I REFER to Joanna Cherry’s article on women living in fear (If ever there was a group living in fear in our society, then it is women, March 12). The attitude of men comes from above – I mean from the Westminster government’s misogynistic attitude to women.
In the mid-1980s Clare Short tried to get Page 3 banned. When she tried to introduce a debate in parliament she was shouted down by the male MPs and her bill was defeated. Following this Clare received 10,000 letters from women who had been attacked – in a high number of cases their attacker had been viewing porn before the attack.
READ MORE: Joanna Cherry: If ever there was a group living in fear, then it is women
When parliament isn’t interested in the danger to women, what message has that sent to men over the years? What chance have women got? I was attacked when I was 19; fortunately another woman came to my aid and the attacker ran away.
Margaret Forbes
Kilmacolm
THOSE who have denied the need for a review of legislation aimed at protecting women should remind themselves of a few facts. Just 1.4% of reported rapes result in convictions and just one in seven women believe allegations of rape will be treated sympathetically by the police. The Fawcett Society has been campaigning to advance women’s equality since 1866, but still only 34% of MPs and 35% of councillors are women.
It is an essential part of a free and fair society that women should not be afraid to walk the streets at night. Those in power should frame our legislation and social policy to ensure that freedom is delivered.
Pete Rowberry
Duns
FOLLOWING the passing of the Hate Crime Bill in the Scottish Parliament last week, the thing that keeps springing to mind for me right now is a card I sent to my sister in London last year. It had a picture illustration of a leading suffragette (Emmeline Pankhurst) and the caption read, “100 years of the vote and idiots are still in power”.
At the time when I sent it, I was thinking it could be applied to the UK Government, but it now sums up the anger I feel towards all those in the Scottish Parliament who voted for this bill, who have left women in Scotland to face another year or so of everyday misogyny, including misogynistic abuse, unprotected by any hate crime legislation. Cheers for that. #WomenCantWait and #WomenWontWheesht.
Mo Maclean
Glasgow
WILLIAM Purves (Letters, March 15) may well have missed the primary purpose of the Constitution for Scotland (CfS) consultation. It is primarily an educational tool.
In many countries the principles contained in their nations’ constitution are taught as part of the school curriculum – not so in Scotland, as there is no written constitution. Many politicians, let alone the electorate, do not appear to possess an overall understanding of how our government and society functions.
READ MORE: A deficit limit of 3% is a recipe for austerity in an independent Scotland
The 1320 Declaration of Arbroath declared the sovereignty of the people; on July 4 2018, the House of Commons officially endorsed the principles of the Claim of Right, agreeing that the people of Scotland are sovereign and have the right to choose the best form of government for Scotland – thus the Claim was acknowledged under UK domestic law.
Having said all that, the CfS consultation provides a model constitution aimed at outlining the scope of the principles required within a constitution and is for guidance only. The consultation is available for anyone to share, discuss and vote on their ideas of what they consider should be contained within the constitution.
The constitution should set out the principles and vision of what we the people seek in an independent sovereign Scotland and then it will be up to parliament to shape the laws to achieve the required society we desire.
When we elect members to parliament, we empower them to govern in our name and yes there will probably, from time to time, be a need for such as (see Article Seven) referendums, people’s assemblies, and advisory bodies to guide our elected members prior to major and controversial bills being passed.
Robert Ingram
Constitution for Scotland
IN the Sunday National, George Mitchell refers to the letter by Margaret Forbes in last Wednesday’s paper and says “the picture she paints regarding the treatment of animals by the farming industry just does not exist in reality”. No disrespect, George, but this is nonsense.
Margaret Forbes is spot-on and factory farms are notorious for their barbaric treatment of animals. The “wet markets” which seem so popular in China are equally horrific. Margaret is also correct to suggest the industrialisation of farming creates the ideal background for viruses to spread and mutate. In a recent New Statesman article Professor John Gray echoed this: “Humans released the zoonotic (coronavirus) pathogen by destroying animal habitats and creating huge factory farms. As a consequence, the virus will go on evolving whatever we do.”
Alan Woodcock
Dundee
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