In September 2014 the Scots will vote in a referendum to decide whether to remain in the United Kingdom ... If a majority votes to leave, the actual exit would take place in 2016.

The departure of Scotland from the UK would leave many problems in its wake - things like citizenship, passports, dividing the North Sea oil and gas fields, apportioning part of the UK national debt to Scotland, pensions - you name it. There is also uncertainty as to whether Scotland would need to rejoin the European Union and, if so, on what basis.

In addition, there's the issue of the national flag. Here is a link to some designs that have been suggested (not all of them seriously):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25222891

Note that the black in some of the designs presumably derives from the Welsh St David's Flag, which is (usually) a yellow cross on a black field.

Alex Salmond is living in a dream world if he thinks even an overwhelming majority vote will lead to an independent Scotland. On past historical performance the Brits will just partition the country after the referendum, and the SNP will be left with the Western Highlands and Orkney.

Looking on the bright side, Alex Salmond has said that an independent Scotland would want to keep the queen.

Give us an address to send them to, and we'll let him have the whole family now!

I see the republicans are crawling out of the woodwork again. So... You'd like to see the back of Her Majesty would you? And who would you want in her place... the likes of Tony Blair, Milliband, Cameron or any of the other crooks that currently form our government?

Just because you hold a different view, there is no need to insult somebody by suggesting they have 'crawled out of the woodwork'.

Insult? I don't see it as an insult and it wasn't intended as such.

Then next time you meet your hero, I'm sure you'll say "Good Morning, your Majesty. I'm delighted you could crawl out of the woodwork to be with us."

Hmmmmm ... OK

This sort of mud slinging is pointless, serves no purpose and is not permitted on Funtrivia. The people you are insulting cannot answer back.What can be gained from it? Please stop.

The two with black background and variations of St George's, St Patrick's, and St David's crosses are quite striking.

St. Patrick's Cross is Irish. It might make sense to take that one out too when St. Andrew's Cross goes - it'd save having to change the Butcher's Apron every five minutes.

I rather like the seventh flag from the top, which gives reasonable prominence to the St Piran's cross of Cornwall (though I'd prefer it without the crown).

I wonder how Commonwealth countries that include the Union Jack in own flags would react to a change?

When was the last time the flag was changed, and would they even change the flag? Aren't there only three divisions of the UK currently?

Of course, there would be the option of leaving the flag as it is.

The present version of the flag was adopted in 1801, following the union of Great Britain with Ireland. (The previous version was a combination of the flags of England and Scotland, without the Cross of St Patrick for Ireland).

Wales is not represented in the British flag.

Good question, Bloomsby. The Australian and New Zealand flags both feature the Union Jack, quite prominently. The Republican movement in Oz is strong- maybe this will have some long-term repercussions Down Under.

Well, it sort of is... Wales was annexed as a fiefdom of the English crown and regarded as a principality of England; it was therefore represented by the flag of England. (Don't shout at me all you Welsh patriots, the annexation was long before my time! 1284 to be precise.)

There's no reason why it can't be left as it is - we could just replace the flag of St Andrew with some blue colouring to represent the sea...

As someone who used to be responsible for publications and marketing budgets, I do hope they stick to two colours plus white - paying for four colour printing would cost an arm and a leg. And please, no fancy crests and legends that have to be aligned - every publication officer's nightmare.

Our advantage of course is that while there are strict rules for displaying the Union Flag for official purposes, we still take great liberties with our flag unofficially. We paint it on Minis, carry it on plastic bags, even wear it as underwear - and make a fortune selling it to tourists as fashion. Just think what we did with it last year, through the Jubilee events to the Olympics, Team GB's kit, and David Hockney's version for the Closing Ceremony. In some ways that flag is as old fashioned as flags get - yet it is infinitely versatile.

Another date is often given - probably misleadingly - for the full incorporation of Wales into 'England and Wales' - 1535. Before that date Wales (and Cheshire) were completely unrepresented in the House of Commons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_in_Wales_Acts_1535%E2%80%931542

However, since the early 1990s Britain has been 'reinventing itself' as England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

As an American I am not well informed on this topic and certainly have no vested interest in it; but it is nevertheless very interesting to read about ... especially as we have areas of states talking about seceding from their present states (Colorado) and entire states talking about seceding from the US altogether (Texas).

American here too. I remember as a youngster, ventures up to Quebec and was initiated to the Canadian flag of that era. Since the attempt of Quebec to separate from the Commonwealth, there was a change to the Canadian banner, a conversion to the Maple leaf motif I think we are all now familiar with. But it is enlightening to go through the flags of Canada and all its subordinates' banners. There is some change to the old Union Jack to be seen in that flags history.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_flags
In reading this article I found that In view of this, is the status of Scotland's ensigns in a similar ranking of order?

IMHO, flags should be changed if they come to represent oppression even if there is no political change. As an example might I mention a cousin of the Union Jack that has been put aside because of the history associated with it: the flag of Dixie, the Confederate flag?

Well, a change to the Union Flag would be relevant to the USA because it's incorporated in the flag of Hawaii.

The Royal Standard is not a National Flag, and some countries have different standards - Scotland has its own Royal Standard, so do Canada and other Commonwealth realms. It is flown on royal residences if the Queen is present, on vehicles she is travelling in, and under certain circumstances, from buildings she is visiting. However, the usual practice in the UK is that the flags displayed on buildings are the National Flags, i.e. the Union Flag and, if appropriate, the flag of the country involved. At the Olympics last year, for example, even when the Queen was present in the stadium, the flag flown was the National Flag, i.e. the Union Flag but neither the Royal Standard nor the Flag of England were flown. In the latter case, that would be because the Olympics were an international event and because the host city, London, is the capital of the United Kingdom - it was not selected as host city as a result of its status as capital of England. You can find more about the Royal Standard here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Standard_(United_Kingdom)

And what was Britain or the UK before the 1990s? Wasn't it exactly that?

The United Kingdom and Northern Ireland.

I think it's either "Great Britain and Northern Ireland" or the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". "United Kingdom" is just shorthand for all four countries counted together.

I didn't realise that was an option. Isn't a bit unlikely? Sounds to me like it's more of a political point? But I haven't a clue, that's why I am asking.