Will Australia have to change its flag?

Scots defy Cameron on vote for breakaway

SCOTTISH First Minister Alex Salmond has taken a formal step towards an independence referendum that the government hopes will secure a mandate for withdrawal from the United Kingdom within five years.

Mr Salmond's plan for the independence vote, including a date for the ballot, June 24, 2014, set the stage for what some in Britain describe as a high-stakes constitutional poker game pitting Mr Salmond against British Prime Minister David Cameron.

Mr Cameron insists only the British Parliament has the legal power to approve a referendum on the potential break-up of the union between England and Scotland, which was forged in 1707. He also says London, not Edinburgh, should set the terms and timing of the vote.
Advertisement: Story continues below

Mr Salmond has rejected those positions, and on Wednesday set a May deadline for the conclusion of a public ''consultation'' on its terms.

He suggested Mr Cameron would have little choice but to bow to whatever format the Salmond government adopted.

''The terms of the referendum are for the Scottish Parliament and the people of Scotland to decide,'' Mr Salmond said in a parliamentary statement that was interrupted by applause from Scottish National Party MPs, whom he led last year to an election victory that opened the way for a new push for independence.

Likening Scotland in its bond with England to a trapped bird, he added: ''The bird has flown and cannot now be returned to its cage. I believe this journey represents the aspirations and the ambitions of the people of Scotland.''

Mr Salmond described the referendum plan as a move to retrieve the independence that Scottish kingdoms had defended for 1000 years before the merger that created the United Kingdom...

http://www.theage.com.au/world/scots-defy-cameron-on-vote-for-breakaway-20120126-1qjo8.html

Is that time again already???

Wow, time does fly, doesn't it....

The last colonial empire on earth Brittan (sorry Great Brittan, sorry United Kingdom, ah sorry again Commonwealth..........) divided and occupied so many now it's time to be disintegrated itself.
Just wondering when British colony Australia will become independent?
Hm when was the last attempt? Certainly not John Howard's fake referendum.

athos wrote on Feb 4^th, 2012 at 1:41pm:

The last colonial empire on earth Brittan (sorry Great Brittan, sorry United Kingdom, ah sorry again Commonwealth..........) divided and occupied so many now it's time to be disintegrated itself. Just wondering when British colony Australia will become independent? Hm when was the last attempt? Certainly not John Howard's fake referendum.

It was not fake when I voted no.

Good luck to the Scots, I hope they get their Independence back.

Lets hope Australia follows suit soon afterwards. Not likely withall the Monarchist a*selickers that dominate our politics, as if there is a Monarchist vote to suck up to.

GoddyofOz wrote on Feb 4^th, 2012 at 2:10pm:

Good luck to the Scots, I hope they get their Independence back. Lets hope Australia follows suit soon afterwards. Not likely withall the Monarchist a*selickers that dominate our politics, as if there is a Monarchist vote to suck up to.

Don't worry Goddy...it'll happen in 1901....you just have to wait...

The Scots are such a politically apathetic lot that there probably be too low a voter turnout for the result to be legally binding....

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 4^th, 2012 at 2:12pm:

GoddyofOz wrote on Feb 4th, 2012 at 2:10pm: Good luck to the Scots, I hope they get their Independence back. Lets hope Australia follows suit soon afterwards. Not likely withall the Monarchist a*selickers that dominate our politics, as if there is a Monarchist vote to suck up to. Don't worry Goddy...it'll happen in 1901....you just have to wait...

Except Australia didn't have its own flag, control of its own army, own head of state.

Anyway, Australia has been pretty much colonised by the US since WWII - just look at how many McDonalds there are around the place. Even Peter Garrett has stopped mentioning the US bases in Autralia.

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 4^th, 2012 at 2:09pm:

athos wrote on Feb 4th, 2012 at 1:41pm: The last colonial empire on earth Brittan (sorry Great Brittan, sorry United Kingdom, ah sorry again Commonwealth..........) divided and occupied so many now it's time to be disintegrated itself. Just wondering when British colony Australia will become independent? Hm when was the last attempt? Certainly not John Howard's fake referendum. It was not fake when I voted no.

Well I can understand, if you are a monarchist, you didn't have choice but to vote for only one option queen of England monarchy.

GoddyofOz wrote on Feb 4^th, 2012 at 2:10pm:

Good luck to the Scots, I hope they get their Independence back. Lets hope Australia follows suit soon afterwards. Not likely withall the Monarchist a*selickers that dominate our politics, as if there is a Monarchist vote to suck up to.

