own merits.
Thanks 🙂
Lauren I actually see your point but as principled as this may feel at the moment, it may be a decision regretted in hindsight when you cool off.
As others have said the SNP are by no means perfect, not by a long way and mistakes will be made further down the line, but look at the alternatives out there with realistic chances of taking the independence case forward.
In terms of the effort you put in at the Indyref fighting the establishment and Westminster rule, this is very small potatoes indeed.
Respect your decision (still think its the wrong one) bigger battles to fight; more sinister enemies of Scotland than the SNP
surely ? – get back in there and fight your corner with others who are like minded to be against this conference decision.
I agree that if females make up over 50 per cent of the population, and there is a much smaller proportion of women in politics, then clearly there is a problem. Remember that women were the last to get the vote as well. Politics has been, and still is male dominated. Why is this acceptable?
Couple of points on this.
I joined the SNP post indy, there are a number of policies I don’t agree with and belonging to a party does require some discipline.
It is not for everyone.
I have met people since joining who have resigned, re-joined etc .
It was mentioned that members = 100,000 and attendance = 3,000.
This is true but like all other branches, the proposals were discussed at local meetings and we voted at our branch to mandate against it as that is what the majority wanted, so we did so on behalf of those who couldn’t/didn’t attend.
The branch decided that there were other ways to achieve more women in politics based on education, provision of childcare and so on.
It is in place for the 2016 Holyrood election and it does seem to be a divisive issue.
So there is time in the next year – post GE – to actively campaign for/against as people see fit.
That was a good point about selecting all disabled, LGBT groups because why stop at female only
Also there were a few proposals which were subjected to time constraints.
As an aside, our branch executive committee is gender balanced and it was only about a week later, we realised.
Valerie and Norma
Ye strange.Mbe Stu was away for the weekend on a 77th Brigade training course 🙂
Joking !
Lauren, you are obviously a women dedicated to her principles and I heartily applaud that. I have to admit that I have mixed feelings about the issue of gender equality and how we go about rectifying it and I’m not sure how I would have voted on this issue. But I do recognise that it’s an important issue and one that it behooves the country to solve. However, I’ve been wondering if this really was just the time for Nicola et al to make this the major issue at the moment when we are fighting a battle to get Scotland’s voice heard in Westminster.
For instance, I’d be keener to see the SNP engaged in making it clear to the WHOLE of the UK that an SNP voice in parliament would benefit all of UK, not just Scotland. It’s so much easier to worth with friends than enemies… While I draw the line at ‘crawling’, I think with the MSM making sure that Scotland and Scotland’s voice, the SNP, are BAD, the party should be concentrating more on counteracting this disparaging, negative image and reinforcing the positive, anti-austerity for ALL. I don’t think it would hurt us to try to show the merits of an SNP voice at WM to the folks down south. Obviously Nicola Sturgeon doesn’t agree with me.
I know – what’s my point? The point is – we all have different ideas of what should be on a party agenda and how a party should work within that agenda. (Just look at the diversity of opinion about your article on this WoS wall!!) I have been an SNP supporter for 40 years and while I can assure you I DO NOT agree with everything they do, do not agree with every policy they hold, I DO agree that the party is closer to what I stand for than most other parties in the Kingdom. I want independence for Scotland first and foremost. After that, well… we shall have to see what the post-independence parties offer me. But for now – I go with the party that cares most for my children and grandchildren, that party that will get them the best chance for a good, healthy and happy life, and free them from the WM held belief that helping the vulnerable is bad.
To get back to YOUR issue with the SNP – can you see what I am saying here? MY thoughts on what are important are not quite in line with yours. Does that make you bad – or me bad, for wanting to focus on different things? Does the fact you lost the motion re your issue of gender equality make that a bad decision all around? Or is the fact that the majority voted for it good or bad? Surely the fact the motion was passed shows a majority supported it and the motion was therefore democratically passed. Surely that’s what GOOD politics is about? And surely that’s what Scotland needs and wants.
There is a cry from the present WM Government that the SNP MUST NOT be allowed to have a say in parliament after GE2015. The MSM are forecasting doom, the English parties are protesting loudly about the chaos that will ensue, and the English people are systematically being terrorised and told that the country is will go to hell in a handbasket – all because Scotland’s voice is GOING TO BE HEARD after GE2015, whether they like it or not. Why? Because a party democratically elected, Scotland’s choice of political party and leaders, and the people of Scotland are finally making it clear – they are going to have a voice in THEIR country’s politics (unfortunately we ARE still aligned to UK though by golly that IS going to change!) – because that is democracy at work.
And it really is the same at the SNP conference. More people wanted the gender equality motion passed than didn’t. That is democracy at work. If we get angry and storm out because we were thwarted, we reject the very thing we feel is wrong with WM. If you feel so strongly for the tenets of the SNP party (and you obviously did, you worked so darn hard for it!), surely there were some really good policies that you wanted to vote for? How does losing on one issue negate all the good policies that you care about?? I understand your anger, being I too work on the theory of ‘principles’. But I understand that NO party has everything I want. And I can’t have everything the way *I* want it, because the world doesn’t operate exclusively for me. ;o) Sad, I know, but I’ve learned to live with it. Lol! Believe me – I’m sorry you are so angry with the people that voted FOR the motion. But I’d say – give the fight for Independence another go. Next time??? When the time rolls round again, just – stay and fight to change it. See you there. 🙂
One thing that strikes me about the argument that positive discrimination will lead to Women candidates as being perceived as second class is that the people who would make such comments are the same people who cause gender inequality in the first place.
Lets be clear here, we are all saying women and men are equally capable of representing our interests in parliament.
So why is there any gender imbalance in the first place?
If women are not putting themselves forward, why is this?
Could it be because it is perceived as a male world?
What is the best way to counteract such a perception?
Or is it that women are not being selected because of discrimination?
