Feminism must be inclusive in the fight for equality

by Cass Macgregor

TW: transphobia

Like many other women I arrived at a deeper understanding of feminism through the experience of sexism and I have come to realise that we need action rather than words to progress. To advance equality for women, political parties such as the Scottish Greens have commitments to offer a gender balanced list of candidates at election. What this meant for me in 2014 was that when not enough women put themselves forwards for the initial Westminster selection in Glasgow, I had to change from my ‘someone else better qualified than me will do this’ to carrying my anxiety and low confidence along on the journey to selection and candidacy. It turned out I was perfectly well qualified, learned a lot and realised I had unwittingly internalised a lot of the sexism I had experienced.

Feminism as an ideology has a lot to offer: advancing gender equality and difference, theorising sex and gender, taking on the patriarchy and abuse of male power. Being a left leaning Green I find it impossible to separate out patriarchy and capitalism, both systems relying on women to do unpaid domestic labour and exploit the environment. I give you the Conservative and Unionist party as a case in point.

However, with recent government consultation on reforming the Gender Recognition Act (GRA) bringing the issue to the fore, feminism today might feel like a battleground between those who support progress for trans rights and those who don’t. Particular to feminism is recognising both trans and cis women. There is another divide in the debate, which is that only one group of people actually has the lived experience of being trans.

Independence & Interdependence

 

by Cass Macgregor

My support for Scottish Independence is about self-determination: getting what we vote for, and the benefits this could bring for engagement in democracy and society. Like others, I connect to the radical vision of Scotland as a beacon of social and environmental justice, however, I hold the same hopes for England and the rest of Europe.

The rise of Corbyn’s Labour has caused some dissonance within the left leaning Indy movement, supporting both Corbyn at Westminster and simultaneously supporting Scottish Independence. A particular difficulty is the SNP, in power at Holyrood, seen as to the right of a potential Corbyn government at Westminster.

I know supporters of Independence who have voted Green, Labour, SNP and Lib Dem at recent first past the post elections (also a couple of spoiled ballots for a lack of a Green option). It is refreshing to have taken a step beyond the Scottish constitution in deciding voting preferences.

Independence

While support for Independence has largely plateaued since the Yes campaign, the question over the degree of autonomy the Scottish population wants remains relevant. This affects both our relationship with the UK and Europe. Independence means that we get what we vote for on questions of:

• Migration policy- Scottish and English preferences being identified as different.
• Foreign policy and defence- increasingly this is of key importance for environmental protection, climate change and common resource management, and includes many reasons to stay in the EU, along with the question of whether we believe we should have nuclear weapons.
• Energy policy- particularly important to untap Scotland’s potential for renewable energy, adding to future economic prospects.
• Trade deals, industry and the ethics involved.

However, it’s about more than that. Engagement itself in democracy and civic life is vital to the vision of social and environmental justice that many Greens hold. We need engaged, active citizens to drive forwards this vision. This will only come if people trust that they have a democratic system which is fair, reflecting their views, and that their vote matters. Engagement on the Scottish independence referendum and turnout at the vote was high- people felt that it mattered and that they influenced it. Typically, if people feel their vote doesn’t make a difference, they are less likely to vote and engage with the issues.

The pursuit of devolving power and political decisions to the lowest workable level has long been Green policy and so it should come as no surprise that Green support both for increased decision making at local government and Scottish Independence. That being said, international structures such as the EU have a clear role in issues such as climate change, environmental protection and workers rights. Different levels of regulation are needed but Westminster’s current involvement in Scottish decisions is not one of them. In the future, Corbyn being in power in Westminster would make no difference to this.

Interdependence

These key questions also highlight the concept of interdependence: social, environmental and economic issues are interlinked.

Greens across Europe naturally speak of both social and environmental justice. Poorer countries are disproportionately affected by climate change, human rights abuses and war. It is common to see Greens from all European countries calling for justice for refugees and ethical trade as Caroline Lucas did so well during the recent TV leaders debate, and as Scottish Greens consistently raise at Holyrood.