You see the problem was that Howard's referendum was not about Monarchist and Republicans. It was actually a referendum to chose between Queen of England (why not queen of Denmark?) and a republic.
Formally masochistic Ausies "decided" to remain colonial subjects of English majesty.
Viva Pom's colony.

falah wrote on Feb 4^th, 2012 at 4:49pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 4th, 2012 at 2:12pm: GoddyofOz wrote on Feb 4th, 2012 at 2:10pm: Good luck to the Scots, I hope they get their Independence back. Lets hope Australia follows suit soon afterwards. Not likely withall the Monarchist a*selickers that dominate our politics, as if there is a Monarchist vote to suck up to. Don't worry Goddy...it'll happen in 1901....you just have to wait... Except Australia didn't have its own flag, control of its own army, own head of state. Anyway, Australia has been pretty much colonised by the US since WWII - just look at how many McDonalds there are around the place. Even Peter Garrett has stopped mentioning the US bases in Autralia.

Own head of state??????????
Isn't it governor general, who represents the queen of England.
Just wondering who dismissed Gough Whitlam maybe some aliens from another planet.
And finally if Australia is not British colony why after John Howard's referendum country didn't chose own monarch.

falah wrote on Feb 4^th, 2012 at 4:49pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 4th, 2012 at 2:12pm: GoddyofOz wrote on Feb 4th, 2012 at 2:10pm: Good luck to the Scots, I hope they get their Independence back. Lets hope Australia follows suit soon afterwards. Not likely withall the Monarchist a*selickers that dominate our politics, as if there is a Monarchist vote to suck up to. Don't worry Goddy...it'll happen in 1901....you just have to wait... Except Australia didn't have its own flag, control of its own army, own head of state. Anyway, Australia has been pretty much colonised by the US since WWII - just look at how many McDonalds there are around the place. Even Peter Garrett has stopped mentioning the US bases in Autralia.

Pardon???
Australian Flag, Australian Army, Australian Prime Minister....

falah wrote on Jan 27^th, 2012 at 11:50pm:

Will Australia have to change its flag?

Given that the inclusion of the Union Jack in the Australian flag is a reference to our history, then I don't see why it should change, as our history is not being changed.


athos wrote on Feb 4^th, 2012 at 7:43pm:

Own head of state?????????? Isn't it governor general, who represents the queen of England. Just wondering who dismissed Gough Whitlam maybe some aliens from another planet. And finally if Australia is not British colony why after John Howard's referendum country didn't chose own monarch.

There is no such person as the Queen of England.  Queen Elizabeth II is the Queen of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland.  In Australia she is the Queen of Australia (and this is the office represented by the Governor-General) or more correctly, Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth.


athos wrote on Feb 4^th, 2012 at 7:34pm:

[ You see the problem was that Howard's referendum was not about Monarchist and Republicans. It was actually a referendum to chose between Queen of England (why not queen of Denmark?) and a republic. Formally masochistic Ausies "decided" to remain colonial subjects of English majesty. Viva Pom's colony.

The referendum was to choose between Australia being a constitutional monarchy and being a republic.

You really should check your facts before posting this sort of garbage.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 4^th, 2012 at 11:20pm:

Pardon??? Australian Flag, Australian Army, Australian Prime Minister....

The Australian flag was not the official flag at the time of Federation. In fact the current flag was only  formalised as such on 14 February 1954 when the head of state, Queen Elizabeth II, gave Royal Assent to the Flags Act 1953.



As for the army, the colonial forces were not unified until after Federation. The different units remained under states/colony until the Federal Government passed the  Defence Act of 1903. These forces were not allowed to serve overseas.

The AIF was formed in 1914. Australian soldiers remained under British command, and were considered fairly expendable as the mission to Galipolli demonstrates (Australian troops were also poorly equipped and supplied by the British). Australian soldiers served under the British flag.



It was not until John Curtin's government that Australia showed any independence from Britain, when Curtin diverted troops from being sent to fight Nazis to instead defend Australia from the Japanese (the British had abandoned Australia, Singapore and Malaya to the Japanese)

Frances wrote on Feb 5^th, 2012 at 12:14am:

falah wrote on Jan 27th, 2012 at 11:50pm: Will Australia have to change its flag? Given that the inclusion of the Union Jack in the Australian flag is a reference to our history, then I don't see why it should change, as our history is not being changed. athos wrote on Feb 4th, 2012 at 7:43pm: Own head of state?????????? Isn't it governor general, who represents the queen of England. Just wondering who dismissed Gough Whitlam maybe some aliens from another planet. And finally if Australia is not British colony why after John Howard's referendum country didn't chose own monarch. There is no such person as the Queen of England.  Queen Elizabeth II is the Queen of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland.  In Australia she is the Queen of Australia (and this is the office represented by the Governor-General) or more correctly, Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of Australia and Her other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth. athos wrote on Feb 4th, 2012 at 7:34pm: [ You see the problem was that Howard's referendum was not about Monarchist and Republicans. It was actually a referendum to chose between Queen of England (why not queen of Denmark?) and a republic. Formally masochistic Ausies "decided" to remain colonial subjects of English majesty. Viva Pom's colony. The referendum was to choose between Australia being a constitutional monarchy and being a republic. You really should check your facts before posting this sort of garbage.

