For once I have a serious opinion on flags.
The Herald has decided there's no serious news today, so we'll have a debate about flags. Why now? Why not?
I have said previously that I don't think much of our current flag. But I also understand the views of those who want to keep it. Many who fought in World War Two have a fond attachment to it, and the current flag is a symbol that our soldiers took into battle. In this debate we need to remember the fact that men fought and died under our current flag.
So it seems to me that, while it probably is time we started talking about finding a symbol that reflects our true identity as a nation, any change to the flag should wait. Our World War two veterans are ageing, and in ten years there will be few of them remaining.
And any debate over our flag should also include a wider discussion about our national status. The flag represents a powerful tie to Britain. If we are to ditch the Union Jack, maybe we should also ditch the Queen and find our own head of state.
I'm in favour of our becoming a republic and finding our own flag, but not everyone is. There has to be debate and some degree of consensus on these issues (at very least a majority of the populace in favour), and we should not move too fast. I suspect it may be at least ten years before we see any real movement on either issue.