ONE extravagantly-trumpeted aspiration of London 2012 was to deliver a strong and tangible legacy for disabled people which would transform society's attitudes and perceptions, and so promote greater equality.

It's all there in a 70-page post-2012 report by HM Government and London Mayor Boris Johnson. On recent evidence, resultant reality is disappointing.

British Cycling's technical director, Shane Sutton, was recently sanctioned amid allegations that he called Paralympic competitors "gimps" and "wobblies", while the Disability Hate Crime Monitoring Network reports increasing incidents. Then last weekend, behind the historic Wimbledon title triumphs of Andy Murray and Helensburgh wheelchair player Gordon Reid, is the unedifying fact that Murray collected £2m for his victory while Reid received £25,000 (doubled because he also won the doubles). A first-round loser in the men's singles was paid £30,000. Other than that there are fewer wheelchair players in the draw, what justification is there for them receiving just 1.25 per cent by comparison?

Paralympic athletes for Rio will be selected a week on Monday. Scotland, already celebrating a record 15 Olympic track and field competitors (we predicted this more than two months ago), may have as many as six in the Para squad, which would be four up on London.

It now seems sure to include visually-impaired sprinter Libby Clegg. She had lost her funding but her disability has been reclassified T11 this week, ranking her second in the world.

There is little evidence of equality when in selecting UK Paralympic and Olympic teams. Para marathon runner Derek Rae is eighth best in the world yet is not guaranteed a Rio place. The 80-strong GB Olympic athletics squad would be tiny if it were restricted to Brits ranked top-eight in the world or better. Indeed, of the 15 Scottish Rio Olympic athletes, only two are top-eight: Laura Muir (1500m, seventh) and Eilidh Doyle (400m hurdles, eighth). Lynsey Sharp (800m, ninth) is the only other among the 15 Scots in the world top 20.

This week, UK Sport announced a Rio target of 48 medals for the Olympic team (expected to number 350), and 121 for their Paralympic counterparts (250). UKS has bankrolled Olympic sport with £275m in the past four years with £75m for Paralympic sport.

Equality UK Sport style? A demand for two and half times as many medals as mainstream athletes on 27 per cent of the resources with only 71 per cent of the competitors.

Attempts at justification would cite Paralympic sport requiring more classifications: a single men's 100m on the Olympic track, for example, but perhaps nine in the Paralympics, all with far smaller fields. Or that depth of mainstream participation is far greater. That does not do it for me.

Tim Hollingsworth, CEO of the British Paralympic Association, is clearly reluctant to bite the hand that feeds, adopting a diplomatic view: "London 2012 marked a new era in the Paralympic movement and for ParalympicsGB." He said there is greater awareness and public support, plus increased financial backing from UKS.

"We are on an exciting journey," he adds, "but there is no doubt also that we are in the foothills still, rather than at the summit. There is still a long way to go to reach greater parity."

Ian Mirfin, event lead for Paralympic athletes at scottishathletics, observed: "Any Para athlete I know would be delighted to win £25,000, but it does not make that prize-money disparity right. It's a decent step forward at Wimbledon, but by comparison it's a drop in the ocean."

The chair of Scottish Disability Sport, Janice Eaglesham, said: "Local authorities are struggling, so it's harder to get entry level opportunities. We do well at performance level but how do you provide opportunities with budget cuts? We always seek to promote development for disabled people and when we start to get parity in media and TV coverage, it will come together."

We were sucked into a BBC debate earlier this week: should Scotland become a nation of tennis players on the back of Andy's success?

It was a truly memorable and historic achievement, and Tennis on the Road, a Judy Murray-inspired initiative, is attempting to drive development. We wish it well, but need to learn the lessons of history.

After the 1980 Olympic 100m success of Allan Wells, the world 10,000m title by Liz McColgan in 1991, major golf titles from Sandy Lyle and Paul Lawrie, a world squash one from Peter Nicol, and serial cycling glory by Sir Chris Hoy, attempts to develop these sports enjoyed limited success at best.

Like Andy, these athletes all succeeded despite, rather than because of, any system, though we must acknowledge Hoy's partial debt to the Lottery. But where's his legacy? Fewer Scots will ride in Rio than when he was involved – only one (Katie Archibald) in the Rio team. And the Emirates track investment has hardly been a factor for her.

Access to sport in school is seen as a key. Yet football is promoted in almost every UK school. England's dismal Euro campaign (and Scotland's failure even to get there) speak volumes for the development success of school soccer.

Golf had the biggest help, a Scottish government-backed programme to give every primary pupil a taste of the game. It's too early to judge – but there is scant evidence yet of a Lyle and Lawrie legacy.

Sport investment must be better channelled to make it more accessible, starting with more PE in schools. Culture change is needed. Elitist programmes in sports with costly equipment and restrictive middle-class clubs don't cut it.

Glasgow tennis couch Jordan Gray remarked that he'd never seen lines on the new generation of artificial surfaces used in schools. Yet I was assured yesterday by experts that there's no reason why it can't be done.

So agencies like sportscotland need to address this, think smarter, make sport more accessible, encourage more flexible use of pitches, and promote school PE more aggressively. And better use their sporting heroes.

In that regard we note Rory McIlroy's disappointing Rio withdrawal citing the Zika virus – transparently exposed as a miserable excuse by later disparaging comments about the Olympics and owing nothing to the development of the sport which made him a millionaire. With 20 of the world's leading players joining him, never has greater or more contemptuous insult been heaped on the Olympic movement by any group of sportsmen. This may soon trigger golf's removal from the Games programme.

Not one GB Paralympic athlete has rejected selection because of Zika.