You are not answering my questions, rather talking to yourself:

1. if Australia is not British colony why after John Howard's referendum country didn't chose own monarch?.

falah wrote on Feb 5^th, 2012 at 1:01am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 4th, 2012 at 11:20pm: Pardon??? Australian Flag, Australian Army, Australian Prime Minister.... The Australian flag was not the official flag at the time of Federation. In fact the current flag was only  formalised as such on 14 February 1954 when the head of state, Queen Elizabeth II, gave Royal Assent to the Flags Act 1953. As for the army, the colonial forces were not unified until after Federation. The different units remained under states/colony until the Federal Government passed the  Defence Act of 1903. These forces were not allowed to serve overseas. The AIF was formed in 1914. Australian soldiers remained under British command, and were considered fairly expendable as the mission to Galipolli demonstrates (Australian troops were also poorly equipped and supplied by the British). Australian soldiers served under the British flag. It was not until John Curtin's government that Australia showed any independence from Britain, when Curtin diverted troops from being sent to fight Nazis to instead defend Australia from the Japanese (the British had abandoned Australia, Singapore and Malaya to the Japanese)

Absolutely right.
At Galipoli Australian young solders were sacrificed for the interest of British empire, like in Africa and so on.
There are much more reasons to celebrate battle for Darwin, when Australia defended itself from Japanese invasion, than, in vain, tragic slaughter of young Aussie lives for someone's else interest.

The problem with people like frances and John Howard is that they desperately want to present themselves as Australian nationalists although all facts firmly confirm their British colonial patriotic feelings that probably they are not aware of.

athos wrote on Feb 5^th, 2012 at 2:31pm:

The problem with people like frances and John Howard is that they desperately want to present themselves as Australian nationalists although all facts firmly confirm their British colonial patriotic feelings that probably they are not aware of.

John Howard shared Robert Menzie's belief that Australia was still part of some great British Empire. A belief not shared by the British. The British bemusedly rejected Menzies' attempts to lead the Empire, while they were surprised that Howard would manage to stall attempts at Australian republicanism.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 4^th, 2012 at 11:20pm:

falah wrote on Feb 4th, 2012 at 4:49pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 4th, 2012 at 2:12pm: GoddyofOz wrote on Feb 4th, 2012 at 2:10pm: Good luck to the Scots, I hope they get their Independence back. Lets hope Australia follows suit soon afterwards. Not likely withall the Monarchist a*selickers that dominate our politics, as if there is a Monarchist vote to suck up to. Don't worry Goddy...it'll happen in 1901....you just have to wait... Except Australia didn't have its own flag, control of its own army, own head of state. Anyway, Australia has been pretty much colonised by the US since WWII - just look at how many McDonalds there are around the place. Even Peter Garrett has stopped mentioning the US bases in Autralia. Pardon??? Australian Flag, Australian Army, Australian Prime Minister....

You conveniently leave out that it's called the ROYAL Australian Army. Is there an Australian Royal Family I'm not aware of?

athos wrote on Feb 5^th, 2012 at 2:19pm:

You are not answering my questions, rather talking to yourself: if Australia is not British colony why after John Howard's referendum country didn't chose own monarch?.

The referendum was to choose between being a constitutional monarchy and being a republic.  There was nothing in it about choosing or creating a new royal family.  Do you know anything at all about the referendum?  It doesn't look like it.

And I did answer your half-witted question:
Frances wrote on Feb 5^th, 2012 at 12:14am:

[The referendum was to choose between Australia being a constitutional monarchy and being a republic. You really should check your facts before posting this sort of garbage.

athos wrote on Feb 5^th, 2012 at 2:31pm:

The problem with people like frances and John Howard is that they desperately want to present themselves as Australian nationalists although all facts firmly confirm their British colonial patriotic feelings that probably they are not aware of.

I will ask you not to use my name in the same sentence as that of John Howard.

I can't for the life of me figure out where you got that crap about " British colonial patriotic feelings" from....

