Letters II: Being ‘open to all’ isn’t enough in terms of equal representation

My sides now ache: I don’t think I’ve laughed so hard, ever.

Across Scotland’s political sphere we have an astounding lack of women. Is this because they don’t consider themselves to be worthy of a political career?

Is it because they lack the drive and ambition to succeed? I don’t see either of these. Having been involved in politics and a party member since September 19, 2014, I see lots of great, ambitious, hard-working women already involved in politics. They run the branches, organise leafleting, manage social media and give huge support to elected members and the membership.

They are employed at HQs and manage and maintain staff, payrolls and huge budgets. They are forming exec groups and community action groups across the country. They are pivotal.

Anyone who is active in any political party must surely see the same and if you don’t, there’s an issue. The bigger issue, however, is candidate selection. Only at this juncture do we suddenly then diminish the role of women and suddenly ask that they prove they are best of the best. If only we asked that of the male candidates!

Before the days of knowing better, parties were rife with nepotism. We know better now, why do we still accept that this will go on? Why should one, usually, middle-aged white male pass over the baton to another middle-aged white male? We have to recognise that in 2017 this should not be the case. We have a diverse population and should be celebrating the strengths such a government or local authority would bring to us all. [Canadian PM] Justin Trudeau did just this, where is the problem?

Just because someone is female it does not mean they are not the best available. Why must they prove it? People from different backgrounds can be dissuaded from putting themselves forward, we have to address this and find the right balance. After generations of having only white, middle-class, middle-aged males, to simply say it is now open to all is really not good enough.

To illustrate I will use a football analogy. Hearts and Hibs are playing in a cup final, the referee has been woeful, some say cheating and the score is 10 nil to Hearts. At half-time the SFA speak to the ref and address the unfairness. If the rest of the match is played fairly, then Hibs have still been done a disservice.

That is where we are at now, we realise the system has been fairer to some than others, we cannot simply say: “Carry on, it’s now fair”. We must level the playing field. In levelling the field, we must do so for all. We need to make sure each and every group within our society is represented and heard.

How on earth can empowering anyone to reach their potential ever be demoralising? That sounds to me like pulling the ladder up behind you. I would rather be part of a country where we all give a hand up.

Lee-Anne Menzies, Edinburgh

TO SAY the suggestion that parties should be fined if they fail to have women as 45 per cent of candidates is “frankly outrageous” shows a lack of appreciation of the role nepotism and prejudice has had in impeding the representation of women, as well as how their caring responsibilities and upbringing may have stopped them coming forward as potential candidates.

Funny how opponents of positive discrimination always want women to prove they’re the best candidate when men, who may have gotten on the list simply because of which pub they drank in, are never asked the same.

Ruth Matthews, Perth

-------------------------------------------------------------------

SO Michael Fry doesn’t understand “equality”, believing it’s nothing more than a mantra to make us feel good (Michael Fry: Call for a referendum when it’s winnable, The National, January 12).

That’s a bit disappointing for a comment writer and shows either a lack of imagination or someone speaking from a comfortable position that has little interest in creating a more equal society.

Here’s a few ideas on equality for him. Hopefully most will agree that they are worth Mr Fry giving a bit more consideration to and they can maybe add their own suggestions.

1. Providing a Universal Basic Income, so that everyone has an equal ability to access food and clothing for their basic needs.

2. Meaningful land reform, so that the majority of land isn’t owned and controlled by an extremely small number of wealthy individuals who hoard it, pushing up housing and accommodation costs for the rest of us.

3. Preservation of the Scottish NHS, so that everyone has equal access to health care for their needs, free at the point of use.

4. Abolition of private schools, so that everyone has equal access to the same quality of education and everyone has an equal stake in making that education system the best it can be.

5. Re-instituting Legal Aid at a reasonable level and abolishing fees for employment tribunals so that everyone has equal access to justice and the law.

6. Equal application of taxation laws, so that everyone pays their fair share and the wealthy can’t avoid tax by hiding their wealth in tax havens.

7. Equal representation under democracy, chiefly removal of the House of Lords so that unelected members do not have greater power in the system than individual voters.

I’d also suggest that none of these measures to improve equality will ever be delivered by Westminster and that its only through independence for Scotland that we have a hope of pursuing an agenda for greater equality.

Sandy Wito, Edinburgh

-------------------------------------------------------------------

APROPOS Leslie Riddoch’s article on the citizen’s wage (Scotland has to pick up the mantle for a citizen’s wage, The National, January 12), our fundamental problem is the lack of effective workplace regulation in respect of workers’ rights.

There are simply too many unscrupulous employers paying low wages and using zero-hours, temporary and part-time contracts to exploit those at the bottom end of the wage economy. Exploited workers are native British, European and non-European migrants.

No-one in work should have to depend on in-work benefits to get by.

The national minimum wage and the national living wage are only meaningful concepts within permanent, full-time contracts. That’s the only way recipients can get on with building lives and bringing up families, assuming a good availability of affordable housing.

Restricting free movement will not remedy the plight of the poorly paid. The real culprits we must target are the unscrupulous employers.

John Moore, Dunscore, Dumfries

-------------------------------------------------------------------

THE story on BBC Breakfast this morning (Friday, January 13) was about flexibility and how housing benefit could now be paid directly to landlords. This was what used to happen but was changed and has since been paid to tenants.

Does no-one remember why the system was changed?

It was changed in order to stop fraud.

Housing benefit was being paid directly into landlords’ bank accounts, even when tenants had moved on to a new location.

Sometimes people moved in with a partner but retained their paid-for flat as a postal address for benefit payment. There were even cases of housing benefit being paid to landlords long after their tenants had died.

This was a big scandal some years back and reported extensively on the BBC.

It was revealed how easy it was for an unscrupulous landlord in Edinburgh to knowingly defraud the council of a proven £100,000. This is a lot of money now, and it was even more then.

I hope the councils have a better system in place to track payments made and are not opening the door to a new wave of fraud and another scandal.

Walter Hamilton, St Andrews