Whatever the cause, I think most of us agree it is not healthy for democracy to be so imbalanced and under-represent such a large section of society.
Gender equality has not managed to happen on it’s own, so we need to address this with real practical solutions.
It’s easier to change an organisation from the inside than it is from the outside.
@ Bidge 12.33 posted a link to research which shows that quotas for women raise quality.
http://curt-rice.com/2014/07/03/2-ways-quotas-for-women-raise-quality/
and Bookie from Hell at 12.05 on gender balance
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/11/24/valley-boys
Why not read these if you think this decision is a backward step? Perhaps Nicola and the SNP leadership know what they are doing?
I haven’t had time to trawl though the thread so apologies all round.
I would like to make a couple of points though.
We elect leaders to lead, sometimes they get it absolutely right, others it’s a no brainer. Often it lies somewhere between as compromise to one of maybe several conflicting ways forward. I think the SNP does listen and if this policy proves to be flawed then it will change.
Second: I have consulted with my superior other half and she HAS been round the political block a few times being of CND, Greenham Common, Labour activist in the 70’s, Charity Shop organiser (Oxfam), founder of several self help groups for Bipolar sufferers and carers and other work within the sphere of mental health and learning disabilities. At over 70 she is still active in mental health and awareness.
Her opinion is quite plain, Women only shortlists are often appropriate in areas of combatting domestic abuse, gynacology and to a lesser extent child welfare. When it comes to running a Company, Political party or fundraiser/pain in the arse when up against seemingly insurmountable odds you not only want but should demand to use the skills and experience of the very best candidates available. End of!
I’m inclined to agree with her. Male, Female, Black, White, Able Bodied or infirm. It does not matter. Great thinkers and movers come in all shapes and sizes – just look at Steven Hawkins!
Obviously the big concern here is the lack of democratic input, though the final outcome was inevitable. I have the same reservations, but not every woman has a partner who will stay at home with the kids, and maybe this is the best (only) way to overcome an inherent and self-sustaining bias in gender. I figure it’s worth a shot. The reality is that men currently benefit from an uneven playing field.
The success of one, or even a few, underdogs does not validate the system any more than the occasional poor kid getting into uni suggests we have an equal opportunity society
Morgwyn Davies, this may be time expired, this may be limited, but will there be a debate? Debate is now unwelcome in the SNP. Unity is all. Alternative views are weaknesses to be crushed.
@Lauren
How will you be voting in May?
Serious question.
@Valerie, Norma and others-
What seems to have been overlooked by some, this site is not and never has been, a sycophantic follower of the SNP, or any other political party.
The majority of ATL posts are Stu’s, supporting/ defending the arguments for the people of Scotland to have autonomy in an independent state. There have been a variety of other ATL posts, by guest contributors, that could be described as opinion pieces. The latter have their place and can polarise BTL comment, but I, personally, enjoy most and can see no legitimate reason, to question why they should have been posted or as in Norma’s post, the suggestion that contributors should be vetoed.
That smacks of censorship, from my perspective.
You disagree with an opinion, then argue your case, don’t shoot the messenger or suggest gagging the opinion by suggesting vetoing the contributor because it might hurt ‘your’ party, at this particular time.
We’d be delighted to have you over at the Scottish Green Party, where we continue to campaign for a better Scotland 😀
“two people would be one too many for my party”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Litten
This is why I like WOS, its run by one person with his own views, please do not make it into an “organisation”.
Doug Daniel’s summary of the arguments at 11.32am is excellent, deserving of a post in its own right, in my view.
Lauren, I admire your energy and passion and I’m sorry to hear you have resigned but I cannot agree with your argument.
AWS and similar measures are blunt instruments to crack a problem that will take decades to address without intervention. They do work (http://tinyurl.com/o63xuup). The argument that AWS somehow leads to 2nd rate candidates being selected is looking at the problem from precisely the wrong end.
Appointment on merit is an argument for, not against, all-women shortlists or some other measure to encourage (even force) able women to put themselves forward. The adversarial nature of party politics is off-putting. Voluntary attempts to increase the number of women politicians have failed firstly, because capable women are not putting themselves forward in sufficient numbers and secondly, because when they do they are not selected often enough.
We have to ask why that is and recognise that the solution is in the societal change that many people here are advocating. But change like that will take a very long time to produce anything like a gender balance in our elected representatives. In the meantime, the consequence is that able and talented candidates are not being selected, just because they are women.
At present, the system favours male candidates. Not because anyone is discriminating but because of long-standing male dominance in public and elected life. Just think about how party members decide who to vote for in a selection process. Most will want to choose the best person to do the job, the person most likely to get elected. How do they judge that? Previous experience as an elected representative perhaps, or a high public profile. Who are the people most likely to have that experience? Men. Why? Because men are already present in higher numbers at all levels of election and in wider public life. It’s a self-perpetuating problem and unless something disrupts it, the cycle will continue.
For as long as women continue to be a minority in elected life by a considerable margin, fewer women will put themselves forward, fewer will be selected and so on. The situation will change so slowly that I will not live to see meaningful gender balance in politics – and I’m not old. But once women are present in roughly equal numbers, a female politician is no longer the exception and it becomes a ‘normal’ thing for women to be elected.
Using a short term measure to get to a reasonable gender balance which can then become self-perpetuating, seems to me a reasonable step.
I think its great to have such debates and getting people to argue the change rather than insult is also a worthwhile exercise. I feel to have a good debate on this we need facts. And reasons why its still not balanced now after many many years, So big question is, why after many many years we still do not have it, not even near.
