Jump to content

New United Kingdom flag proposals


Waffles

Recommended Posts

What's important to me personally is that it's currently very easy to tell if the Union Jack is being flown upside down if you know what you're looking at. Any new design must still allow us to clearly see if it's being flown wrongly, and yet be subtle enough to allow the ignorant flag flyer to make the mistake in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Because we both know that the reason why the X shaped cross on the Union Flag is oriented in the unique way that it is with the red and white portions split up like that.

If you wanted to just make it so that the St. Patrick's cross has a white outline like the St. George's then you are still going have to make alterations because it's going to look comical if you don't. Especially if someone asks why the X shaped cross is colored so strangely and then you have to strange why the flag of a country that is no longer included in the United Kingdom.

Literally no clue what you're trying to say.

BigStuffChamps3_zps00980734.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because we both know that the reason why the X shaped cross on the Union Flag is oriented in the unique way that it is with the red and white portions split up like that.

If you wanted to just make it so that the St. Patrick's cross has a white outline like the St. George's then you are still going have to make alterations because it's going to look comical if you don't. Especially if someone asks why the X shaped cross is colored so strangely and then you have to strange why the flag of a country that is no longer included in the United Kingdom.

Literally no clue what you're trying to say.

Let me explain it this way.

uk.jpg

If you look at the corners of the Union Jack and you will see that the X-shaped cross is a combination of the St. Patrick's cross (to represent Ireland) and the St. Andrew's cross (Scotland) which is a reason why you are able to tell whether or not the flag is held upside down or not.

What I'm trying to say that is IF Scotland were to vote to secede from Great Britain (I don't think it's going to happen based on the polls I have seen) then it's going to be embarrassing to explain why you have a foreign country's flag on your flag when someone asks why the Union Jack is set up the way it is.

It will also be extremely disrespectful, IMO, to Scotland if they were to keep the representation of St. Andrew's cross on the Union Jack.

2nn48xofg0hms8k326cqdmuis.gifUnited States (2016 - Pres)7204.gif144.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, I understand the design and meaning behind the Union Jack. Just got lost in the wording there. I agree with marble21 as well - the flag, at least from a non-Brit's perspective, has begun to symbolize more than the sum of its parts. Scottish independence would completely negate the practicality of the blue field, but for historical reasons, I think it would probably stay the same. And plus, as the supreme authority on these matters :upside:, I haven't seen a proposal yet befitting national flag status.

Somewhat related, but I didn't realize until recently that Wales wasn't a separate constituent country of the UK until 1997. "England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland" always seemed natural to me.

BigStuffChamps3_zps00980734.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

England conquered Wales in 1282 and formally annexed it in its entirely by 1542. That was a case of one country totally dominating and incorporating the other. That's not what happened with Ireland and Scotland, however. The Acts of Union in 1707 (Scotland) and 1800 (Ireland) were formally unions of equal nations (though there were political shenanigans that made Catholic Ireland not so equal). Point being that until 1997 Wales was considered fully part of England by the time the unions with Scotland and Ireland occurred. Then they got elevated to "constitute nation" status when devolution became all the rage.

Anyway there seems to be two lines of thought here. The first is "what if Scotland leaves?" Well over 60% of the English public polled indicated they'd like the flag to change if that happens. Though, to be perfectly honest, it probably won't happen. Polls indicate that Scotland probably won't vote for independence. If it happened I like the idea of just replacing the blue with black. It would give Wales some love in the flag and the white saltire could be interpreted as part of the Cross of St. Patrick.

The second line of thought seems to be "how do we include Wales?" Let's assume Scotland votes to remain part of the UK. Should the UK still consider changing the flag to give Wales some representation? The best option there, in my opinion, is this one...

Union_Flag_of_UK_with_Wales_zps81dfc564.

