Ultimatum on flags is seriously silly

Published on Thursday 9 August 2007 00:46

AUGUST used to be known as "the silly season". There was, it was thought, a shortage of "real news", and so newspapers were on the look-out for odd or even improbable stories.

Actually, as the late Frank Johnson used to delight in pointing out every year, August, far from being a dead month, is often one in which momentous events occur, bringing politicians scampering back from their holidays. The outbreak of foot-and-mouth in Surrey offers evidence that he was right.

Nevertheless, the idea of "the silly season" persists, and we have a nice "silly season" story featuring the ultimatum issued to the army by Christine Grahame, MSP.

It must, she says, fly the Saltire higher than the Union flag above Edinburgh Castle's "historic ramparts", or get out. Never mind that the picture of Mrs Grahame laying down the law to the army conjures up the image of the frog which supposed that, by inflating its chest, it could turn into a bull; it's always agreeable to find politicians making asses of themselves, if only to remind us that we are fools if we take them a half - no, a quarter - as seriously as they take themselves.

I've never been a great one for flag-waving myself, but I quite understand that a fair number of people can get very worked up about the subject: hence, these indignant letters to newspapers complaining that this or that flag is being flown upside down.

But I was interested in one of Mrs Grahame's remarks. She said that the current siting of the Saltire below the Union flag suggests a "subservient position" within Britain. Chambers Dictionary gives the meaning of "subservient" as "subject; slavish; obsequious".

Now Britain or, more properly, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, is composed of four nations, each of which has its own flag (though there may be arguments about this in the case of Northern Ireland, or at least as to what its flag is). Then we all share in the Union flag, though, in this respect, the Welsh may feel left out, since it is made up of the flags of St George, St Andrew and St Patrick. It seems to me to be fanciful to interpret this as meaning that any of these flags is "subservient" (subject) to the Union flag, in which they all have a part.

Am I wrong in thinking that Mrs Grahame somehow believes that the Union flag is not every bit as Scottish as it is English or (Northern) Irish? Perhaps I misjudge her. Nevertheless, this is the implication of her complaint.

The army is also British, and, like the Union flag, it has components from the four nations that form the United Kingdom.

Mrs Grahame, if I remember rightly, was one of those who campaigned with admirable vigour against the recent amalgamation of the Scottish infantry regiments to form the Royal Regiment of Scotland, and who objected, in particular, to the loss of the individual identities of the Royal Scots and the King's Own Scottish Borderers. I agreed with her then, principally (in my case) because I thought the amalgamation misguided, likely to inhibit recruiting at a time when we needed more, not fewer, infantry soldiers. My opposition to the measure was, therefore, prompted not only by Scottish pride and sentiment but by what I saw as the requirements of the British Army.

But Mrs Grahame's outburst this week suggests that she resents the fact that the army is, indeed, British, not Scottish, and that it is therefore proper that the flag flying high over army headquarters and barracks is that of the Union. This is in no sense an insult to Scotland, since - I repeat - the Union flag includes the Saltire.

Would Mrs Grahame say that the flying of the Union flag above the flag of St George at an army base in England suggests that the English flag has "a subservient position within Britain"?

Of course, Mrs Grahame, as a member of the SNP, would prefer Scotland was not part of the United Kingdom and that we had our own Scottish armed forces, which did not form part of any "British" army. But this is not how things are. It is, therefore, easy to understand the indignation of the representative of the Royal British Legion Scotland, who said that her comment "reflects a level of disrespect to the British Army as a unity" and that "there is an antipathy there that is offensive". Most serving soldiers and most ex-servicemen will say "hear, hear" to that.

The truth is Mrs Grahame is a "Little Scotlander". In her attitude to the United Kingdom, she resembles those "Little Englanders" who speak of the European Union in terms which suggest the UK is not a member state with a share in forming its policies, and who instead regard the EU as some foreign body to which the UK (or in their view, perhaps, England) is, to use Mrs Grahame's word, "subservient".

The curious thing is, of course, that Mrs Grahame's party is committed to Scotland's membership of the wider (European) union, while being determined to end our membership of the narrower (British) one. Some of us are, however, happy to share in both unions.

But perhaps I take her remarks about the flags too seriously. She is, after all, only a politician, and this is the silly season. Meanwhile, the idea of Mrs Grahame serving notice on the army to quit Edinburgh Castle is good for a laugh. Give her a comedy award?