Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticCat
Senatus Populusque Romanus—The Senate and People of Rome.
Ask Canada why they did it 50 years ago.
As for New Zealanders, three main reasons: The current flag looks too colonial, it looks too much like the flags of too many other Commonwealth countries, especially Australia, and it's too British to represent such a diverse country.
The real question is what happens to the Union flag if Scotland votes to leave the Union.
|
SPQR - Mark one up for you! You nailed it (although I expected you would)!
Canada - HM is also Queen of Canada. Last demographic breakdown of Canada that I saw showed it to be not all that diverse. Native Canadians are far fewer than Native Americans and the two largest groups are British and French with several other relatively tiny minority groups. I think a key point is that HM is not the Queen of England here, she is Queen of Canada.
Australia - I grant you that Australia is far more diverse than I realized until about five years ago. Seems that since WWII Australia has really developed a diverse population. Still, HM is Queen of Australia directly. Couple of years back they held a plebecite and a strong majority of Australians voted to retain the Monarchy with HM as Queen.
New Zeeland - Again, the demographic breakdown is far less diverse than Australia. Native Maoris are few in number and Brits are the dominant majority. HM is Queen of New Zeeland directly as well.
My take is that if Her Britannic Majesty is Queen then the Union portion of the flag ought to be retained. Do whatever with the rest of the flag but keep the union portion intact.
As to Scotland, they would probably just remove the Cross of St Andrew and revert to the flag in use before the Act of Union. Incidentally, HM is Queen of Scotland although in Scotland she is Elizabeth I not Elizabeth II. Elizabeth I of England was never Queen of Scotland.
Over to you.