The Student Room Group

Uk flag without scotland proposal

Scroll to see replies

Reply 60
Original post by Algorithm69


You've still got the white X-shaped cross of st andrew, just without the blue. You can't take away only half the scottish flag.
Reply 61
Original post by Pen Island
Beautiful :tongue:

On a serious note, I don't see the point in changing it. Too much hassle and it's a part of our history/culture etc. so it just seems silly to bother.


We had this for 200 years but changed it when Ireland joined - so why shouldnt we change it if Scotland leave?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/17/Union_flag_1606_%28Kings_Colors%29.svg
Reply 62
Original post by talon1579
You've still got the white X-shaped cross of st andrew, just without the blue. You can't take away only half the scottish flag.


you could say the white X comes from the st patricks flag like the white + comes from the english flag, but it'd make sense make the red saltire bits thicker

personally I think just leave it the way it is, it looks really nice and has lasted for a long time. I don't really look at the union flag and see a conglomeration of other flags, I just see a single flag in its own right, which is why I've never really been bothered about wales not being on it. The coat of arms on the other hand, it doesn't make sense not having wales on that in the place of one of the extra english/scottish arms
Original post by Gales


How about this?


I quite like that and I'm Scottish. It looks pretty cool!
Anywho, I doubt we're going to get independence anytime soon so I think we'll be ok for flag designs for the time being :smile:
Reply 64
Original post by Psyk
I guess there is a reason, but I don't think that reason is the fact that Wales was at one point a principality (well technically only part of it was). Wales is not "officially" a principality anymore, it hasn't been for a long time. Officially Wales is Wales, I don't think it has any official designation other than being Wales.


The reason lies in the way they were added.

Wales was slowly conquered, then ruled half by the king as a personal fief but with Welsh law, and the other half as a series of small lordships. In the 16th century it got fully incorporated into England to become "England and Wales" (one country, not two). As there was never a unified country of Wales, it didn't have a flag so didn't get included. The modern idea of Wales as a country came as a consequence of a language that never died out and the 19th century when nationalism took off.

Scotland was a union of England and Scotland, so had 2 flags to combine.

Ireland, although initially a lordship, was a separate kingdom ruled by the King of England for a few hundred years. Thus it had a unified identity and a flag.
Reply 65
It would never work as the St Patrick's cross is incomplete. Dragon would have to be in centre
Original post by FrigidSymphony
You would no longer be the United Kingdom, and Scotland would no longer be part of the country represented by the flag, which loses you the blue background and St Andrew's cross.


The union jack still has the St Patricks cross (the red cross going diagonally) and not even northern Ireland uses that now.
Reply 67
Original post by Dez
Surely as Modern Britiain™ moves forwards we should have a Modern, fresh-thinking logo. We need drop shadows, black glass reflections, and -100 kerning Helvetica. And the London 2012 logo shoved in too, because everything Britain is encapsulated in the London Olympics. :holmes:


Lisa giving a blowjob on the national flag?




:smile:
Reply 68
Original post by talon1579
The reason lies in the way they were added.

Wales was slowly conquered, then ruled half by the king as a personal fief but with Welsh law, and the other half as a series of small lordships. In the 16th century it got fully incorporated into England to become "England and Wales" (one country, not two). As there was never a unified country of Wales, it didn't have a flag so didn't get included. The modern idea of Wales as a country came as a consequence of a language that never died out and the 19th century when nationalism took off.

Scotland was a union of England and Scotland, so had 2 flags to combine.

Ireland, although initially a lordship, was a separate kingdom ruled by the King of England for a few hundred years. Thus it had a unified identity and a flag.


I know the history, and yes that is why Wales is not represented on the flag. But sometimes people throw around all sorts of ideas about Wales being of "lesser" status than the other "countries" of the UK, when none of that is true anymore at least. I don't think (correct me if I'm wrong) that any part of the UK is officially called a "country" or a "principality" or a "province". Generally in official documents they are just referred to by their names.
Reply 69
Original post by seanfromtheblock
I'm not entirely certain, but I thought it was down to Wales never really being a totally seperate country like scotland was? It was just a principality. I'm sure that's the reason it's the Welsh Assembly instead of Parliament

Scotland is different in lots of ways to England (different NHS, different legal system, different school system, becoming an adult at 16 etc.) where Wales shares all of these things with England


The reason there was a Welsh Assembly whilst Scotland had something called a parliament was because the Scottish Parliament had primary legislative powers. The Welsh Assembly now has that too. The devolution referendum in 1979 envisaged there being a Scottish Assembly, not a parliament. Scotland has a different education system simply due to the historical anomaly of having a separate established church; Wales now effectively has a separate NHS to England.