GoddyofOz wrote on Feb 4^th, 2012 at 2:10pm:

Good luck to the Scots, I hope they get their Independence back.

They shouldn't have given it up in the first place then, should they?

Cofgod wrote on Feb 6^th, 2012 at 4:52am:

GoddyofOz wrote on Feb 4th, 2012 at 2:10pm: Good luck to the Scots, I hope they get their Independence back. They shouldn't have given it up in the first place then, should they?

I'm not sure they had much choice at the time...

Public support for the move does, however, seem to vary quite a bit according to how the question is asked....


Quote:

Support for independence drops by as much as 8 per cent if the SNP’s preferred question is dumped in favour of one backed by pro-Union campaigners, a major new poll has revealed. The survey, conducted by YouGov, and published yesterday by Conservative donor Lord Ashcroft, showed that 41 per cent of people currently back independence if asked using Alex Salmond’s preferred question. The First Minister has suggested asking people simply: “Do you agree Scotland should be an independent country?” But when pollsters asked another group of Scottish residents a different question – “Should Scotland become an independent country or should it remain part of the United Kingdom?” –the numbers backing independence fell to just 33 per cent. Support for the status quo, meanwhile, rose from 59 per cent under Mr Salmond’s preferred question to 67 per cent under the second option. The poll also tested a third question with people asked: “Do you agree or disagree that Scotland should be an independent country.” The simple inclusion of the word “disagree” saw support for independence drop by two points to 39 per cent and support for the Union rise by two to 61 per cent, compared to the SNP’s preference.

http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/scottish_independence_support_falls_8_with_different_question_1_2093513

Frances wrote on Feb 6^th, 2012 at 7:56am:

Public support for the move does, however, seem to vary quite a bit according to how the question is asked.... Quote: Support for independence drops by as much as 8 per cent if the SNP’s preferred question is dumped in favour of one backed by pro-Union campaigners, a major new poll has revealed. The survey, conducted by YouGov, and published yesterday by Conservative donor Lord Ashcroft, showed that 41 per cent of people currently back independence if asked using Alex Salmond’s preferred question. The First Minister has suggested asking people simply: “Do you agree Scotland should be an independent country?” But when pollsters asked another group of Scottish residents a different question – “Should Scotland become an independent country or should it remain part of the United Kingdom?” –the numbers backing independence fell to just 33 per cent. Support for the status quo, meanwhile, rose from 59 per cent under Mr Salmond’s preferred question to 67 per cent under the second option. The poll also tested a third question with people asked: “Do you agree or disagree that Scotland should be an independent country.” The simple inclusion of the word “disagree” saw support for independence drop by two points to 39 per cent and support for the Union rise by two to 61 per cent, compared to the SNP’s preference. http://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/scottish_independence_support_falls_8_with_different_question_1_2093513

Sounds like the Australian Republic polls..

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 6^th, 2012 at 7:10am:

Cofgod wrote on Feb 6th, 2012 at 4:52am: GoddyofOz wrote on Feb 4th, 2012 at 2:10pm: Good luck to the Scots, I hope they get their Independence back. They shouldn't have given it up in the first place then, should they? I'm not sure they had much choice at the time...

Which time? It speaks volumes that at the Union of the crowns in 1603, it was James I and VI (of England and Scotland respectively) but not Elizabeth I and II when the current monarch too the throne. (James was a Scottish king who moved to England to take the throne. )

- but later in the 1707 Act following  the Covenanter debacle and the Jacobite Rebellion, the relationship changed. (Surprise surprise - it was all about religion)

The eventual selling out of Scotland was more concerned with the underhanded dealings of the Scottish aristocracy than anything else.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Such_a_Parcel_of_Rogues_in_a_Nation

The last verse says it all:


Quote:

O would, ere I had seen the day That Treason thus could sell us, My auld grey head had lien in clay, Wi' Bruce and loyal Wallace! But pith and power, till my last hour, I'll mak this declaration; We're bought and sold for English gold- Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!

With the Scottish National Party now the major party in Scotland, it looks more likely that there will be independence.

muso wrote on Feb 6^th, 2012 at 8:44am:

It speaks volumes that at the Union of the crowns in 1603, it was James I and VI (of England and Scotland respectively) but not Elizabeth I and II when the current monarch too the throne.

It's not really necessary in Scotland to refer to the current monarch as Elizabeth I and II, as there was no Elizabeth I of Scotland.  She is just simply referred to as Queen Elizabeth north of the border, with items such as Post office boxes bearing the initials ER rather than EIIR as is seen in the rest of the UK.