Resigning your membership seems a little extreme to be honest! If you don’t agree with the motion, stay and fight, don’t just walk away. You want your daughters to know that they can achieve anything their brothers can but by your actions, you’re telling them that they should give up at the first setback. You’re never going to agree with everything a political party does so sometimes you have to compromise and focus on the end game. I don’t believe for one second that the SNP thinks women are less capable than men and Nicola Sturgeon has said herself that she’s not 100% comfortable with quotas but also recognises that the natural progress of gender equality is achingly slow. Perhaps by sucking it up now, your daughters will never know a world where their gender is an issue in the workplace.
if the conference had rejected the resolution…..
what would the front of the daily record be saying this morning?
pointing to how many women msp’s and mps as a measure of women involvement, kinda ignores the obvious fact that, while we can try to influence who is selected, the final tally of women mps and msps is decided by the electorate
I started writing a screed about this, but gradually realised it’s far to big a subject to prattle on about on here. I am in agreement with the resolution passed by the SNP conference. There has to be equality at Holyrood to demonstrate that women are equal in Scotland. We are in the process of building a new country and this is vastly important. If it’s done in Parliament it will be done throughout society. It’s the right thing to do. The female gender have my full support. Get stuck in girls, a lot of your men will be behind you.
@Bit of a stushie
04.31
Right on with what you say. I just can’t understand the fear to be honest.
BobW @4.25, perhaps my mistake was in thinking the site is pro Indy, and in that respect, would not do anything to damage that goal?
Tell me what is gained by this attack and clear statement that the democratically passed policy is wrong?
How about another headline for the piece, less loaded,
Woman disagrees with party policy, and has a good old strop.
Also, Rev billed it on FB as how loyal party members are being treated, and driven away. That’s not in the least bit dramatic given Lauren has been in said party for 8 months.
Of course this is Stuart Campbell’s site, no one is any doubt.
What I find disappointing, and its already been pointed out, this loaded and potentially damaging piece, which follows closely to the Revs disappointment about a SNP spad.
Co incidence?
“Rev. Stuart Campbell says:
30 March, 2015 at 9:09 am
“Tell us not why you don’t like it, tell us why it won’t work.”
It WILL work, in so far as achieving its aim of undermining the democratic process and telling women they’re inferior beings who can’t succeed on a level playing field.”
Ocht, that was petty Stu – a wilfully facetious response. I hoped for better.
Both sides agree that equality is the aim. Lauren claims that AWS will set this cause back by singling that women are inferior. Anyone in favour of AWS must think this claim is false because they agree with the target destination but disagree about the route to that destination.
I do not think it signals inferiority because I do not think that we live in a genuine meritocracy (where a low position would indicate a lack of merit). I think we live in a place where merit is over-ridden by implicit bias – bias we cannot simply *decide* to ignore – and so we cannot infer that those who do not make it didn’t deserve to.
As someone who was @ the conference & sat through this DEBATE ( as it was DEBATED ) & it was a LONG debate at that, much longer than all the others over the weekend, I personally feel it got a fair hearing, ( even if not everyone that wanted to speak got to speak” including an MSP member herself ) who was not happy at that, but I doubt very much She will be resigning from the party.
Mics only get turned off if the speaker that has the mic runs over the 3 minutes giving to ALL speakers.
Just as with the NATO motion, where the party leaders put that motion to conference, it was a very close vote, one on which they could have lost, also one on which they could have just changed their policy without consultation.
However I was just pleased they did NOT do what BLIAR did with so many policies/laws when he was party leader, which was push ahead with motions/laws, HE wanted put into place, one in particular comes to mind, (the illegal invasion of a foreign country, that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people.) where he ignored the voices of MILLIONS, or as the TORY/Lib Dems are doing now, & pushing through laws & sales of the NHS to the private sector, without any consultation with any of their MPS let alone the party’s members.
We SAW too what happens at the LABOUR conferences when one disagrees with their party, they send in the heavies to forcefully remove you from the hall.
My intention was to vote against this proposal, as I too believe that people should get jobs & promotions on merit, & I still believe that, but after actually discussing this subject in some great depth with other members, I had to agree that the world we live in right now, IS male dominated, especially in work places, & in particular in politics.
This was not just something that was sprung on conference, we have all seen The First Minister discuss this in interviews, one interviewer asking her the day before conference IF she was such a champion of such a proposal, WHY put it to a vote @ conference as she could lose out. Her reply was, it was the right thing to present this at conference where it could be debated openly & voted on democratically.
Now, from where I sat, this is exactly what happened.
The SNP are NOT perfect, NO party is. I have voted SNP since 1974. And NO, I have not agreed with every policy they have made. But I like to think this motion, will just be a stepping stone to helping change things to a more equal basis, And eventually a world where it will be against the law to discriminate in favour of one gender over another, or disabled people over fit & well people, or coloured people over whites, or a certain religion over another.
But until we reach that world, I see no harm in helping things along at least a LITTLE bit.
Some say LAUREN has obviously thought long & hard before writing what she did, REALLY!!!
The conference & that vote was just YESTERDAY, I say she wrote what she did in ANGER, just because she did not get to speak, & the vote went against her. But my argument with her would be, she was not willing to accept the democratic will of the majority vote.
Like some others on this site, I really was surprised to see this thread here, & I could not help but wonder, if it were not just a case of SWEET REVENGE on part of the REV, for a choice the First Minister MAY have made, & one which he ( and MYSELF ) feel uneasy With if true, but one we would have to accept nevertheless, as that is Life after all.
Rev you need to take more time off, go to anger management classes, because the way you have been replying to some of your loyal followers and subscribers to you fund raisers has Frankly been appalling. No point in having a go @ the SNP OR it’s leader for just doing what the hell they liked, when you obviously run this site to please ONLY yourself, going by posts from you as of late.
I must confess that I have not read every comment. So if I am repeating then I do apologise.
Lauren, I am with you 100% but for a man it’s a hard subject to broach with out negative comments being directed back at said man. It really is one for the ladies on the site. It is very easy to contact SNP MSP’s by email or by post. So if there is an issue or you think that some thing is wrong then contact them and let them know.