Northern Ireland went completely the opposite route. The 1922 - 1973 devolved legislature there was called the Parliament of Northern Ireland. The modern one is called the Northern Ireland Assembly. This is despite the modern one being, from its inception, closer to the Scottish Parliament model. So in reality, the terminology is meaningless.

Original post by FrigidSymphony
You would no longer be the United Kingdom


The United Kingdom would continue to exist after Scottish independence, just as it continued to exist after Irish independence. It can use whatever name and flag suits it.
Scottish independence is not going to happen anyway, so the topic is irrelevant.

At the very most, Fat Alex will get 'devo max', so he can build his own little empire, but will have to keep the great flag that we already share :smile:
Reply 71
Original post by The Lyceum
A flag without Scotland you say? Celebrate England and Wales you say?...yeah sorry, surrounded by diligent students and on a ****ty netbook, couldn't do better...:tongue:


This is blatantly the best one.:tongue:

Original post by Miracle Day
Out of curiousity.. why is Scotland wanting independance and not Wales?

Well, a good proportion of Welsh people do want independence.
Original post by L i b


The United Kingdom would continue to exist after Scottish independence, just as it continued to exist after Irish independence. It can use whatever name and flag suits it.


But the United Kingdom was created in 1707 by the Treaty of Union between the kingdoms of England and Scotland- the respective governmental seals were broken down and a new seal of the UK was made, which is still stamped on legislation to render it legal and official. Scotland goes, this is no longer valid. Or so I thought.
With St. Patricks crest being this



I'm pretty sure we could justify keeping the blue. We would loose the white diagonal though, it also be nice to get the gold harp, Tudor rose and dragon in there but all three just wouldn't be possible.
Reply 74
Original post by FrigidSymphony
But the United Kingdom was created in 1707 by the Treaty of Union between the kingdoms of England and Scotland- the respective governmental seals were broken down and a new seal of the UK was made, which is still stamped on legislation to render it legal and official. Scotland goes, this is no longer valid. Or so I thought.


Actually that was the Kingdom of Great Britain. The United Kingdom was created in 1801 when Ireland joined.

Although I'm not sure whether that counted as a new state being created (like the 1707 act), or whether it counted as the same state increasing it's territory and changing it's name.
Reply 75
Original post by FrigidSymphony
But the United Kingdom was created in 1707 by the Treaty of Union between the kingdoms of England and Scotland- the respective governmental seals were broken down and a new seal of the UK was made, which is still stamped on legislation to render it legal and official. Scotland goes, this is no longer valid. Or so I thought.


Let's not forget that the Acts of Union dissolved these two predecessor states 'for ever'. Any new states which emerged from the UK would be just that - new. These Acts are no longer all that legally significant - they apply only in heavily amended form and 'subject to' other Acts of Parliament such as the Scotland Act.

Some SNP types have talked about repealing the Acts of Union as a rhetorical description of Scottish independence. From a slightly dull legal perspective, however, that's not really accurate. We could repeal the Acts of Union entirely tomorrow: it wouldn't magically make Scotland and England reappear as independent states. A slightly similar situation happens quite often: say an Act of Parliament dissolves a public body - that body does not reappear if the dissolving legislation is subsequently repealed.

If Scotland ever was to become independent, it'd all be far more mundane and less antiquated. A fairly brief Act of Parliament, perhaps a little more than 'No Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom ... shall extend to Scotland as part of its law' (shamelessly transposed from the Canada Act 1982) to tie up loose ends, would go through and that would be that.
Original post by Michael Locke

George stays, Patrick gets more of a contribution, and Wales gets represented too. No ****ing dragons please.


this but no gaps where the diagonals intersect the vertical/horizontal
Reply 77
Original post by Psyk
Actually that was the Kingdom of Great Britain. The United Kingdom was created in 1801 when Ireland joined.

Although I'm not sure whether that counted as a new state being created (like the 1707 act), or whether it counted as the same state increasing it's territory and changing it's name.


Well, the name of the 1707 state was pretty much Great Britain. If you ask me, calling it the Kingdom of Great Britain is even dodgier than calling it the United Kingdom of Great Britain, notwithstanding the nonsense Wikipedia comes out with.

As for new states: well, the 1801 state was as new as the 1707 one, although this is often conveniently overlooked.
Reply 78
I couldnt draw that :frown:
Reply 79
Original post by L i b
Well, the name of the 1707 state was pretty much Great Britain. If you ask me, calling it the Kingdom of Great Britain is even dodgier than calling it the United Kingdom of Great Britain, notwithstanding the nonsense Wikipedia comes out with.

As for new states: well, the 1801 state was as new as the 1707 one, although this is often conveniently overlooked.


What's dodgy about calling Great Britain from 1707 to 1801 the Kingdom of Great Britain, when it was a kingdom that encompassed Great Britain?

Quick Reply

Latest