Transport is a good example of social and environmental justice being interlinked. In Glasgow, for example, most people do not own a car, instead being reliant on public transport, walking and cycling, which is better for the environment. The wealthier cause more pollution and carbon emissions by using cars. Policy which supports road travel and car use over public transport disproportionately benefits the wealthy, to the detriment of society and the environment. The issue of tax on air travel is another good example here.

Electoral reform is often raised by Greens. The first past the post system currently used for Westminster elections is tipped in favour of the wealthy and powerful. This creates a system where the contest favours two larger parties. One only has to take a look around the figures on the electoral commission website to review the spending levels and donations available to these parties. However, we are dependent on our voting system to elect representatives who will pass legislation to improve environmental and social justice, hence the call for fairer votes.

Independence & Interdependence

Independence is simply a way of having more autonomy over these decisions. The act of people having a greater say and the empowerment this could bring should not be dismissed- this could be better for democracy, society, wellbeing and our environment.

Independence is about interdependence and this is why the Green case is the most vital one. It’s not about ‘freedom’ or flags. The Green case for Scottish independence has continued to build, with questions of the Green position on currency, citizens income, local democracy and renewable energy over oil, being most relevant to the debate moving forward.  Interdependence could also be considered as the state of being dependent on other countries and the need to work together on shared concerns- the global issues affecting social and environmental justice. If Corbyn gets into Downing Street, this will be fantastic for international relations- yet the case for Scottish independence remain will remain: it’s about us making decisions for ourselves, and it is that simple.

(photo credit: http://the-penultimate-word-com)

Why Parties Must Budget for Compromise

Louise Wilson

Earlier this week, the minority SNP Government overcame the first hurdle to passing its budget for 2017-18 with the support of the Greens. Since then, scorn has rained down on our lentil-munching, sandal-wearing party – from all sides of the political arena.

It’s no surprise the Tories hate it. They felt the SNP on its own was too Left. With the help of the Greens the budget has been transformed to one from the “Radical Left”. According to The Ruth Davidson Party, communism is out in full force when we expect people to pay a little more because they can afford to do so.

The real argument Greens must address is that set out by the Labour party – that we’ve allowed the SNP to pass through a budget overseeing a number of cuts with only small concessions in return.

Let’s be clear – no Green will be 100% happy with the budget as it stands. It is still too timid on tax. It still does not give local authorities enough funding to fully support the services we would want to see (or allow them to raise enough themselves). It is far from radical.

But the deal was reached in a spirit of compromise.

Both Labour and the Conservatives all but refused to do a deal with the SNP, based on the idea that only their policies – in full – were right. This is in direct conflict with the very idea of minority government and a proportional representation electoral system. You cannot expect another party to adopt – lock, stock and barrel – your own policy when in search of agreement. This applies equally to the SNP, who for a long time seem to have been arguing that the other parties should support them simply because they are in government.

What the Greens set out to achieve was an agreement based on compromise. This means neither party truly got what they wanted – but as the saying goes, that is the sign of a good deal. The general public were not privy to the back-room discussions – we cannot speculate whether the SNP would have given more ground or how hard the Greens pushed for it. What we do know is that there was just enough movement each way to allow the budget to pass Stage 1.

[We should also note here that what comes next is equally important. The budget is passed in the form of a Bill through Parliament and it has to get through two more Stages before being agreed. Stage 2 and 3 are where amendments can be lodged and we can be sure that negotiations will continue. The agreement that was reported on Thursday may not be the final deal.]

And yet the vitriol aimed towards the Greens since Thursday has been constant. Seemingly the ultimatum set out by Labour and the Conservatives was: adopt our policies or we’ll force another election. Any other alternative, as explored by the Greens and Lib Dems, would be treachery and ignoring the wishes of their respective members.

This is the folly of the two-party system at UK level. Labour and the Conservatives have rarely had to compromise because of a string of majority governments (thank you, First Past the Post) They lack the understanding that underpins how both Holyrood’s smaller parties work – that to get anywhere with progressing your agenda, the word of the day is Compromise.

Sure, the agreement we got is far from a Green budget. But we managed to secure 100% more than any other opposition party, including £160m more for our cash-starved local authorities. Our MSPs can keep their heads held high – this was a job well done.