AS we approach the 100th anniversary of the First World War’s Armistice, the usual debate will break out about poppy-wearing. Seen against the mass slaughter, it can seem a trivial issue but it has nonetheless, like everything else today, become increasingly polarised. Pacifists see the red poppy as too tied up with the military and, to their minds, with the very same people that foment and glorify conflict, even if many soldiers would dispute that claim. At the same time, not all peace-loving people wear white, seeing it as divisive.

Others still, uncomfortable with the culture of compulsion and the vacuous virtue-signalling on television, will see no reason to make any personal display, while respecting remembrance in their own meaningful way. It’s a matter of choice and we would respect, for example, Scottish Greens co-convenor Patrick Harvie’s decision to wear the white poppy.

We applaud, too, his call for an end to hostilities between the various factions, and we also think it right to remember that, in recent times, victims of war have overwhelmingly been civilians.

More contentious perhaps is Mr Harvie’s call for the Royal British Legion and the Scottish Government to sever relationships with arms manufacturers. The appeal has some merit, though opponents might argue that, sadly, weapons are needed to keep the peace.

The world is a complicated place. So is Scotland. The Greens’ claim earlier this year that the Scottish Government had funded a company involved in the arms trade was countered by the administration pointing out that the money was specifically directed at diversifying away from arms manufacture.

Had the Greens shot themselves in the foot? Perhaps. But there remains a case for holding the administration to account in its dealings with such firms. That’s what democracy is about: a world in which we’re free to argue and make our points – preferably with respect. It’s what so many gave their lives for.