A classy, subtle addition that doesn't ruin the overall design by forcing black and gold into the equation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right. I just didn't know that Wales wasn't fully elevated to constituent country status untl that late. Kind of makes me wonder (although their population is significantly less) if something similar will happen with Cornwall.

I'm a big fan of that one over any change at all, Cap.

BigStuffChamps3_zps00980734.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that one gives Wales too much of a central presence of the flag, as if it' the capital or something.

I don't get constituant nation vs independant country. Other than the label, Is it the way we think of states / province but with more power over themselves regarding laws and ruling? They all use same currency / central bank, right? Same army? Also when the colonies won independance, was the war fought against England or the UK of England / Scotland?

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that one gives Wales too much of a central presence of the flag, as if it' the capital or something.

I don't get constituant nation vs independant country. Other than the label, Is it the way we think of states / province but with more power over themselves regarding laws and ruling? They all use same currency / central bank, right? Same army? Also when the colonies won independance, was the war fought against England or the UK of England / Scotland?

BBTV, maybe this will help - stop around 2:20 (or don't, as it's still informative, but not pertaining to the question at hand)

Bolded part isn't a terrible way of looking at things - oversimplified, but on the surface, basically. They use the same currency (British pound) and army (British Armed Forces).

When the USA won independence, it was fought against the Kingdom of Great Britain, which included England/Wales and Scotland. No Ireland or Northern Ireland.

BigStuffChamps3_zps00980734.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was interesting. I think I also answered my own questions via Wikipedia (I know... I know.)

Sounds like words like "state", "country", "province", etc., are technically just arbitrary designations, though colloquially they tend to imply a level of independence. Since NI, Scotland, and Wales (to some extent) have their own judicial systems and strong legislatures, colloquially they're thought of as countries (forget "official" designations), though in reality, the federal government of GB controls the military, banking, and could impose its will on each constituent state.

So it's more like a really tight confederacy in that respect. They can call themselves "countries" as a way of preserving their heritage and implying that they were never "conquered", but colloquially, they're basically states with more rights and independence than what states in the US and most other political subdivisions in other nations have.

Internationally, isn't only the UK recognized as a "country"? Or do Scotland, Wales, and NI have embassies and representation at the UN or other official seats?

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was interesting. I think I also answered my own questions via Wikipedia (I know... I know.)

Sounds like words like "state", "country", "province", etc., are technically just arbitrary designations, though colloquially they tend to imply a level of independence. Since NI, Scotland, and Wales (to some extent) have their own judicial systems and strong legislatures, colloquially they're thought of as countries (forget "official" designations), though in reality, the federal government of GB controls the military, banking, and could impose its will on each constituent state.

So it's more like a really tight confederacy in that respect. They can call themselves "countries" as a way of preserving their heritage and implying that they were never "conquered", but colloquially, they're basically states with more rights and independence than what states in the US and most other political subdivisions in other nations have.

That's pretty on-point.

Internationally, isn't only the UK recognized as a "country"? Or do Scotland, Wales, and NI have embassies and representation at the UN or other official seats?

Only the UK has embassies and UN representation. Scotland, England, Wales, and Northern Ireland all have their own soccer (football) federations, but that's because the individual football federations arose locally and not nationally. Further, sub-national teams are not allowed to compete at the Olympics, meaning that a Great Britain team competes instead of the English, Scottish, Welsh, or Northern Irish teams.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scotland, England, Wales, and Northern Ireland all have their own soccer (football) federations, but that's because the individual football federations arose locally and not nationally. Further, sub-national teams are not allowed to compete at the Olympics, meaning that a Great Britain team competes instead of the English, Scottish, Welsh, or Northern Irish teams.

From a sporting point of view, qualification for our teams is complicated by the fact that legally we're all the same nationality - we're all British citizens, you can't have specific English, Scottish or Welsh nationality. Hence we have additional agreements in place between the Home Nations when it comes to who qualifies to play for who.