If every one who has commented here emails the SNP then you may have the possibility of change. Resigning should be a last resort and I hope Lauren that that you reconsider and try to change things for the better from with in.
I’m emailing Dave Thompson. What are the rest of you doing.
Sad to read about your decision and many of the comments too. Many years ago there was equal disquiet about bringing in rules to stop discrimination against ethnic minorities in the workplace.
‘They will achieve on merit’ was the cry, trouble was they didn’t, because the criteria for merit were not equal for all groups.
If we can bring closer the time when positive discrimination is not required for any aspect of life it is worthwhile. It shouldn’t need to happen, but we do not live in an equal society. Women brought up in a family where the ‘yes you can’ attitude is prevalent are likely to succeed, but what about those who do not get that encouragement, do we condemn them to the second tier, or provide a temporary mechanism to make chances more equal.
Lauren,
I’m Anti NATO, Anti EU, Anti Monarchy. Should I resign because the SNP are all pro these? We can’t all get our own ways. Politics can be like a relationship, or a family even. It requires hard work, and commitment. It also requires give and take. We can’t get all our own ways. I was spitting blood with Angus Robertson and his pro NATO stance. But such is democracy.
Stephen.
It was always the case that the SNP did not want gender balance because we said the best candidate should get the job. We then had Winnie Ewing, Margo Macdonald in days gone by and now we have Nicola Sturgeon, Shona Robison, Angela Constance, Roseanna Cunningham, Maureen Watt, Aileen Campbell, Aileen MacLeod, Margaret Burgess, Fiona MacLeod and Annabelle Ewing occupying Cabinet posts; Tricia Marwick is Presiding Officer. They are in their jobs by merit. If I have missed someone they can hit me the next time they see me.
So where are we going wrong?
@vambo- As a SNP member, I’m not doing anything! The post at 5.37 by Kate says it all for me.
I might not be in love with the policy, but the facts speak for themselves.
The policy was discussed and voted on, and passed. I’ll get on with leafleting for my branch, not carping I didn’t get my way.
If SNP decide to abandon their anti nuclear stance, then I’ll quietly resign, and work for the Greens. Who BTW, are also using quotas for women.
Some folk need to consider creating their own party to cater for their every need/belief.
T222Deracha says:
@ Defo
“SNP has in the region of 102.000 members.
3,000 attended their conference.
Again, the SNP are supposed to be a different, better way of doing things.
A conference only vote is reminiscent of the block voting of Labour. It denies all members a say in the direction of the party. Nothing to see here, expect the usual undemocratic processes that are ingrained in the Westminster parties.
If the SNP fail to address the aspirations of their new membership in favour of courting opposition voters, than I feel many more will see them as just another political party”.
================================================
You really expect a party that has evolved over decades, to immediately heave to the collective wishes of the multi-coloured, post referendum Yes rainbow surge ?
WOS aside.
Give them time.
This isn’t the time, it’s ammunition for the enemy !
Bob W
I think you should perhaps read my post properly. I did not suggest for one minute that articles should be vetoed. I do, however, think that if an article like this is to be put in the public domain it should be made clear that this is one person’s personal grievance that the vote did note go her way. As I said earlier my partner voted the same way as Lauren,the majority didn’t! He, however is not resigning or making a song and dance about it, potentially damaging our ultimate goal of independence so close to a crucial election!
Have to agree with you Kate, apart from the fact that Lauren has done herself or the party no favours with her angry rant, The matter was debated fairly and even though I had decided to vote in favour before entering hall had I been intending to vote against I would have changed my mind anyway as they put up the best argument in favour of the resolution, I still and always will be of the opinion that people should get positions based on merit not gender but at least this is a stepping stone to change, anyone who can resign from a party just because they were brave enough to put this up for debate then which was voted for by the majority has no place to be in a party in the first place, This angry rant being published like this does no one any favours especially the party which (apparently) stands for what these people say they believe in. It really does smack of revenge
Thank you for your efforts during the referendum. You and thousands of others like you almost brought us to the edge of victory, for that you and others will always have my thanks.
You seemed to love doing what you did with the SNP. A real pity you quit over a time-limited motion. Planning to fight against all female lists from the outside, or is that you done with political parties?
It might increase womens’ votes for the SNP
I too confess to not having read the 442 posts prior to my writing this.
Lauren sounds as if she would make an excellent candidate to be an elected representative. This would then give her more opportunity to persuade to try to reverse policies with which she disagrees – and amend conference procedures.
As far as I’m aware the Green Party have a procedure very much the same or similar to that which has been passed. Maybe it would be an idea to look at that to see how it works in practice.
I remember ‘list’ MSP’s being regarded as ‘inferior’. I think this has been talked down over time and I think this new policy is necessary.
To quote “I listened very carefully on Saturday as buzzwords like “equality”, “social justice” and “fairness” were parroted over and over as if somehow repeating them enough times meant they’d happen” You are right, these things don’t just happen sometimes you have to take action to ensure that they do. That is what I believe happened at conference.
The SNP is the vehicle for independence and once its achieved many will go their seperate ways and vote for completely different parties.The SNP cannot cover all angles and keep everyone happy but its the one party that can give us hope and a voice agianst WM.
‘As a single parent with children, I can’t go to branch meetings’.
You can go to branch meetings, men and women take their kids. Mainly men in some branches.
My thruppence worth.
Firstly, to the author, I understand your frustration, party politics often means that you get things as policy which you do want, but sometimes, just sometimes, a decision is made with which you disagree. Over many years in the SNP, there have been times I felt as you do, all because of a single issue, but I chose to stay. Why? simple really, I acknowledge that whilst the SNP policies give me most of what I want, their are times I need to compromise.
I have my red lines, and clearly this was yours, which is sad.
