MANY years ago, when studying for a Social Science degree, one of the first essays I had to tackle, was on the issue of insiders and outsiders in the political system.
Insiders were the professional politicians, lobbyists and special interest groups, who influence our decision making.
Outsiders were the rest of us, who take little part in political decision-making, merely observing from the sidelines.
I was reminded of this again as I read Mark Smith’s piece on the Gender Recognition Act (GRA) in The Herald earlier this week (‘Appeasement of transphobes is putting our progress at risk’, June 24)
I have no axe to grind regarding trans or wider LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) issues. But I do have an issue in regard to the use of statistics, based on consultations, which are open to, but rarely seen by the general public, and are used to influence policy and law making.
In this case, the consultation process received around 15,000 responses, of whom 60 per cent supported a self-declaratory system for legal gender recognition..
Only 49 per cent of the responses came from groups and individuals based in Scotland, meaning that around 7,500 responses came from people likely to be directly affected by the change to the law.
In other words: the respondents did not look like an average cross-section of the people of Scotland.
They looked more like well-organised individuals and organisations, used to operating inside the political system.
This, perhaps, doesn’t seem like a big issue. But, when one sees how results can be extrapolated, to infer that the population supports a particular position, that’s where I have a problem.
Scientifically conducted polls use carefully selected samples of the populace, which allow results to be extrapolated to infer trends across the wider population.
The results of the open consultation referred to in Mark Smith’s article simply cannot be extrapolated in the same way.
It strikes me that public consultations are pointless if the results are simply used as a vehicle for special interest groups to have their views prominently displayed to the Government.
They need to be much more rigorous and wide-ranging, given the likelihood that the same vested interests will always respond to them, with views they already strongly hold.
The consultation process would be more effective if it actually established whether such views reflect those of the wider population.
JS Brennan,
Pride marches are crucial
WITH all the different cities in the UK having LGBT Pride marches and events, it is beyond belief that there are some people calling for a “Straight Pride”. These people already have that – every day of their lives.
Hate crimes against LGBT people in the UK have more than doubled in the last five years, from verbal abuse, to physical abuse and even murder; not to mention the bullying and sometimes suicides of young LGBT people in schools.
In other parts of the world, there are reports of ‘concentration camps’ for gay people in Chechnya, gay people being thrown from the top of buildings in Syria, homophobia in African states and the rise of the far-right in places like France and Germany.
It is obvious that things can change in an instant. Let’s not kid ourselves that it couldn’t happen here. We can never be complacent.
Pride is still a very relevant event. It was born because of the discrimination, violence and inequality we have had to endure for decades and also to bring to attention the shocking plight of the gay communities around the world where they are treated like a disease to be eradicated.
As long as there is still homophobia in whatever form, we must never be afraid to speak out and be proud of who we are.
Ian Hughes, Glasgow
I DON’’T often agree with your columnist Mark Smith but I thought his most recent article was a brave piece of journalism on a sensitive subject.
Alan Hamilton, Glasgow
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 hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel