AS an Aussie, I’m interested in this. Why do people in our countries want to associate themselves with something that is 50,000,000,000,000 Kms away at it’s closest point, and has no influence on the physical country, daily life or even history?
Their not even our stars. I think the Southern Cross can be seen by over 60% of the World’s population.
At least the Canadians can go and climb a maple mree…
It sounds like they’re going to do an instant runoff. That would make sense.
For me -
It may not be entirely rational,
but I feel that retaining the southern cross gives a sense of continuity from the current flag, and is something representative of south pacific, island nation - whatever you want to say.
Probably the most important is the “link / progression” from the current flag
This ‘link’ with the past does not seem to have been an issue with all the other former British colonies that have re-designed their flag.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe that of the 53 nations in the Commonwealth (22 monarchies and 31 republics) only four have retained their ‘old’ flags. (Australia, New Zealand, Cook Islands and Tuvalu).
And, of the 49 who have re-designed, Uganda is the only nation that has carried-over any former symbol at all, from the old flag to the new. (A grey-crowned crane).
It serves as a point of fellowship for far Southern Hemisphere countries (below the Tropic of Capricorn), I’d be happy if our flag had it in.
It’s not just being able to see it (and do you have a cite for 60% Seems high.)? It’s being able to see it every starry night, and it being a defining feature of your sky. Its use in navigation means that it symbolizes “South” - what other natural feature can as easily serve as shorthand for that concept?
Your point being?
For ME, I like the connection, I like that the Southern Cross is on there for what it symbolises to me, and I like to feel that there is a progression or link to the previous flag.
Which I thought was the question.
So now I’m wrong in why I like that Southern Cross to be maintained?
I don’t quite understand just what you thought the question was but I wasn’t claiming that there were any rights or wrongs.
I was merely making the point that this (your) desire to link with the past is not something that held weight with any other nation (apart from one) that has gone through the process of re-design.
Just grabbed this from an answers forum:
“It can be seen from anywhere in the southern hemisphere, but also some distance north of the Equator. Since it’s centred at 60 degrees south, it can in theory be seen up to thirty degrees north at the equinoxes, but that wouldn’t be the entire cross and it would vary according to the time of year. At the northern summer solstice, it’s possible to see roughly 11 3/4 degrees further south than at the equinoxes, so that would make the centre of the Southern Cross visible from any point south of 45 degrees north, though obviously it would be just on the horizon. The countries which cross that latitude include the US Lower 48, a small part of Ontario, France (the South), almost all of Italy, the former Jugoslavia, Greece, Bulgaria, a small part of Russia between the Black and Caspian Seas, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, most of China, lower Outer Mongolia, North Korea and Japan. If you mean the whole of the constellation, the Coal Sack at the southern side is 2 1/2 degrees further south, so the line would be correspondingly further south, and if you mean any star at all from the constellation, Gacrux in the north is three degrees further north and correspondingly the line from which it can be seen at all would be there too.”
So - most of China, all of India, a fair chunk of the USA, Mexico, Indonesia, SE Asia, all of South America, all of Africa, etc. I’m actually thinking 60% may be low. …
Looks like it would be, and thanks for the cite.
Still think it’s as good a symbol for “South” as any other, though.
That’s not correct with respect to Canada.
The Canadian Red Ensign had the shield from the coat of arms on it, which had three red maple leaves. The maple leaves had long been a symbol of Canada, dating back to pre-Confederation times.
One of the proposed versions during the Flag Debate, the “Pearson Pennant”, carried forward the three maple leaves:
The final version, with one maple leaf, was chosen in part because from a design perspective, a single leaf was more effective.
I only discovered last year that Canada’s flag hadn’t always been the Maple Leaf.
It’s very boring.
Jamaica’s flag retains the saltire of St. Andrew (from the Scottish flag, incorporated into the Union Jack) Whether this is intentional or not is a matter of some debate, however.
A number of the independence flags did retain elements or symbols that were carried over in the Arms of the realm, e.g. the maple leaf (which were green in the original Canadian Arms, then changed to red quite a bit later).
South Africa kept a Union Jack in its flag after independence from the UK, but lost it with real democracy.
It was the other way around: maple leaves were a symbol in the arms of Ontario and Quebec, which then found their way into the national arms, and from their onto the Red Ensign.
ETA: calling our flag an “independence flag” sounds weird to me.
Hmmm. That could be drawing a long bow, indeed.
Another point to consider is that there was quite a different relationship between Britain and the first six Dominions, and the numerous nations that obtained independence from Britain post WWII.
With the exception of Ireland, the other five original Dominions did not have to fight for their independence and remained on cordial relations with Britain within the Commonwealth (although South Africa eventually left, not as part of an independence movement, but because of the condemnation of apartheid.)
The remaining four (Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Newfoundland) did not go through independence movements like the post-war nations and retained what could be called ethnic and cultural ties with Britain that the post-war nations did not have.
There therefore wasn’t the political impulse for a clean break in symbolism from Britain, and thus we see elements of British symbolism in all four today.
That may explain why there is the desire even now for some continuity in the New Zealand.
(Newfoundland, although now a province of Canada, continued to use the Union flag as its own flag until well into the seventies. Its current flag is modelled on the Union flag.)
But it did retain the red, white, and blue of the UK and Netherlands’ flags.
Between that, the three additional colors of the African National Congress, and the mishmosh of design elements, the thing should have been a mess. Objectively, it really kind of is. And yet, it is AWESOME. Truly one of the greats.
I’m not sure that this has any real relevance to the original question but I need to apologise - I had it wrong.
I had been led to believe that the first referendum was to be decided by the contender that simply gained the greatest number of votes - in other words, a ‘first past the post’ situation.
The reality is that voters will be required to rank their preferences, 1 -5, and the contender with the greatest number of ‘No.1’ votes will only be the immediate winner if it secures at least 50% of the total.
If not, the fifth placegetter is discarded and its votes (‘No’s 2-5’) are transferred to the remaining four.
This process continues until a contender achieves at least 50% of the total votes.
It is only then, in the second referendum, that this chosen contender is matched head-to-head with the existing flag.
Ah, excellent so it IS a ranked count/instant runoff scenario – the finalist will be the alternative that a majority of the first-round voters either wants or can live with? Now, that’s more like it. Still the statu quo is at an advantage but at least the contender will have a broader base of acceptance than the mere plurality.