Editorial: Flag's about nation's past too

Photo / Thinkstock

Once again the future of New Zealand's flag is up for discussion - this time because of the Scottish independence vote.

If Scotland had voted to separate from the United Kingdom there had been a suggestion the Union Jack would have to lose its Scottish component.

As our flag includes the Union Jack, it would follow that maybe ours should change too.

As it is the Scots rejected independence. But had there been another result - its effects needn't have had a drastic impact on us.

I don't see any great need to rush out and strip the Saltire from our flag. As we have already seen, there is a groundswell of support for a new New Zealand flag. There has been a long-running discussion on reasons for and against a change, and we've seen many suggestions for potential replacements over the years.

Change, if Kiwis want it, is probably closer than ever.

And that new flag is unlikely to feature a prominent Union Jack.

Until that day though, had the Scots voted Yes, our flag of 112 years should still have remained as it is.

The use of the Union Flag signifies our colonial ties to Britain. Many people assume it signifies an ongoing fealty to the mother country, but why can't it just represent our colonial history?

Any suggestion we'd have a New Zealand flag with a modified Union Jack, stripped of its blue, is ridiculous.

Imagine that, a flag that represents our colonial history - including English, Irish and Welsh - except for those Scots who we've just decided to expunge from the official record?

Even in the United Kingdom - had Scotland voted to secede - you have to ask - why should the flag have to change?

I doubt it would change in any hurry as it is - such is its longevity.

How long since Australia and New Zealand cut their ties with Britain - and we still bear its flag on our own.