I NOTE that the Honourable Company of Edinburgh Golfers is holding a second ballot on the membership of women (“Golf club to reveal result of vote on female members”, The Herald, February 17). I am delighted to see ladies on the course, but with the proviso that they play at the rate of six holes rather than 600 words per hour.
Leaving aside the issue of membership and irrespective of the outcome I wholeheartedly applaud the Muirfield requirement for a two-thirds majority to effect a change of constitution. If only David Cameron had had the wit to think along similar lines.
In a Democracy the minority us expected to accept even a fine difference such as a 51/49 split as this is often said, with almost ecclesiastical reverence, to be the "will of the people". Unfortunately, people are not like that. There is something in the human psyche that rails against being forcibly fed something which we do not wish to consume. It would appear that if the narrow majority is in favour of the status quo being maintained this is less objectionable, as they live to fight another day. On the other hand, if the majority is for a fundamental change then all manner of problems arise.
It has been my sad experience throughout life to witness, thankfully for only a small number, of clubs and societies both sporting and social being decimated and even disbanded by members subsequently voting with their feet after a contentious vote. Rather than quote personal examples may I refer readers to the case of the famous Rylstone Women’s Institute Calendar Girls. This group of ladies broke up after a 6/5 vote never to speak again.
Decisions do have to be taken and if the two-thirds majority sets the bar a little on the high side how about Phi, the Golden Ratio roughly equal to 62/38, or even a majority of the total electorate rather than that of those only voting. Whatever system we use, Heaven preserve us from narrow majorities.
Dr G W Cross,
17 Dykesfield Place, Saltcoats.
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