Skip to main content

GDP or GNH?

One key difference between town and country is shops. As I walk around our area on my daily walks, I pass four retail outlets fairly regularly. If I lived in a town, I would probably have ready access to a few more close by. But it's the nature of these shops that fundamentally differ.

To get to the first, I only have to pass three other houses. That means they are about half a mile away. Its presence is signalled by a sign held in place by two drawing pins on the gatepost which says "Eggs for sale - £1.60 for 12". This emporium is a small shed about 10 feet away.

Down the hill on the outskirts of Cornhill, about four kilometres away, is a rather larger emporium by the roadside. Their range of comestibles on offer is twice the size - eggs and vegetables. A ready trade is quite visible with my rarely passing this hut without seeing someone drop by to make a purchase.

When it's a really long walk, I 've done 12 miles one day; there's a farm shop sign about six kilometres away. Finally, and I've only passed this once because it's quite a long way away, there is Rowater who sell venison, belted galloway beef, ostrich eggs, emu eggs, among other things.

So there's quite a lot goes on in country-retail. But more importantly, there's quite a lot of mutual aid and barter. Mark came in with his spanner to disconnect our empty gas cylinder. I borrowed it again a couple of days later to screw the new one in place. Neighbourliness is on the up all over the country. But it's always been there in the country.

Barter is so informal that half the time people don't know they're doing it. A favour done, a favour remembered. Might be years, but the reward will come eventually.

Probably the last country in the world to move from a barter economy to a monetary one was Bhutan. It's a country about the size of Switzerland with a population of three-quarters of a million. It sits to the east of Nepal. All but about ten square kilometres is above 7,000 feet. Until the 1980s it was virtually impossible to visit except as a non-paying guest of someone who lived there. Essentially, you could not use money to buy anything.

When we visited the country in October 1986, one of only 3,000 people allowed in that year for any purpose, their currency, the Ngultrum, had only been in regular use for a few years.

Money aside, it was a fascinating place. The climate was quite familiar, very like late spring in Scotland. Pleasantly warm with damp morning dews. Apples and tomatoes grew everywhere, much like at home. A few sheep and quite a lot of buffalo provided meat.

The local dress code would also have been familiar to Scots 300 hundred years ago. They wore a one-piece garment which was a woollen sheet wrapped around them and secured with a belt. We would have known it as the fèileadh mòr (big kilt).

Below it, knee-high knitted socks and leather shoes completed the ensemble. Even the pattern of the cloth was not dissimilar to a small tartan design.

What was very different from our Highlands was the national sport.

We were in the capital, Thimpu, then a population of about 15,000, now substantially more, and "on the wander". It was the weekend, and we spotted a bit of a crowd in a park. The noise of laughter, the occasional cheer, the general happiness drew us in.

Mind you; the Bhutanese constitution places great emphasis as an indicator of the success of the country on the measurement of "Gross National Happiness". So happiness was there, and so there should have been.

The crowd might have been about 100 or so and they were gathered around a board about 18 inches wide, three feet high, and which stuck out of the ground. One person was leaning on it. An enthusiastic debate was going on, and various sweeping gestures were being made.

We pressed forward to the front of the crowd to see what the issue was. As we did so, a great cheer went up, even some jumping off the ground in excitement. Finally, we spotted the source of their happiness. An arrow had just hit the board. About four feet away from us. And others were much closer.

Initially, that was a bit puzzling. No archer was visible. Until we turned our head to look along the apparent line of flight of the arrow and realised there were a couple of people standing at the other end of the park, minimum 100 metres away. One held a bow a bit taller than he was, and was shielding his eyes. He was obviously shooting directly into the sun. And we were standing in the crowd closely clustered around his target.

This wasn't as alarming as it might now read. Because the outcome of his sending a flight in our direction so clearly had a benign outcome in terms of personal injury, absence of. And everyone around us was behaving so normally.

It turned out that this was the semi-final of the national inter-team archery championships. There was a target at each end of the field. The teams took it, in turn, to fire from one end to the other. And at "half-time" to swap ends. We were in the presence of Bhutanese sporting royalty.

Clearly, accuracy was the norm. Why else would one stand next to the target that a man 100 metres away, peering into the sun, was shooting at?

Now whether this sport, their national sport, was professional or not, I did not think to ask. I'm sure it predated their currency. But as the only foreigner present, and a clear foot taller than any of the competitors, they thought they should be hospitable and allow me a shot. Surprisingly, nobody left the vicinity of the target.

As I attempted to pull back the bowstring, and uttered failed to move it at all, their laughter rang in my ears. And their decision to stay put was entirely justified. I lacked both the strength and the technique to participate.

So I guess one lesson we take from Bhutan is that money is not the only source of happiness. Certainly, the lack of it can cause misery and worse.

As we build a new norm for the post-pandemic world, we might just think about relationships as the basis of it.

Look for own kind of Gross National Happiness.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Finding the question

Until I looked further into the matter, I had always attributed the phrase, "Two countries divided by a common language", to Winston Churchill. It seems to make sense as he seemed to be referring to his parents, father English, a mother from the United States.

But it seems I shall need to update both my database of quotations and my memory.

Mr Google has taken me to the information that in The Canterville Ghost (1887), Oscar Wilde wrote: "We have really everything in common with America nowadays except, of course, language". He also takes me to the suggestion that George Bernard Shaw said, "England and America are two countries divided by a common language".

The question as to which of Wilde or Shaw originated the phrase, if either did, seems to remain open. I do note that Wilde has a clear claim to 1887 while Shaw's writing career came somewhat later. So I plump for Wilde.

Unless Churchill started using this phrase when he was thirteen years old, he…

Non-taxing times

There aren't many substitutes for lived experience. Book learning is more than useful mainly because it fills one's head with questions as well as knowledge.

Being a member of a numerical majority can breed certain unconscious complacencies. Plural. I had no influence over being born white and male. But carry total responsibility for what I then do.

It's not often I will quote a Labour MP with commendation. But a comment article in one of today's papers by such a person caused me to realise that my reaction to recent events was an example of unconscious bias in my thinking.

The UK Prime Minister has announced his economic response to the pandemic. It can be criticised on so many fronts. And my take on it, as with many commentators, was largely economic. It's tiny compared to the need. It's not new money. It provides little or nothing for Scotland and Wales. All true.

Investing in infrastructure is suggested as a way of building a way out of the economic crisis …

Watch my back

Every family is different, and every child will be a distinct character formed by their DNA and by their experience of life. If many of the contacts I have had over the years are anything to go by, grandparents are a vital part of most families. Yesterday's announcement that young children can hug their non-shielding grandparents will be widely welcomed.

It's not something my personal experience has exposed me to. My siblings and I grew up in a family without grandparents. When my parents married at the ages of 32 and 37 all but one of their parents had already died. As the eldest in the family, I overlapped my maternal grandmother's life by a mere fourteen months and have no recollection of her. Indeed I have no photographs of my mother's parents apart from one which may be of me on my grannie's lap. There's no one left to check with.

My family seem to have bred very late in their lives. My youngest grandparent, Alexander Campbell MacGregor, a Gaelic speaker f…