A good example of where I disagree with the SNP, is the utter nonsense (in my opinion) being promulgated by Edinburgh council (which has the SNP in coalition), whereby they propose spending 2 million pounds on making every single street in Edinburgh a 20 limit. It is absurd, beyond absurdity. Such is the inherent stupidity and anti car dogma involved, I may not vote SNP at the next council election.
Anyway, I respect your decision, but hope you may think again and consider re-joining at some time.
As regards equality, it is an interesting issue. All through modern history, there are examples of so-called ‘positive discrimination’, that is, whereby advantages are made for what is seen as an underrepresented or disadvantaged group. In the past it has been used to tackle racial equality, and also to assist the employment of disabled people.
As somebody who is/was within a so -called minority group (homosexual) that within my life was and still is actively discriminated against, I am relatively open minded about such moves, as even with law changes, often times those with decision making positions can resist implementation.
If a group of people ARE discriminated against due to prejudice, then sometimes I think it can be argued that ‘positive’ discrimination’ can be used to redress the balance.
Was it the right thing for the SNP to introduce gender quotas? I remain unconvinced it was. I do however think it may be worth running for a while, to assess the situation in say five years.
Equality in my own personal life experience is never as black and white, nor as simple, as some of those doing a lot of shouting about it seem to think. In any scenario, it is a complex issue, and requires a great deal of consideration. In that context, the arguments for and against gender quotas are complex, and sadly, it seems the debate held at the weekend did not do the matter justice – as such I understand you frustration.
If the SNP has failed on this issue, I would hold that the failure was not the actual decision taken, but the lack of full and proper consideration of all the implications and viewpoints.
Let us all hope that in future a more nuanced and thoughtful approach will be taken by the SNP leadership. In defense of Nicola, I would say, it was a bold idea, but perhaps badly implemented.
Lauren,
I write as someone who was utterly inspired by your account of your conversion on the Wee Ginger Dug and has followed your story since. I have been a member of the SNP off and on since 1974 although mostly inactive other than during the indyref. I am in two minds about the whole issue of women only shortlists and would probably abstain if asked to vote.
However, I would ask you to consider one thing:
If the SNP came one seat short of holding the balance of power in the Westminster parliament and that seat was the one in which you’ve been working so hard, how owuld you feel?
Note that not one person..despite the tone the Rev has used in reply to some poster’s..has asked for their crowd funding money back? Respect please…we absolutely value your input Stuart..but only up to a point. Whether you like the reply’s or not…you posted an ill timed article….expect a response.
@Valerie-
‘perhaps my mistake was in thinking the site is pro Indy‘
You are not mistaken but you seem to have fallen for the MSM mantra, SNP=YES/Independence Movement.
‘Tell me what is gained by this attack and clear statement that the democratically passed policy is wrong?‘
It’s an opinion, you see it as an attack others see it differently, that is one of the aspects of democracy/ free speech.
‘How about another headline for the piece, less loaded,
Woman disagrees with party policy, and has a good old strop.‘
Oh yes that really is LESS loaded, let’s title it to put Lauren in her place!
‘Of course this is Stuart Campbell’s site, no one is any doubt.‘
Glad we agree on something.
‘What I find disappointing, and its already been pointed out, this loaded and potentially damaging piece, which follows closely to the Revs disappointment about a SNP spad.‘
If you haven’t yet read KH’s diatribes against Stu, I suggest you do, bile doesn’t come close. You suggesting that correlation is a disappointment to me, target the argument, not the person.
@Norma 6:10pm-
‘I think you should perhaps read my post properly. I did not suggest for one minute that articles should be vetoed.‘
From your previous posts-
1:12 pm- ‘What concerns me more is the fact that Lauren feels the need to go so public‘
3:27 pm- ‘I get your point Valerie and I must say I am a wee bit disappointed in this too. I have no idea whether contributors to this site are vetoed or not, or even if it would be right to do so. What I do know is that this sort of publicity can only be bad for us and we know that no one in the media will look for the facts!‘
I think I understood exactly what you posted, was the word vetoed a typo and you possibly meant vetted? That would give your post a somewhat different meaning. Whatever, Lauren has a perfect right to espouse her view in any way, at any time and in any forum she wishes, without prejudice.
6:10 pm ‘I do, however, think that if an article like this is to be put in the public domain it should be made clear that this is one person’s personal grievance that the vote did note go her way.‘
There is a clear attribution at the start of the article i.e. Lauren’s name. Love the use of the pejorative ‘personal grievance’ rather than personal opinion/ belief though. 🙁
‘As I said earlier my partner voted the same way as Lauren,the majority didn’t! He, however is not resigning or making a song and dance about it, potentially damaging our ultimate goal of independence so close to a crucial election!‘
His choice, obviously not a red line issue for him, but your comment didn’t need the snide dig at Lauren. you could have left out the part between resigning and potentially
I type as someone who rejoined the SNP after the referendum, having lapsed for a decade or two, although still voting SNP for Holyrood and Westminster.
To me, such a potentially (and has proved) divisive proposal should not have been decided by delegates at conference; it should have been a secret ballot of EVERY member.
I must have missed a branch meeting where this WAS discussed and a delegate (or delegates) instructed how to vote.
Maybe we have to look at how policy is formulated. In these days of mass communication, it is not impossible to ballot every member (email, snail mail) when policy decisions have to be arrived at.
Why dilute democracy within the party by making each branch come to a decision on anything, then the branch representatives having the vote at a conference?
Let the individual members vote!
Have to laugh at some of the earlier comments on here. The SNP is being attacked for having an open debate. Really?
I too am sorry that Lauren has resigned. However I can understand why she has done so.
Everyone supporting independence has got behind the SNP as the best route to is. As a result people have been very reluctant to criticise the party, or Nicola Sturgeon. Maybe this has been a mistake: perhaps some stronger warning signals, earlier, that her views on how to address gender imbalance are controversial would be better for the short and long term health of the SNP. Maybe Lauren would not have felt that she had to make such a stand.
