Now and then I find myself feeling sorry for politicians.
After a good night's sleep the mood usually passes, but not in this case. Last Saturday, Alex Salmond made one of the most attractive offers womankind has heard on these isles since the day we won the vote. In an independent Scotland, he told his party conference, support for childcare costs could rise to levels found in progressive countries such as Iceland, Germany and Finland. Where at present the government meets around 25% of these bills, in the new Scotland this would rise closer to the 75-85% enjoyed by these more enlightened societies.
Such a declaration should have been cue for celebration, or at least conversation. But because many of us suspect every political stance of being an act of calculation and manipulation (and who can blame us?) this revolutionary proposal, what Salmond called a "transformational shift", has led to accusations that the SNP is shamelessly trying to entice women – who up to now have shown every indication of refusing the independence fence – to bite the honeyed carrot, take the leap and vote yes.
One can see why Salmond might be feeling desperate. According to the most recent poll, men are twice as likely to vote for independence as women. This, it has been said, is the product of that rambunctious chemical cocktail known as testosterone. But putting aside hormonal men, what self-respecting woman would like to think biochemistry influenced her decision at the ballot? The women who championed the cause of Scottish independence in its early years – and those in its front line today – would turn puce at the very thought.
I am surprised, though, that prior to Salmond's offer, only about one-quarter of women favoured independence. There seems to be a perception that the SNP's aspirations are inimical to women's best interests, that those in charge of the march to independence are gung-ho. Tell that, I suggest, to Wendy Wood, one of the founders of the National Party of Scotland in the 1920s, or to glamorous Winnie Ewing, whose by-election victory at Hamilton in 1967 was crucial for the SNP's fortunes. Nor were they exceptions. Since their day there have been almost as many inspirational women as men in the ranks of the SNP and the pro-independence lobby, the most notable of whom today are Margo MacDonald and Nicola Sturgeon.
Quite why so few women are drawn to the notion of a separate Scotland is puzzling, given the calibre of these politicians. Matters are perhaps not helped that when Sturgeon began to make a name for herself as an astute and indomitable political figure, she was often referred to as a nippy sweetie. Had she been a man, her sharp tongue, quick mind and refusal to be patronised would have inspired respect. Though Sturgeon's manner has mellowed with time, what she was, and remains, is feisty. In this age, and the one that may soon be upon us, Scotland needs feisty women as never before. This is not a time to be a shrinking violet. That fact, indeed, is implicit in Salmond's child-care initiative.
I am still unsure how to vote come autumn 2014. Slashing childcare fees will not change my income, but it would radically affect my hopes for a better society, and a fairer place for women, whether they are mothers or not.
From almost every angle I'd say this is a tantalising idea, because if childcare becomes affordable, the impact on families – and the entire country – would be incalculable. At last, it will be possible for women to fulfil their career potential, should they so desire. Years spent in education and the workplace will no longer be lost, nor relationships ruined because of resentment or hardship. Almost as vital is the signal such a move gives about the importance of women in our culture, economically, socially and politically.
Salmond's statement may, of course, be pure politicking, the result of necessity rather than conviction, though I prefer to think otherwise. Whatever the truth, it is very welcome affirmation that in the years ahead women could be seen as every bit as valuable and precious a natural resource as oil. And unlike that, it's unlikely we'll ever run out.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article