Thursday, February 4, 2010

On Flags

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.
Posted by at
Labels:

4 comments:

  1. I support a new flag. Much of the objections to a new flag - that it betrays the heritage of those who fought under it, etc etc - can easily be dealth with. the Canadian are again useful here. The Canadian memorial at Vimy ridge, site of the famous Canadian victory in 1917 flies both the old, pre-maple leaf flag and the modern Canadian flag side by side.

    Getting a new flag and allowing the old one to be continued to be flown wif historically appropriate is a common sense solution to most people objections.

    ReplyDelete

  2. Why should we ditch our flag? Arguing with a republican is like arguing with a Jehovah's Witness. Neither can advance any argument without a massive dose of the intangibles.

    ReplyDelete

  3. Anon, how exactly do we discuss this issue without a massive dose of the intangibles? We're talking about symbols and our national identity. You could say the same thing about arguing with royalists.

    Besides, I consider myself a republican, albeit a mild one, but what you won't find me doing is turning up on your doorstep peddling literature.

    I'm also quite relaxed with the opinions of those who aren't republicans, and whatever my own views are, I don't want to see any change to our national status until there is a genuine desire by the majority for a change. I suspect most republicans feel the same.

    ReplyDelete

  4. I support a new flag.
    I propose "The Keeling Curve (Baring Head version)" to represent that we are the blessed carbon-eaters of the South Pacific!

    http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Baringhead_co2_v9.svg

    ReplyDelete

I welcome comments, but I ask commenters to follow a few simple rules:

1. I delete anonymous comments. Please use either a name or moniker. I am not asking anyone to reveal their secret identity. Just don't call yourself "Anonymous".
2. Please don't abuse or defame others.
3. Moronic or nonsensical comments may be deleted.
4. I don't often exercise the heavy hand of censorship, but I do reserve the right to delete any comment I don't like, for any reason.

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)