Sir, – Very few of us are surprised nowadays at the double standards of our political leaders.
Our First Ministers have been happy to attend the recent Scottish Opens at Royal Aberdeen and Gullane, both of which are men-only clubs, but have refused to attend either Muirfield or Royal Troon.
What is surprising, however, is that the R&A is choosing to ignore the fact that the five other members clubs in St Andrews, all of which are single sex (three all female and two all male), are the home clubs on the links of St Andrews.
It insists it will not play The Open at a venue that does not admit women as members.
What is acceptable for St Andrews is clearly not acceptable for either Ayrshire or East Lothian: double standards indeed.
What has got lost in all this feeding frenzy is the fact that women’s golf in Scotland has been thriving for years on the very practical and sensible basis wherein many of them enjoy all the same facilities as the men at a fraction of the cost and the last thing they want is either equality of subscriptions or to be token women in what have traditionally been men’s clubs. Just ask the ladies of St Andrews, Troon or Gullane.
It is just possible that the vilified members of Muirfield are more in tune with what the vast majority of women want.
Charles Herd.
Broadgait,
Gullane,
East Lothian.
Golf ballot a distraction
Sir, – After the vote at Muirfield Golf Club, Nicola Sturgeon seemingly acknowledged the right of its members to vote as they please by saying: “Muirfield is a private club and they’re in charge of their own rules and regulations, and I accept that.”
She then went on to amply demonstrate that she does not accept it in any way.
She appears to have taken no account of the fact that there are apparently 25 golf clubs in Scotland which only have women members.
There has been no pressure on them by the First Minister to change their ways.
What happens at Muirfield Golf Club is for its membership alone, and is most certainly none of Ms Sturgeon’s business.
But then again, by throwing her hat into this particular debate, the First Minister has jumped at yet another chance to deflect scrutiny from her government’s lack of ability in dealing with the health service, education, Police Scotland, the EU referendum, the flagging oil industry, and the recently alleged misbehaviour of SNP MPs at Westminster, to name but a few.
How about turning your attention to club Scotland Ms Sturgeon, and actually governing it for a change?
Jim Shaw.
Hill Street,
Dundee.
Conservative Scotland
Sir, – Should we be too critical of the decision of the Honourable Company of Edinburgh Golfers to exclude women from membership?
Democracy has a nasty habit of not giving some people the verdict they are seeking, and it can often prompt a reaction.
That has been shown in the aftermath of the Scottish independence referendum result and might possibly be shown again after the European Union referendum result in June is announced.
Already there is a clamour for the club to have a re-run of the vote.
This might be justifiable if it can be shown there were procedural failures in carrying out the poll, or even if the members were not made aware of the likely reaction of the Royal and Ancient if women were to be excluded.
The rule that a major change can only come into effect if two-thirds of the eligible members support it does give opponents of the decision some leeway.
They are entitled to ask for evidence that the procedure was watertight.
If it can be shown that it is then we may well have to accept that a private club, acting within the law, is entitled to determine who its members should be.
Scotland may be a more socially conservative society than many of us are prepared to admit. In the end that may be the main lesson of the Muirfield debacle.
Bob Taylor.
24 Shiel Court,
Glenrothes.
Flexible democracy
Sir, – The members of Muirfield Golf Club held a vote whether or not to admit women members.
Their decision, democratically taken, was to remain a men-only club.
George Kerevan, SNP MP, told BBC Radio Scotland that he hopes they will see sense and hold another vote.
This is democracy SNP style. We all remember that having lost the independence referendum the SNP very quickly began agitating for another one.
Donald Lewis.
Pine Cottage,
Beech Hill,
Gifford.
Bankers made me smile
Sir, – It was with great trepidation that I approached my three-score years and 10 birthday recently but, after basking in the warmth of the love and affection of those I cherish most, I accepted that it was indeed just a number and I became thankful that I was still hale and hearty and was able to do exactly as I had done at the age of 69.
However, yesterday I received a letter from my bank stating that, as I was now 70, they could no longer avail me of the credit card repayments cover.
The content of the letter did not worry me unduly it was more the font size the letter was typed in.
It was much larger and bolder than usual and at the bottom of the page, in even larger and bolder print, I was offered facilities in the event of sight or hearing problems.
Clearly the bank think that on reaching this fine old age I am not quite the full shilling. Oh, and yes I do remember that weighty, silver coin. Thank you bankers for making me smile.
Barbara Sturrock.
12 Invergowrie Drive,
Dundee.
Reject divisive referendum call
Sir, – The capacity of the SNP for self deception beggars belief.
Douglas Chapman MP (May 19) wrote: “I know she finds it difficult to respect the democratic will of the people of Scotland when the vote does not suit her.”
When I first read that without noting the context, I thought that, at last, here was a member of Nicola Sturgeon’s party actually being prepared to criticise her, for surely that comment applies precisely to Ms Sturgeon’s attitude to the vote in the independence referendum.
However, on looking more closely at Mr Chapman’s letter I noted that it was your columnist Jenny Hjul who was the subject of his criticism.
Whether or not one agrees with Ms Hjul, can the SNP not accept that the people of Scotland, by a respectable majority, voted against independence?
Can they not let the matter rest?
Are they really seeking to impose on us again the appalling divisiveness generated by the referendum campaign?
Alastair L Stewart.
86 Albany Road,
Broughty Ferry.
Let people of Scotland decide
Sir, – I am struck by the comments by Secretary of State for Scotland, that the SNP has no mandate to hold a second independence referendum (May 17).
Given the fact that Mr Mundell is the only Tory MP in Scotland and his party secured less than 15% of the vote at the General Election last year, I am not sure with what authority Mr Mundell has to dictate whether or not we should have a second independence referendum.
If there is a clear demand for a referendum no politician should have the right to stand in the way of the people of Scotland to choose their own future.
The SNP manifesto is clear that “the Scottish Parliament should have the right to hold another referendum if there is clear and sustained evidence that independence has become the preferred option of a majority of the Scottish people – or if there is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014, such as Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will.”
It is also clear that there is more of a pro-independence mandate in this Scottish Parliament than the previous one, with the SNP and the Greens combined securing more than half the popular vote at the recent election.
Alex Orr.
77 Leamington Terrace,
Edinburgh.