I would have thought Kezia Dugdale and Katie Higgins would give anyone pause for thought about positive discrimination.
Still waiting for evidence of misogyny on Wings …
@Jimmur Phymp
I think the problem is that we discriminative legislation already. Mothers are entitled to far more paternity leave than fathers. If you want to eradicate an interview panel making a judgement based on paternity leave then give the mother and father a more equal amount.
FatCandy mentioned earlier that there is more equality in Sweden. Like the other Scandinavian countries, they also have a more equal distribution of paternity leave. The mother and father have 480 days to split between them as they see fit (60 days have to be taken by the mother for medical reasons).
I’m 67 and female. I’ve waited long enough for equality. As was said at the conference, once you get balanced lists, you get balanced candidate selection. Threatening all female lists may be enough to get more evenly gender balanced lists.
This resolution isn’t saying you are a second class citizen, it is saying you are currently being treated as one and that is unacceptable.
*we have discriminative*
Got to like that!
I’ve just seen this and I think it’s quite a good idea ;
http://www.thepointhowever.org/index.php/issues/235-achieving-gender-balance-in-an-indepedent-scottish-parliament
Essentially paired candidates for each ‘party’ contesting a seat, twice as much representation too, shared workload, it has a lot to commend it even without it being about creating balance based on the dual genders allowed currently.
One day, I hope in the not too distant future, we shall come to accept that we’re all different from each other and, we will choose to associate based on common goals not due to some ‘accident’ of our genes.
Instead of this rather blunt method why don’t we go for something truly radical?
Why don’t we allow all parties to field a male and a female candidate for all seats?
All votes cast for a party would be aggregated, but the candidate with the most individual votes would represent the party.
We could then confidently state that both genders had a fair crack of the whip, and whoever won was the true choice of the electorate and there on merit.
Thoughts?
Most of the comments here and the debate itself are fascinating. My personal view has not changed but I do have a clearer perception of the other – please folks always keep it civil, democracy needs that.
For me Derick fae Yell 9:43 was a very good point.
This is just sad. The reality is – not opinion, but fact and logic – that we can only be where we are today because of positive discrimination. There is *no other way* for the gender imbalance we have to happen. I have no problem with folk being opposed to positive discrimination, as long as they are consistently so (not i.e. unironically opposed to it for women only). I have no problem with people being for it, as long as they also are so consistently (recognising some groups of men are also discriminated against, and this too needs addressed).
But more, and worse than both these things, is that the problems ‘addressed’ above do not actually exist: not all short-lists will be women only (indeed, none may be); no woman will be required to stand on a woman-only shortlist; no individual man has reason to believe he will be disqualified from standing (he may not get his *ideal* time and place, who does?) This is merely the freedom – previously forbidden – for a party to take action, for one year, and only when appropriate, to ensure all its members are represented. If that’s a resignation issue because not only one’s *own* feeling can now be represented, then good. There’s nothing to be proud of there.
Single-gender shortlists work (we know this from the status quo, and in terms of change, from across the world). This has *nothing* to do with individual aptitude, and everything to do with unconscious bias in the electorate. Claiming the former is silly, and frankly, Scotland right now cannot afford to ‘start at the beginning’ of every issue because some folk are just tuning in. There’s nothing above that has not been said a million times already, in other situations, and proved not-so. We’re all on a steep learning curve here, but we all need to recognise it, not jerk-knee on command. If you’re serious about addressing inequality then educate yourself about it (you *are* online!) Why waste *your own* time feeling-and-guessing in response to every dog-whistle?
At the very least, a commitment to change has to be a commitment to the right of people, groups, parties and governments, to try new things that might not always seem obvious to all, or indeed, work as desired. It’s time to practice what we preach, and be prepared to keep contributing to the review of things we don’t agree with. If you cannot do that, how can you aspire to change anti-independence minds?
Sad that you disengaged with the SNP, as a member!
For those of us not SNP members,or those who didn’t attend the conference, it would have been nice if the actual wording of the resolution had been included here. Trawling through so many comments getting titbits of the resolution doesn’t make it easy to make informed comment. Are we looking at making sure there are women candidates on all lists,only women candidates,or only women being selected to stand? For me what is important, is that it was voted on by the delegates not imposed, and is a temporary measure. Those who oppose it can work towards making sure it doesn’t get passed next time if it doesn’t work. In an ideal world we wouldn’t need to look at such methods but this is the real world and any one who thinks all candidates are selected on merit alone are being naive. My present MSP leaves me wondering if he is really the best my constituency could find!
Laurens story however had me wondering …if the level of commitment she showed is what is required to ‘succeed’ perhaps that is why many women with young families don’t put themselves forward. Giving up your family life, missing your child’s recital; these are all important parts of life – things you cannot get back once they’ve gone.Is it necessary to choose either or?
Resigning is obviously Lauren’s choice, but you can’t change things from outside.
The SNP are far from perfect,but so far they have keep their pledges and they are our best chance of gaining independence, and until that day they will get my vote.
At the end of the Apartheid era in South Africa, Affirmative Action was introduced which legislated to ensure higher employment for black South Africans. The structures of power and privilege from the Apartheid regime did not concede an iota of that power at the end of the Apartheid regime. Affirmative Action was the only way to take the hammer to those structures and force change. No one would say that the people who gained employment and entered into business were any way made into second class citizens. They already were second class citizens, Affirmative Action was the only way that equality, justice and fairness could gain ground.
Is patriarchy a whole lot different? Incidentally, I met a South African business man last year who said he’d kept his multi-million rand business to less than 50 employees in order to avoid Affirmative Action policy. Power and privilege will never yield willingly.
