THE RICH, they say, are always with us.
And they're a right shower an' all. New research from the University of California reveals the poor are more compassionate than the rich. There's a surprise, you say cynically.
But the notable factor in the study was that the rich were like another species. Individuals in the upper middle and upper classes were unable to detect and respond to other people's distress. Many people these days are eager to defend the rich, and the researchers were no exception, hurriedly denying that those with brass were cold-hearted. They just don't recognise suffering because they aren't familiar with it. I see.
The rich were also more "self-focused" and did better in an individualist, competitive environment. The poor, by contrast, had a culture of compassion and co-operation, born of threats to their wellbeing — usually from the rich or, more likely, the censorious middle classes. These are another right shower. Forever complaining about strikers and those on benefits, they make much of their money from doing precisely nothing. Or owning shares, as it's called.
In other words, like the entire southern English economy, their income is partly based on usury but, having successfully built up an image of themselves as decent, prudent, modest citizens in cardigans, they escape criticism, even if any fair and free society would imprison them. The charge? Making money without earning it.
However, at this point in the narrative, I feel constrained to make the following announcement: we're all the offspring of Mr Jock Tamson. True, the first thing the rich will ask is: do you mean the Perthshire Tamsons or the Milngavie branch? But we mustn't speak of people as if they were another species.
It makes me uncomfortable, even if the rich go out of their way to make it seem so in the first place, differentiating themselves from the commonality by spelling their names differently — your flippin' Ffions and whatnot — saying "supper" (and pronouncing it "suppah") instead of "tea", or declaring at the dinner table, "Please excuse me, for I must micturate urgently", rather than just getting up and announcing, "I'm dying for a slash".
Once, I watched a television documentary about horsey people in Surrey. It frightened me. I'd seen less alien species on Star Trek. You also see fairly exotic beings around Embra's Morningside Road, which is just an ordinary tenemented street, despite the area's reputation. However, it attracts the 4x4 brigade from nearby affluent suburbs, and you can always tell these. They don't signal, they open their car doors into traffic, have no manners, and wear horrible, humanity-hating expressions on their faces.
Biggest clue of all is the uniform they wear to distinguish themselves from the mob: Barbour jackets, hideous green padded waistcoats, irritatingly unusual wellies. Of course, one ought not to generalise. But that only makes it more fun.
Finding the rich vaguely deplorable doesn't mean one must love the poor. I've lived among the latter, and found them a little noisy. They shouldn't be sold audio equipment if they haven't got O-Grades.
The above study also says that, where the rich are hawkish, the poor might be mawkish. But I repeat: we're all the same underneath. That repeated, when I write articles like this, I wonder what'll happen when I become rich after writing a best-selling novel. Would I call for myself to be imprisoned? I think not. For I'd remain the same old Rab. I'd still dine at Greggs, would mumble and remain self-conscious. I wouldn't change my vote or wear a Barbour jacket.
However, I'd probably keep the heating on all day, instead of sitting in front of my computer wearing a hat and coat. I'd change my 10-year-old Ford Focus for a racier model. And, inevitably, I'd start to look smug from not having to worry about penury.
I'd change the spelling of my name to Rrab and employ a wee man to go about whispering reminders in my ear: "You are not a god." Me: "Aye ah am." Wee M: "Ye're no." Me: "Ah'm ur. And you're fired!" And you know what? I wouldn't feel a thing.
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