The only monarch who has presented a problem on this front was Edward VII (Edward VIII would have too had he not abdicated). There was a petition presented to parliament on his accession, in which it was argued that as Scotland never had an Edward VI, it was now free of the monarchy and independent (or something like that - I'm just going off my memory here) but nothing came of it.  The petition (it is bound up into several volumes is in a museum in either Edinburgh or Glasgow now.

Frances wrote on Feb 6^th, 2012 at 9:13am:

... with items such as Post office boxes bearing the initials ER rather than EIIR as is seen in the rest of the UK.

I learn something new every day.  I see that I made a mistake in my post. Of course the 1707 Act predated the first Jacobite Rebellion in 1715, but the Covenanters were one of the major factors that led to it, along with the bankruptcy of Scotland following the failure of the Darian Scheme.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Feb 6^th, 2012 at 7:10am:

Cofgod wrote on Feb 6th, 2012 at 4:52am: GoddyofOz wrote on Feb 4th, 2012 at 2:10pm: Good luck to the Scots, I hope they get their Independence back. They shouldn't have given it up in the first place then, should they? I'm not sure they had much choice at the time...

the aristocracy in scotland gave it up... not the people

There is a very interesting article on the subject of the union and what led up to it, including the collapse of the Darien venture and corruption and bribery by supporters of the union on the BBC website:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/politics97/devolution/scotland/briefing/1707.shtml

I have quoted a few sections below, that appear relevant to points raised in this discussion, but there is much more information that is worth reading.  Topics covered are:
   
The Nature And Structure Of The Scottish Parliament

Scotland In The Early Eighteenth Century

The Last Parliament of Scotland, 1703-1707

The Alien Act

The Final Session
 
The Articles of Union 

The Treaty Articles

Anti-Unionism And Scottish Public Opinion


Quote:

By the early eighteenth century, Scotland was a kingdom in crisis. Her economy had been severely weakened by a series of major harvest failures beginning in 1695. The `Lean Years' of the 1690s were compounded by the catastrophic failure of the Darien Scheme and the attempt to establish a Scottish imperial outlet, the colony of Caledonia, on the Isthmus of Darien. Deliberately sabotaged by the combined efforts of the English East India Company, the international financial markets at Amsterdam and King William, it is estimated that almost 25% of Scotland's total liquid capital was lost in the Darien venture. Anglo-Scottish relations were in a similar state of crisis. Increased English political management of Scottish affairs had led to greater criticism. One contemporary commentator observed that Scotland would `be no longer a province to England, or dance attendance at the door of an English court'. The Glencoe Massacre of 1692, sanctioned and implemented by the Crown in tandem with approval by Lowland elites, had intensified Highland-Lowland divisions. The Revolution Settlement of 1689-90 had led to a more powerful Scottish Parliament. The two most powerful periods of the Scottish Parliament's existence can be defined as 1639-51 and 1689-1707. During the era of Covenanting control, the Scottish Parliament emerged as a mature political and institutional forum and was one of the most powerful assemblies in Europe. Drawing on the Scottish Constitutional Settlement of 1640-41, a programme of constitutional reform was renewed from 1689 onwards. The Scottish Parliament was by no means a `weak' institution when it was abolished in 1707.

Quote:

The Treaty of Union was clearly unpopular among the wider Scottish people. Civil unrest and public disorder took place in several Scottish towns and the threat of widespread civil unrest resulted in the imposition of martial law by the Parliament. George Lockhart of Carnwath, a Jacobite and the only member of the Scottish negotiating team who was not pro-incorporation, noted that `The whole nation appears against the Union'. Sir John Clerk of Penicuik, an ardent pro-unionist and Union negotiator, observed that the treaty was `contrary to the inclinations of at least three-fourths of the Kingdom'. Public opinion against the Treaty as it passed through the Scottish Parliament was voiced through petitions from the Scottish localities. Anti-union petitions were received from shires, burghs, presbyteries and parishes. The Convention of Royal Burghs also petitioned against the Union and not one petition in favour of an incorporating union was received by Parliament.

Quote:

Many members of the [political group known as the] Squadrone [Volante] had invested heavily in the Darien Scheme and they believed that they would receive compensation for their losses; Article 14, the Eqivalent granted £398 085 10s to Scotland to offset future liability towards the English national debt. In essence, it was also used a means of compensation for investors in Darien. Bribery and financial persuasion were also prevalent with £20 000 sterling (£240 000 Scots) being despatched to Scotland for distribution by the Earl of Glasgow. James Douglas, 2nd Duke of Queensberry, the Queen's Commissioner in Parliament received £12 325 sterling, the majority of the funding. The bulk of this funding was used in the payment of spies and agent provocateurs.