Read the FANTASTIC article but didn’t have time to read all the comments. I’m sure though that many will have echoed the sentiment I am about to express. Simply this, if you are not in the Club you have no influence at all. I hope someone who knows this lady can get that over to her.
There was a letter in the Northern Scott last week, a long winded boaring self serving critique by an EX SNP voter, citing Centralisation and ‘controlling behaviour’, that the “fair minded” Editor of our local rag obviously didn’t mind using up half the letters page with. I just hope they are not a Wings fan and get a sight of this article.
I just re-joined after a long break triggered by the unseemly scrabble for ‘jobs’ by a litany of second and third rate individuals, predominantly male, for the birth of Holyrood.
Many commentators have remarked that only the SNP themselves, the ‘old guard’, can screw this up. This could be the start of that.
Lauren, sorry to say it but you were played. The person who asked you to speak Was probably more afraid of being seen to support the structures which exist to maintain everyday sexism than the sexism itself.
I’m sorry this policy has resulted in you wanting to resign your membership but 2 things spring to mind – 1. You joined the SNP, the SNP didn’t join you and 2. It’s better to have a rainy day lover than a fairweather friend.
I do hope you reconsider your decision but if not then I hope you find a channel that reflects all your opinions adequately.
I’m an almost seventy year old grandmother with two daughters and four grandaughters. I totally agree with Liz. Positive discrimination demeaning and unnecessary. Women are, and should always feel complimentary to our male counterparts, and never in competition, but judged on merit.
For some reason my comment earlier in the day wasn’t posted. I thought it might be a computer glitch so I tried again just after 9. Yet again, my comment didn’t appear.
Maybe, thought I, it’s some kind of efficient system that doesn’t display comments to the person writing them but when I checked another article that u had responded to, lo and behold there i was bold as brass.
So, I can only assume that I have been censored and silenced on this particular topic. #scratches head in puzzlement
Does it really take twenty minutes for a post to appear on this site?
Gender equality is an extremely complex issue and its difficult to deal with because in many ways it is so insidious. From going into a shop and seeing the overwhelmingly pink, prissy clothes for girls and the much better made, more robust clothing for boys to the covers of magazines which enthral the male gaze. The way that children are spoken to with unconscious bias has been proven in scientific experiments and if anyone cares to do real research they might be interested to look at: In A Different Voice by Carol Gilligan and for the ways that women have been portrayed to serve the male gaze throughout history: Ways of Seeing by John Berger.
We are mostly still largely unaware as a society how much we all feed this.
There are inequalities in society – that is undeniable and the quota system is a very blunt tool to “fix” a very complex problem. I do not have any answers, but have myself worked in a male dominated industry and have worked hard for that place, but feel that until we are all more educated and aware of these matters there will still be a problem. If nothing else – I welcome the debate around this issue and hope it will suggest new and innovative ways to address it.
As a man who joined the SNP back in 1962 I have seen quite a few decisions that have been made by the Party that are either wrong headed, bloody minded, stupid and arrogant, or a mixture of all of them.
I am a member today, 53 years later, even though I thoroughly disagree with the idea of forced 50/50 male/female lists. And I am a member today, even though I completely disagree with the SNP government forcing through the daft idea, in my opinion and that of a great many other people, of changing the law so that men can marry other men.
To me both of these decisions were laughable and should have been put in the waste bin along with a load of other trendy bendy, happy clappy, touchy feely, baloney that has drifted out of the minds of dopey, lovey dovey, doe eyed wannabees who will do absolutely anything they perceive as ‘the right thing to do’.
Somewhere along the line these sort of decisions are going to come back to haunt the SNP and the Scottish Government, whether Scotland is independent or not. But I still believe in the principle of democracy, and I believe I’ll still be a member of the SNP for the rest of my life because, in spite of all their faults they are the best thing that Scotland has had for the past 300 years.
I also disagree with gender quotas. If gender quotas are in place for women, why not for each sexual orientation and race ? Non heterosexuals and non-whites are (perhaps?) under-represented within the current system.
I am wholeheartedly for gender (and other) equality but not to the point where certain groups are excluded. What if a man is particularly well-known and liked in his area and thus has a good chance of winning, but the area is afforded an all-female quota? What if he was more popular than any of the female candidates? How are they going to choose where will get female quotas and where won’t? Loads of unanswered questions.
Currently women and men have equal access to stand as an MP/MSP. That’s equality.
I understand that women are under-represented in politics and what they’re trying to do, but going about it in this way is not equality, and as the writer says, it is in fact discriminatory (towards men). This is the point where equality has been lost.
@maureen mangan,
Same here – there is some odd cookie / WordPress thing going on.
If I post from my old iPad it takes over 20 minutes but if I use a PC or my wife’s iPad then my posts appear immediately.
We need a good geek (male or female) to sort it out.
@Footsoldier 9.55am
I was wondering what it is you object to about the named person for every child legislation. (I’m not having a go, it’s a genuine question).
@schrodingers cat, 12.21pm
from now on i want to be called loretta
Not sure what your point is here. Almost a year ago now, we discovered that instead of two sons and a daughter, we actually had two daughters and a son. This explained our youngest child’s years of ill-health, depression and (as we later discovered) suicidal thoughts – it was all a result of being trapped in the wrong body (compounded by merciless bullying at school).
Thanks to the Equality Act, her right to express her true gender (regardless of whether she chooses to undergo what someone else on here crassly referred to as a ‘sex change’) is a protected characteristic and cannot be challenged by anybody for any reason. So yes, if she said, “I want to be called Loretta” then she would be entitled to do so without cheap jibes from other people. Gender identity should not be confused with biology.
By the way, she is firmly opposed to gender quotas.
I am ambivalent about them, but it wouldn’t be a red line issue for me. I would only leave the SNP if I felt that overall it had become a party I couldn’t support – not for just one (reversible) policy.
I have been impressed by the overall quality of the debate on this thread, with a few exceptions. Let’s hope I don’t get called a shrieking harpy this time.