And that's even before we open the can of worms that's Ireland... ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was interesting. I think I also answered my own questions via Wikipedia (I know... I know.)

Sounds like words like "state", "country", "province", etc., are technically just arbitrary designations, though colloquially they tend to imply a level of independence. Since NI, Scotland, and Wales (to some extent) have their own judicial systems and strong legislatures, colloquially they're thought of as countries (forget "official" designations), though in reality, the federal government of GB controls the military, banking, and could impose its will on each constituent state.

So it's more like a really tight confederacy in that respect. They can call themselves "countries" as a way of preserving their heritage and implying that they were never "conquered", but colloquially, they're basically states with more rights and independence than what states in the US and most other political subdivisions in other nations have.

That's pretty on-point.

Internationally, isn't only the UK recognized as a "country"? Or do Scotland, Wales, and NI have embassies and representation at the UN or other official seats?

Only the UK has embassies and UN representation. Scotland, England, Wales, and Northern Ireland all have their own soccer (football) federations, but that's because the individual football federations arose locally and not nationally. Further, sub-national teams are not allowed to compete at the Olympics, meaning that a Great Britain team competes instead of the English, Scottish, Welsh, or Northern Irish teams.

Seems like if they really wanted to, they could just tell the other countries in the world to recognize each as it's own independent nation, let each get its own passports and whatever else "proves" that they're separate, and the four new countries would just sign a contract or something stating that they're ruled by an organization known as the UK government. So basically the same deal as now, but gets around olympic restrictions, and gives residents of each country more of a sense of pride to be able to call themselves Welsh or Scottish nationality (of course... that could backfire as well.)

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't make me bring Maggie back from the dead to put them in their place. The Union Jack is arguably the best flag out there, and I'll be damned if it's gonna be changed by a bunch of sheep-lovin' kilt-wearin' drunkass Scots! :upside:

But really, Scotland won't choose independence so I wouldn't worry about the Union Jack being lowered anytime soon.

**cue "Rule Britannia"

spacer.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a feeling that if Scotland really does separate from the Union, then some British bureaucrat will just come up with an excuse like "The white is just outlining the St. Patrick's Cross" so they don't have to go through all the trouble of creating a new flag.

Or they'll just ignore it like Australia is for their flag-change movement, but I doubt that happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Scotland does separate, I would take off the St. Andrew's cross, but keep the blue background. It still looks like the Union Jack, it's distinct from the pre 1801 flag, and it still has that nod to history without directly including Scotland. Tell Wales to adopt a solid blue flag if they want to be on the UK flag. Putting them right in the middle makes them seem too important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was interesting. I think I also answered my own questions via Wikipedia (I know... I know.)

Sounds like words like "state", "country", "province", etc., are technically just arbitrary designations, though colloquially they tend to imply a level of independence. Since NI, Scotland, and Wales (to some extent) have their own judicial systems and strong legislatures, colloquially they're thought of as countries (forget "official" designations), though in reality, the federal government of GB controls the military, banking, and could impose its will on each constituent state.

So it's more like a really tight confederacy in that respect. They can call themselves "countries" as a way of preserving their heritage and implying that they were never "conquered", but colloquially, they're basically states with more rights and independence than what states in the US and most other political subdivisions in other nations have.

That's pretty on-point.

Internationally, isn't only the UK recognized as a "country"? Or do Scotland, Wales, and NI have embassies and representation at the UN or other official seats?

Only the UK has embassies and UN representation. Scotland, England, Wales, and Northern Ireland all have their own soccer (football) federations, but that's because the individual football federations arose locally and not nationally. Further, sub-national teams are not allowed to compete at the Olympics, meaning that a Great Britain team competes instead of the English, Scottish, Welsh, or Northern Irish teams.

Yeah, without getting into the political geography definitions of "state" vs "country" vs "province" etc, that's about as accurate as you can get without getting overly confusing, BBTV.

BigStuffChamps3_zps00980734.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.