IN 2014, the biggest selling point for new people was the hope of what Scotland could become – we could leave behind vast inequality, and our own unequal treatment, in Britain and build a fair, decent country worthy of its residents.
SNP approval numbers rise and rise as we do what we can with limited powers. We have a lot still to do, and could be bolder, but evidence is clear – focusing on building a compassionate, welcoming, equal society has brought us unprecedented support.
None of this happened by accident. Members decided during the post-surge constitutional consultation that equality was a core value. We voted for representation for marginalised groups at the highest levels of the party. We saw the benefit of bold policies like all-women shortlists (AWS) at the 2016 elections, where 46% of our MSPs elected were women, while the only two parties without AWS were left with 19% and 0% female representation.
It’s easy for some to believe this will continue without concrete action. You only need to look at December’s General Election, where we didn’t have time to implement AWS, to see how quickly progress reverses. Many believe we already have equality in elected office, but only 36% of MSPs and 29% of councillors are women. While one in five people is disabled, only one out of 129 MSPs is openly disabled. In Holyrood’s lifetime there have only been four BAME MSPs.
READ MORE: Alyn Smith: Equality is a huge issue, but independence comes first
Awareness is important, but doesn’t change things on its own. Mr Smith’s proposal wouldn’t explicitly ban BAME and disabled people from the NEC, but as it stands it would remove the only people of colour and openly disabled people on it. We bring decades of experience, insight and knowledge of the political, academic and social structures which create and maintain inequality and solutions researched around the world. However, anyone working in equalities knows backlash is sadly inevitable, even to the most minor or symbolic steps forward.
We saw it in the rise in racism when Obama was elected. We’ve seen it anywhere women are in power, and in the assumption that disabled people get “special treatment” and are being frivolous when we take legal action when unfairly denied access. It’s vital we refuse to bow to that minority, however vocal, or we risk losing all progress we’ve made not just towards a better country, but in making our case for an independent Scotland.
The backlash is familiar – people working against exclusion today are often criticised using the memory of Dr King. At the time, though, the exact same things we hear now were said about the civil rights movement: that it had “gone too far”, that Black people were “receiving everything on a silver platter”, going “too fast”, and “doing more harm to their cause than good”.
Sixty years later, people still have to protest devastating inequality. We expect people who don’t experience marginalisation to see our minor progress as “too far”, “too fast”, because it feels like that to them. We were shocked, however, to read one of our high-profile MPs recommending progress be rolled back.
READ MORE: SNP MP Alyn Smith ‘scapegoating people with disabilities’ in NEC row
Reducing our capacity to an advisory body when we were not consulted on this proposal before or since is a good demonstration of how little our advice would be listened to. Our eight reps (not “nearly a dozen”) are a small group on the NEC but we have a voice – an advisory body cannot “hold the party to account” without power or the mechanisms to do so. People only think to ask us about obvious equalities issues, and even then dilute our recommendations to feel-good gestures. We avoid so many unforced errors when we are part of decision-making conversations from the beginning.
Had Mr Smith talked to us, he might have learned why NEC positions are so important. We are not there as charity. We’re there because research consistently shows diversity in decision-making groups leads to better decisions. We’re there because the party’s members decided inclusion was a priority. We’re there because the party’s high approval ratings are not driven by an increase in nationalism, but because people value the work being done to make our society fairer and more equal. We are there because we are part of society, of Scotland, and of the SNP and our voices should not be dismissed here as they are everywhere else.
Fiona Robertson
SNP Equalities convener
Chair of the SNP Equality Forum
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel