Most people who work in the public sector believe in the public good.
They have a sense that the jobs they do, whether they're looking after cancer patients, recycling waste or teaching students, serve a social purpose, and are necessary.
Most of them, for most of their lives, probably don't think a great deal about their pensions, though they may worry whether they'll have enough to live comfortably when they retire. Not many enquire what happens to their contributions.
But now maybe they should. The Sunday Herald reveals today that more than £1.4 billion of Scotland's public-sector pensions are being invested in fossil fuels, tobacco and weapons.
Those who battle pollution - such as the Scottish Environment Protection Agency - are funding polluters. Those who care for cancer sufferers are supporting cigarette sales. And those who fight crime are helping to spread lethal weapons around the world.
By any measure this does not make sense, and will offend many pension-holders. The response of the pension fund managers is predictable. They have a "fiduciary duty", they say, to put money into the businesses that will bring the best rate of return for staff and the public purse.
They insist that they are being responsible, even if significant chunks of their money are funding companies that deal out death, destruction and pollution as if they were confetti.
Surely it's time the fund managers were challenged. As we report, there are financial experts who show that ethical investments can match, and even outperform unethical investments.
And there are some significant investors, like the Church of Scotland and the University of Edinburgh, that have shunned tobacco and arms without apparently harming their income.
It is not true to argue that the only way to maintain the value of pensions is to invest them in ethically questionable industries. Public-sector employees should not hesitate to demand changes in the way their funds are managed.
At the very least staff should all be given the option to stop funding tobacco, arms and pollution, and to choose ethical investment instead.
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 hereComments are closed on this article