Some arrogant woman was letting her dog spoil the Botanic Gardens on Sunday.
The post-Christmas nippers were trying out their new bikes and scooters, couples were enjoying strolls in the frosty air and two old ladies were sprinkling crumbs for the pigeons. In the midst of it came barging some fool in a purple Berghaus jacket who marched her dog to the grassy border of the flower beds and let him joyfully foul the place. When he was done she just off. No attempt to dispose of it, and not even a sheepish, apologetic glance at the people around her.
I'd been happy till I saw this foul, polluting creature, and the dog she had with her. My good mood shrivelled and I was tetchy for hours afterwards. This woman's arrogance had really upset me, and I couldn't work out why. Was it because I wasn't brave enough to confront her? Was it because she left the mess in amongst children? Was it because she chose the flowerbeds rather than a shady corner? Why did it annoy me so much? Couldn't I just be British about it and just tut and walk away? All day it niggled at me.
The answer must be that I can't bear it when society's rules are broken. If we all disregarded the little polite, unspoken rules - although this particular rule is emblazoned on the park gates - then chaos might erupt. Being a nervous person, this terrifies me.
It reminded me of George Costanza's famous line from Seinfeld: 'We're living in a society!'
And that's what I was thinking as I watched The Super-Rich And Us (BBC2). It looked at why Britain has long encouraged billionaires to its shores via the 'nom dom rule', a hangover from the Empire days, which made the country a tax haven for overseas billionaires if they could claim a family link to a foreign country. There were two reasons for the desire to invite the foreign rich: Britain, having lost its empire and fast losing its industry, needed some other way to pull in money and, secondly, the theory was that an influx of super-rich would boost the economy via the 'trickle down effect'.
The programme started by looking at the lifestyle of the super-rich, with their motor shows where a Lambourghini for them costs the same as a house for us. After these strenuous purchases, they might go to a spa to have a special gel infused with flakes of gold smoothed on their faces. And if they felt like another treat, what about a Mont Blanc watch costing 250k? These things were hideous and tacky, being encrusted with so many gems they looked like they'd been dipped in peppered breadcrumbs.
The economic theory was that by 'investing', their wealth will trickle down and enrich us all. What rubbish, as the programme showed. That theory would only work if the super-rich were shopping in the high street and in the local restaurants and pubs and independent shops. But they don't patronise such establishments. When they buy a Mont Blanc watch it benefits that particular company who employ a tiny handful of incredibly specialised watchmakers and jewellers. They're not spending in your local butchers or coffee shop. For such to happen you need a big, prosperous middle class. The super-rich keep their money circulating in their own shallow pool. They won't be setting foot in that cute café you liked with the really fast wi-fi and the lovely caramel lattes, the one which had to close down with four people losing their jobs.
Thatcher popped up, saying making the rich richer will help the little people pull themselves up out of poverty and she used the same discredited 'trickle-down' arguments. But with the rampant tax avoidance Britain became known for in the 60s - and ever since - who is going to give the little people the helping hand they need by providing good schools and hospitals and care for their elderly parents and decent benefits if they fall ill and can't work? You need taxes for that, but the mob at the top won't pay their share. They have their gold gels and private jets and football clubs, and we have people dying in hospital corridors and living off Custard Creams. We're trying to live in a society here!
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