Hi Maureen.
Yes, there is a delay problem but it happens on Macs as well as wintelboxes.
It appears to be random. From home, on my MacPro, I get immediate posting. From work, on my iMac and wintelbox, sometimes it’s immediate, sometimes the delay happens.
For example…
I posted from work iMac this morning; post appeared right away. Posted from same machine mid-afternoon; post was delayed for around 10-15 minutes.
No idea why.
The Rough Bounds, 10,08pm
I completely disagree with the SNP government forcing through the daft idea, in my opinion and that of a great many other people, of changing the law so that men can marry other men.
To me both of these decisions were laughable and should have been put in the waste bin along with a load of other trendy bendy, happy clappy, touchy feely, baloney that has drifted out of the minds of dopey, lovey dovey, doe eyed wannabees who will do absolutely anything they perceive as ‘the right thing to do’.
How do you feel about transgender people?
“we can only be where we are today because of positive discrimination. There is *no other way* for the gender imbalance we have to happen”
Yes there is. Democracy.
You have chosen not to publish my earlier comment, which insulted no one
BobW
The word I was meaning was vetted but even if I had meant vetoed, I also said in the same sentence that I didn’t know if it was even right to do this! The MAJORITY did not agree with Lauren’s opinion which seems to have created a grievance towards the SNP resulting in her public resignation. Just think, if enough people agree with her we can maybe have Jim Murphy in charge next year!!
“As a side, isn’t it funny nobody calls for 50/50 quotas for nurses, brickies, midwives (midhubbies), secretaries, plumbers, lorry drivers, sewage workers. Why politics and management?”
Let’s face it, NOBODY believes in gender quotas, except selectively. The egregious Katie Higgins is campaigning vigorously for gender quotas in parliamentary representation – do you think this is for altruistic reasons? Or because this is the only way she will be selected as a candidate?
Some good points made on this issue, from both sides of the debate.
How good is it to back a party which allows people to disagree ?
The 2nd class comment is a bit harsh for me, clearly if there was an all female (or male) shortlist, then EVERY person would have been judged as more than capable to do the job required surely ?
Ultimately, that for me is what matters.
Positive discrimination to promote anybody above their ability for the pure sake of gender balance is quite another matter .
geeo
Positive discrimination to promote anybody above their ability for the pure sake of gender balance is quite another matter .
This made me smile, and I’ll tell you why. In my experience as a teacher, out of the 10 headteachers I have worked under, 1 was outstanding, 1 was just about adequate and the rest ranged from inadequate to disgracefully incompetent.
I know this is not a statistically significant sample, but I am not alone in this experience.
Clearly, in education, promotion above one’s ability is par for the course.
Thanks Boris for this O/T link. Highlights how little we know about the Ukraine and its history.
Thanks for having the courage to post this Lauren. It probably felt dangerous to “rock the boat” so near the election, but such disagreement has to be heard. I too am against discrimination on the grounds of sex.
I also thought of resigning my membership, but as someone told me 3 years ago on CiF (Guardian), you can’t change something from the outside.
The shoertlist resolution was passed by a vote amongst less than 3% of the membership, and as another poster pointed out, why were all of us members not allowed a vote? For me the delegate system is too cosy, far too old-fahsioned in the 21st century, the age of the internet. We could all vote electronically, and that is what I shall be agitiating for change when I’ve got time, before the autumn conference.
When I was in my teens, women couldn’t get credit unless they had a man to stand guarantor.
When I was interviewed for a job, I was repeatedly told straight to the bone of my nose “we don’t promote women, you’ll get married or have children”. We were expected to just buckle down and accept that we were considered to be lower status.
Women couldn’t get a mortgage, either on their own or even if they were the main breadwinner. I couldn’t buy a home of my own, even if it were possible to do so from what I could earn from my shitty discriminated against job.
I wasn’t allowed to take certain subjects at school, as they were considered unsuitable for girls.
When I started work, ALL the more senior jobs were filled by men. Sexual harassment was rife.
What age am I? I’m only bloody 57!
We fought for equality. Our mothers and us worked damned hard for it and it still hasn’t happened. (for example, look at the equal pay claims outstanding against local councils)
I look around me and see many a woman who has had her potential deliberately smothered out of her over the years, and I weep. Bitter bloody raging angry tears.
Yes, I do agree that the best person should be selected for the job. However, where we disagree is that I do not believe that discrimination no longer exists. It does. With some, it is now undertaken covertly rather than overtly.
If this is a short term measure to help balance things out, then I welcome it.
No, I do not agree with every SNP policy. But they are more in tune with my desire for social justice than any of the other parties. So I’ll continue to support them and campaign for them. Because at the end of the day it will benefit the poor, the weak and the vulnerable. And that is what matters most to me.
I’m gutted to lose you Lauren. I see where you are coming from, though I do respect your view and that you have had the guts to stand up and speak your own truth. I just have a different life experience and perspective. But I am no longer willing to ask nicely for equality. I’m demanding it.
@Norma
So, I did read what you posted properly then, I did resent the implication of your statement to the contrary, as I have a fair grasp of the english(SP) language. It might behove you to recheck what you posted, before telling others that they should read your posts ‘properly‘.
Vetting as opposed to vetoing, I still wouldn’t agree with your post.
Please, not the ‘grievance’ word again, lets call it a difference of opinion, much less pejorative.
As to your last sentence, has Lauren said she will vote for any other than the party you appear to be a member of? She stated that she disagreed on a point of principle and resigned because of that, your statement is a giant leap from her stated position.
If however, you want leader Jim next year, you could always vote for him yourself. 🙂
@Natasha
Three, one ‘old school’ very competent, one related to a prominent labour politician, verging occasionally on the nearly competent. last one eventually found guilty of trafficking in child porn. Says a lot about the selection process.