Scottish Eyes Are Smiling

Theresa and I are home safely, more than a bit tired from the travel and time change, but I'm back behind the big desk at Unplayable Lies World Headquarters.  Theresa took to calling the latter stages of our trip Golf Prison, but when a soul such as mine own wakes up in Ireland a day off seems a sacrilege, especially with winter staring us in the face.

So, anything new in Scotland?  Well perhaps, so let's first deal with story about which I have the least to say, the independence vote.  I'm sure by now you've heard the news:

Voters in Scotland decisively rejected independence from the United Kingdom in a

referendum that had threatened to break up the 307-year union, but also appeared to open the way for a looser, more federal Britain. 

With results tallied from all 32 voting districts, the “no” campaign won 55.3 percent of the vote while the pro-independence side won 44.7 percent. The margin was greater than forecast by virtually all pre-election polls.

I'm relieved by the result and doubly so by the substantial margin of the outcome.  The polling had been razor thin stuff leading up to the vote, but you didn't need to be Nate Silver to understand that the pollsters would be hard-pressed to adjust their raw numbers for a turnout model.  

I am intellectually open to Scotland as an independent country, but not under the guidance of a rabble-rouser such as First Minister Alex Salmond.  The untold story here is the extent to which Scotland has evolved into a liberal bastion with a hopelessly unsustainable welfare system.  In the absence of the hard work required to sell the Scots, historically a flinty and self-sufficient people, on the hard truths of independence, better by far to retain their claim on the U.K. treasury.

The other untold story is the extent to which those leading the Yes faction were planned to cede their new-found sovereignty to Brussels and open their borders to large-scale immigration.  We should have no illusions that the Scots are out of the woods yet, as David Cameron seems incapable of understanding the dangers that lie on this path, and as of now he's ceded the British sovereignty issue to Nigel Farage and UKIP, the likely outcome of which will be to hand the next election to Labour.  But one can hope the alarm bells are ringing loudly at No. 10 and that someone will remind the P.M. of why Britain was once a great power.

Now, closer to home, comes the overwhelming vote of the R & A to allow women members:

At its annual meeting Thursday, the stodgy, 260-year-old Royal & Ancient Golf Club of St. Andrews announced that its 2,400 members, all men, have passed a proposal to allow women members. 

“More than three quarters of the club’s global membership took part in the ballot, with a decisive 85% voting for women to become members,” club secretary Peter Dawson said in a statement. “This vote has immediate effect and I can confirm that the Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St Andrews is now a mixed-membership club.”

That margin is quite the shocker, given that the average age of an R&A member is dead for three years (with apologies to Tom Lehrer).  

Ryan Herrington has a good post on the current state of play that I'll use to make a couple of points:

How big a factor was Dawson in this?

The timing of the membership vote and Dawson's retirement, which he announced last April and goes into effect in September 2015, are hardly coincidental. Having overseen the R&A for 16 years, Dawson had guided the organization toward becoming a more progressive operation, helping with the creation in 2004 of "the R&A" as a separate entity from the Royal & Ancient Golf Club to oversee the administrative operation of the Open Championship. Dawson (below) had seen the membership issue as the final significant hurdle in his tenure, hoping to have it be a part of his legacy as well as to have the matter put to rest when his successor takes over.

There's little doubt that Dawson deserves credit for seeing this through, though Ryan seems to have had a wee nip of the Kool-Aid here.  I can't see that 2004 reorganization as anything other than an attempt to protect the members club from this issue.  Call it a success or failure as you will, but how else to explain it?  And in fact Herrington recognized the causal agent three 'graphs above:

Why now?

For several years external pressure on the golf's governing body outside the United States and Mexico to allow women members had grown more vocal. In turn it moved beyond merely disappointment over the unseemliness of not allowing women into the Royal and Ancient clubhouse to larger, financial implications. In January, Gil Morgan, global head of sponsorship and events for HSBC, one of the biggest corporate sponsors of the Open Championship, stated that his company was "very uneasy" with the Royal and Ancient's all-male membership policy.

The sponsors are always the weakest link in these things, as it is they who will bear the repercussions.  Remember when Martha Burke was demonstrating about Augusta National's membership policies, the Masters was broadcast for a couple of years without commercials.

And at the risk of pulling a muscle by patting myself on the back, I'll just refer you to this post from the infancy of the blog, wherein I made the point that Dawson must be a PR savant for his success in keeping the world focused on the membership policies of the Open Championship host clubs, notably Muirfield, Troon and Royal St,. Georges.

Back to Herrington:

Who might be among the first female members?
Various names have been speculated, including Condoleezza Rice, Annika Sorenstam,

Carol Semple Thompson and Lady Angela Bonallack (wife of former R&A secretary Sir Michael Bonallack). Louise Richardson, the principal of the University of St. Andrews, also would seem a logical choice to be among the first to join. The last two principals (or presidents) at the school has been extended honorary membership into the Royal and Ancient, and Richardson (shown) has publicly criticized the club for not having female members.

"The first women members," Dawson previously said, "are likely to have made a significant contribution to the development of our sport."

 I'm hard-pressed to identify Condi's significant contribution to golf, but of course she's the ultimate "twofer," which might provide a bit of insurance for the inevitable next membership issue.  I'm also curious as to whether Laura Davies, excuse me, Dame Laura Davies is on anybody's list.  Yanno, if you're contribution is important enough for the Queen....

We covered the Louise Richardson issue previously, in which she whined about being denied the just fruits of her academic post.  It was, to my mind, one of those self-destructive outbursts which seemingly provoke others to act in the manner contrary to the speaker's interests.  One can easily understand her frustration at being treated differently than her male predecessors, but why vent after the matter is on the ballot?  Why wouldn't you congratulate them for addressing the disparity and encourage them to vote yes on the matter?

Perhaps equally important, in venting her bile she unwittingly gave certain members an issue to rally around, as she announced her intention to take University donors the the, gasp, Big Room.  It is against club bylaws to conduct business in the club, and while one suspects this happens on a wink-and-nod basis, she's not helping herself any.

One further issue as relates to Ms. Richardson relates to membership admissions policy, which heretofore has been subject to the blackball.  If any individual member objected to a prospective new member that file would go missing.... None of the extensive coverage of this matter indicates whether members will retain this privilege, which would of course leave the two hundred plus No voters with a heckler's veto.  And I do love the concept of a blackball of a woman, as it's a daily double of racism and misogyny...you know, two mints in one!

Shackelford aggregates the reactions in this post, and not surprisingly there's nary a discouraging word to be found.  I did like his excerpt from Kevin Garside's commentary in The Independant:

An unsustainable division holds at three clubs on the Open Championship rota. No positive developments are expected immediately in the anachronistic dens of misogyny at Muirfield, Royal St George’s and Royal Troon, but all three will come under increasing pressure to leave the 19th Century behind now.

Anachronistic dens of misogyny, Kevin?  Geez, tell us what you really think....   Yanno, I love to provoke as much as the next guy, but doesn't he realize the forces of light are, you know, winning?  Mark your calendar for July 2016 when the Open Championship next returns to an ADM, in this case Royal Troon, for the next skirmish in this battle.  Obviously Dawson could not keep a straight face with the powers-that-be at these clubs when he had failed to address the issue at his own club, the R & A.  Now they're fair game, he's got more leverage with the addition of Royal Portrush as an alternative venue and HSBC and other sponsors will remain "uncomfortable" until all three venues come to heel or are removed from the rota.

In other words Kevin and Louise, have the good sense to shut up and take yes for an answer.