Scotland, we are informed, is the easiest place in these islands to gain planning approval for golfing projects. This is explained by the fact that the Royal and Ancient game is part of the fabric of Scottish society, with the result that planners, for the most part, understand the game.

Against that background, I was intrigued to learn what the likely reaction of planners would be, if the Old Course at St Andrews were to be built today. According to leading golf-course architect Donald Steel, even these most understanding of people - Scottish planners, that is - would probably be forced to decide: "You can start on the second and finish at the 16th."

"I think modern planners would take a very dim view of the Old Course's first, 17th and 18th holes," claims Steel. "For a start, they normally insist upon a buffer zone of roughly 50 yards between the middle of the fairway, particularly where the boundary is lined by a road and, in St Andrews's case, by housing as well, along the 18th.

"So, if they stuck to their guns, you can imagine what they would do to the 18th and also the first, which is lined by a footpath. And I know of no other public thoroughfares - Granny Clark's Wynd - that are crossed by two holes.

"The planners might even find fault with the Swilcan Burn and insist on buffer zones on either side. (In this context, their case would have been strengthened considerably by the unfortunate scenes of last Sunday).

"And as for the 17th, I can't think of a situation similar to that of the Old Course Hotel, though I accept it is a relatively modern introduction, having taken over from the old coalsheds." But Steel, an eminently sane architect, whose work in this country includes the third course at Killarney and an upgrading of the championship course at Royal Co Down, added: "You could point to the fact that it has stood the test of time extremely well."

This is a perfectly reasonable point, given that the Old Course has been there for more than 500 years. In the event, he concluded: "It is a law unto itself and there is a danger of the safety debate being overplayed. In fact, you could argue one of my pet theories that the more dangerous a course, the safer it is."

I wonder what sort of reaction some of the beleaguered Dublin-based courses would receive, if they were to stake their future on that last point? Interesting notion.