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.
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 here