IT was the Italian diplomat Count Galeazzo Ciano who first observed that victory has a hundred fathers and defeat is an orphan. This aphorism can be recalibrated in discussing the difference between affluence and inequality. Those who share in the fruits of affluence will attribute it to several virtues such as industry; ingenuity; cleverness and invention. Rarely will they cite good luck; preferential treatment; discrimination and plain old cheating. On the other hand, inequality is always an orphan.
It’s not that we’re ignorant of the causes of inequality (often they are the same as those that lead to great wealth), it’s just that no one will ever step forward and claim responsibility for it.
No political or religious leader; no industrial magnate or army commander has ever admitted that inequality came about largely as a direct result of their actions. Curiously, they all know of its existence and will all purport to be concerned by it and even to undertake studies and hold conferences to address it. None though will say: “I caused that.”
A report to be published tomorrow by the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) will show that inequality is rife throughout the UK. We already know that it exists in health, education and in the distribution of wealth – there are dozens of reports and think tanks which annually attest to these.
The EHRC report though highlights gender inequality. It states that women remain less likely to have a job than men and that those who do work earn less. Their careers, according to the report, will be hindered by sexual harassment, pregnancy discrimination and limited career development.
An assortment of reasons are used to justify current and historic gender inequalities in the workplace. They range from the preference of some women for part-time work owing to the responsibilities of motherhood to a lack of continuity of employment when promotions are being handed out. None of these bear much scrutiny. A truly enlightened society would offer identical child care and post-natal allowances for all mothers and fathers, as happens in Norway.
I recall one of my former bosses asking a very talented female journalist who had applied for promotion if she intended to get pregnant any time soon. These days, that question would be actionable. Only the very naive though would believe that just because it can’t be asked doesn’t mean it doesn’t figure in the decision-making process.
Several years ago some high-profile women such as Germaine Greer argued in defence of all-male golf clubs, saying that these places were merely havens where men could indulge a reasonable desire to be among male company. I could see what she was getting at but it also kind of missed the point of exclusively male clubs and societies. These are the places where jobs and promotions; contracts and investment opportunities are decided. They play host to secret and off-the-books final interviews. They are part of a male power network which once also included after-work drinking sessions and weekend-long golfing trips. I don’t know a woman who has ever been on ‘a weekend golfing trip’.
Nor has there ever been an adequate explanation for the scarcity of women in Britain’s company boardrooms.
Yet, I’ll bet that if more of them had been employed at the sharp end of the UK banking industry a decade ago that it wouldn’t have been engulfed by the financial apocalypse of 2008.
In my own newspaper industry I know of no Scottish female journalist who has ever been appointed editor or editor-in-chief of a national Scottish newspaper title. I have worked with literally dozens of gifted and committed women journalists at all levels in this trade yet somehow none have been deemed sufficiently able or experienced to be given the whole train-set.
The women marching in Glasgow yesterday will, I hope, eventually get the back pay that is owed to them. Unfortunately, too many men will consider the matter then to be closed.
A legally-enforced system of workplace quotas at all levels would help combat gender inequality in the workplace. So too would a public sector procurement system which penalised firms for an absence of women in the boardroom and unequal pay structures.
Don't expect the UK to alter its relationship with the Saudis
Jamal Khashoggi was killed at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul
IT’S been instructive watching the UK political establishment getting into contortions over its response to the brutal slaying of the journalist, Jamal Khashoggi within the confines of Turkey’s Saudi embassy.
The Saudi’s official position seems to be something between “a surgical saw hanging on the wall of the interview room was dislodged by falling masonry and embedded itself in Mr Khashoggi’s leg” to “Mr Khashoggi became unreasonable when confronted by nine assailants with masks going about their lawful business and insisted on head-butting an axe”.
Let’s re-visit this in a year’s time. If during this period a single sale to Saudi Arabia for a British rocket launcher or surface-to-air missile has been cancelled I’ll be astounded. And don’t expect to see the cancellation of Saudi orders for £20 million London penthouses or an end to the stud fees paid by their princes at Britain’s most hallowed horse-racing stables. Nor will a voice be raised about the Saudi government’s official pastime of killing women who didn’t resist sufficiently while being raped or carpet bombing civilians in Yemen.
We’re dealing with a gangster state here which routinely bribes western governments with oil and hospitality to look the other way.
The Tory anger over independence preparation is laughable
Maurice Golden hit out at the secret Scottish Government papers about another independence referendum
I CAN’T have been alone in having a giggle at the latest outbreak of mad Tory disease among Ruth Davidson’s Scottish hillbilly group at Holyrood.
The chaps in blue (and they are mainly chaps) have become figures of fun in both the Scottish Parliament and even down at Westminster. I’m told that one of the main tasks of the Tory Westminster whips is to prevent any of them from opening their mouths about anything at all.
Their latest jape is to demand to see some ‘secret’ documents drawn up by the Scottish Government over the last two years which relate to – wait for it – a second referendum on independence.
Their chief whip at Holyrood, Maurice Golden had this to say: “These secret briefings prove that the prospect of a second independence referendum is never off the SNP’s table.”
In other news: Pope accused of being obsessed with heaven; Mexicans like tortillas; bears partial to al fresco toilet arrangements.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here