Scotland In the Balance

As we've noted previously here, September 18th will be quite the day in Scotland.  Not only will the Scots be voting on whether to separate themselves politically and economically from the United Kingdom, but the members of the R&A will vote on sharing their Kümmel with the other half of the species.  

First up, the N.Y. Times' Karen Crouse, who is making a nice name for herself with thoughtful pieces on golf, weighs in with a piece titled "Scots Play Through Political Tumult."  

Two months before the Scottish referendum on independence, people here cannot say where

First Minister Alex Salmond with Paul Lawrie.

the country is headed. Salmond said the latest polls showed that an independent Scotland was the choice of 45 percent of the voters, up from 33 percent two years ago. 

“We have momentum,” said Salmond, who spent the day before his Wednesday round with Mickelson canvassing in Northfield, a neighborhood left dry by Aberdeen’s river of oil and whiskey revenue.

That's roughly consistent with what I hear.  There hasn't yet (at least as far as I know) been a poll showing the votes for independence, but Salmond does seem to have the momentum.   Now I think this is far from Crouse's best effort, as see how she frames the issue:

It is no trivial matter for the Scots who play professional golf. For them, the uncertainties surrounding September’s vote extend beyond what independence might mean for the European Union and NATO, to what it could mean for the British Open, the oldest of the four professional majors in golf, and the Summer Olympics.

Ummm, how about bloody nothing?  I mean there's not even a hint that this will affect golf, except for this trifle:

For Stephen Gallacher and Knox, the top two Scots in the official world golf rankings, the country’s independence would make their Olympic participation much clearer. If the country were to break free from Britain, the split would become official on March 24, 2016, in time for Scotland to field a team for the Rio de Janeiro Games in August. 

“If it happens, give me a shout,” said the 37th-ranked Gallacher, who is behind four Englishmen and a Welshman in the competition for a maximum of two spots available to Britain.

This is a terribly serious issue for Scotland, but for Scottish golf, not so much.... I think we can all agree that the future of Scottish or Olympic Golf will not depend on whether Stephen Gallacher is in Rio.  And there's no effect, real or imagined, to be found as relates to the Open Championship.  In fact, Alex Salmond is a well-known golf nut, so any populist, pitchfork-wielding sentiment he stirs up will be tightly controlled before it affects his ability to tee it up in the Scottish Open Pro-Am.

Of course the vote is profoundly important to the future of Scotland, but attempting to tie it to golf seems to just trivialize the issues.  Scotland has become an increasingly liberal enclave within the UK, and it's fair to question whether that is sustainable without the rather large subsidies involved.  And Salmond no doubt envisions greater integration of an independent Scotland into the rapacious EU bureaucracy, a subject on which I've long believed the Brits have been hopelessly naive.

So I'm fervently hoping for a "No" vote, but it will be a terribly close affair.

The previous day Crouse had penned a more interesting piece on Louise Richardson:

On the last day of finals before the summer break, Louise Richardson, the principal of the University of St. Andrews, sat in her wood-paneled, book-lined corner office and washed down a vegetarian roll with bottled water. Down the road, a long par-5 from the 15th-century campus, a university donor was dining at the Royal and Ancient Golf Club. 

“I should be cultivating that relationship,” Richardson said to a visitor. “I’m not doing my job.” 

Richardson, an Irish-American, is the first female principal, or president, of the university, which was established in 1413 and is considered a leading European center for teaching and research. Her two immediate predecessors received honorary memberships to the Royal and Ancient Golf Club.

 OK, one can readily see where that could be a delicate balancing act.  In her accounting, she tried the soft approach first:

At the time she took office in 2009, Richardson dismissed any discussion of club membership as a nettlesome distraction to more important issues. 

“I, being kind of a professional and a pragmatist, said, ‘Oh, we can work something out; this is silly,’ ” she said. “But little did I know.”

I can well appreciate her frustration, though she seems to have decided to become more strident as the vote approaches.  I have to question whether that's wise, as the R&A's leadership has come around to her way of thinking.  Why not just add encouraging words at this point, at least until the vote.  Instead there's this:

She added: “I should say I have occasionally been invited into the clubhouse. I think once a month on a Sunday, wives that are well-behaved are invited to a lunch, something like that. People have said, ‘Don’t worry, I’ll take you to lunch.’ But I've said, ‘I’m not eating in the clubhouse until women can enter.’ ”

No doubt the "Well-behaved wives" bit sounds quite genuine, but which way does she want the vote to go?  Does she want to win and have all women gain access, or does she want to provide juicy quotes that the entrenched patriarchy can use to rile up on-the fence-members?  And see what you think of this added bit:

“Once or twice, female professors have seen me in situations where I’m surrounded by men

wearing their R&A ties, and they get really upset and offended for me,” Richardson said. 

She opts to make light of the situation, she said, which is not easy when the club members wave their ties in her face.

Hmmmm...do we really think they waived the ties in her face?  I can see the difficulty in her position, but this sounds a bit contrived, no?

 And I'll defer to Mark W. on whether this is true:

The “No Dogs or Women Allowed” shingle that once hung outside the Royal and Ancient clubhouse has been replaced by more encouraging signs. In a March teleconference with reporters, Dawson said the club believed it had “strong support” for admitting women.

I did a Google image search on the phrase, which came back empty (except for some signs disparaging the Irish).  That may be something that's too good to fact check.

If I haven't made it clear, I'm sympathetic to Richardson's position, as well as the frustration she's endured.  But the wheels of change move slowly, and she does come across as overly-strident, at least to me.  But whatever contempt you have for the vestiges of a bygone era, isn't it her obligation to be supportive of Peter Dawson's efforts?  There's a positive case to be made for the inclusion of women, why focus on the antics (even if true) of a few dinosaurs?

So, put me down for a Yes on admitting women members and a No on independence.