By Richard Lucas, Leader, Scottish Family Party

FORGIVE me for stating the obvious, but, on average, men and women are different. The differences encompass a huge range of physiological characteristics, and there is no reason to think that within these different bodies lurk identical brains. In fact, there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Men and women tend to have different qualities and inclinations, some of which can be measured from the first days of life.

It follows that men and women will tend to make different life decisions. And they do, for example, with regard to the subjects they study, the careers they follow, and the balance they strike between childcare and paid employment.

As a now ex-Google employee discovered last week, stating this truth can be dangerous. With feminist dogma dominant, it is heresy to deviate from the fantasy that men and women would behave in identical manners if it wasn’t for sexism and gender stereotyping. On this bizarre view, every deviation from a perfect 50/50 split between men and women is evidence of unfairness, justifying further government intervention to make recalcitrant reality fit with egalitarian theory. So, the government “to do” list of mythical “problems” to solve includes too many women prioritising child care over paid employment, choosing courses that reflect their interests, and following the careers that they feel most drawn to. Once the same number of men as women stay at home looking after kids, and there is perfect gender symmetry from midwifery to the infantry, victory can be celebrated. In the meantime, more money must be squandered on ever more invasive and unfair means of deterring men and women from just doing what they naturally want to do.

This feminist orthodoxy drives public policy. No party at Holyrood even begins to dissent.

I’ve given one example of Holyrood groupthink here; I could have given many more. When it comes to election time, I have just had to vote for the least bad option, knowing that no party will resist this strident progressivism that is increasingly intolerant of my opinions.

“What do you do when democracy’s all through?” That Proclaimers line has always irritated me. It seems to suggest that when you can’t get your way through the ballot box, you need a plan B. Wrong. When your view is in the minority, you campaign and argue your case, convincing people until you gain democratic influence. However, all the persuading in the world is no use if there is no party that can translate the weight of agreement into political influence at the ballot box. Democracy abhors a vacuum: widely held opinions can only be held at bay for so long before a new party emerges to give a voice to the unrepresented. Such frustrations have led a group of us to launch a new party, the Scottish Family Party.

We aim to confront the cosy Holyrood consensus, interrupting the monochrome virtue-signalling that currently passes for debate in many areas. We need a party that is pro-family, pro-marriage, pro-life, pro-freedom of speech, anti-identity politics, that values the complementary contributions of men and women and recommends schools refocus on education instead of social engineering, radical gender ideology and political moulding.

A few cats among the Holyrood pigeons would do more than spice up the show. Societies progress by seeking the truth. Progress is hindered when some reasonable arguments are absent, thus masking the shortcomings of the prevailing orthodoxy. To those who will loathe our policies, we extend an invitation to civilised debate. May truth prevail.