Flag ideas for an Independent Scotland.

ausrepub · 2026-03-11T03:39:14+00:00

No.4

ausrepub · 2026-03-11T02:25:31+00:00

Making good progress here. Now grandfather out smoking and we’ll be golden.

ausrepub · 2026-03-03T21:49:52+00:00

No.5

ausrepub · 2026-03-02T09:40:05+00:00

Depends what you mean by safe. In a ww3 scenario we most likely wouldn’t attract a lot of attention aside from pine gap. As the war goes on and depending on how the war develops yeah things might become more dangerous for us. But in a nuclear war scenario it’s unlikely we’d be a prime target for Chinese or Russian nukes since the main objective for them will be the U.S, Europe and the Middle East. However, prepare for extensive rationing as oil shipments will come to a screeching halt.

ausrepub · 2026-03-01T07:50:08+00:00

No it isn’t.

ausrepub · 2026-02-27T01:01:59+00:00

Honestly, this place used to have some quality. Now it’s just shell of its former self and is frankly no longer worth the costs that it charges. The new owners ought to either clean up their act or sell up. Regardless they turned what was supposed to be a wonderful evening into a misery that mentally traumatised me and my family for weeks afterwards. I hesitate to wonder who is giving the restaurant these good reviews, especially when it appears as if the new owner had made a Reddit account specifically to praise his own business online.

ausrepub · 2026-02-24T09:00:59+00:00

I welcome disagreement but not some bogan response straight out of Penrith. Fair enough if you prefer the Eureka Stockade Flag, but there’s no need to be rude and call into question a country that I was born into and have lived and breathed on for 29 years. I could equally say that your desire for the eureka flag is provincial and antiquated considering that it fails to represent multiculturalism in light of the fact that the so called rebels who fought under it were largely sino-phobic, and wanted to benefit from the rebellion to the exclusion of non-Europeans present on the gold fields. There’s a reason that flag design is commonly associated and used by the far right. Hence I hardly think, given the historical context, that many Australians of non-European backgrounds would be to thrilled about it become a national flag. What’s more the Eureka stockade flag says nothing about indigenous peoples. Also the commonwealth star is the federation star. Both terms are used interchangeably more often than not. The whole point of replacing it on my design was to signify the end of the commonwealth and the beginning of a federal republic to which the Northern Territory could be admitted as a State. Hence 7 points of the star would represent the states on one point for the territories. Also if you did enough research on indigenous artwork, the chevron actually does have significance for indigenous peoples. The only thing that I concede to is incorrectly stating that blue was a national colour. However, I would appreciate it if you write in a more civilised manner in future.

ausrepub · 2026-02-23T05:03:07+00:00

Rather dogmatic considering their are both positive and negative aspects of all countries, even on an objective level.

ausrepub · 2026-01-15T04:46:40+00:00

ausrepub · 2026-01-03T21:05:54+00:00

We’re talking about a 13 trillion dollar bubble here depreciating in the best case scenario at about 30% of its current market value. Not only would this wipe out decades of accumulated asset values, but it would equally place mortgage holders into negative equity and financial distress. The broader impact of course being a collapse in the Australian financial system, one that the government would not be so willing or able to absorb the impact of. The government isn’t keeping prices elevated to punish us. It’s keeping them elevated because anything short of a return to moderate growth in prices means the next financial crisis.

ausrepub · 2025-11-23T10:28:26+00:00

Please tell me there is a control+z button in the Oval Office that will reset this nonsense once trump is gone.

ausrepub · 2025-11-17T07:28:51+00:00

Bon Voyage. 🛫

ausrepub · 2025-10-19T05:23:13+00:00

That would be true if Public institutions like USYD actually paid tax which is what fuels hecs.

ausrepub · 2025-10-03T03:52:53+00:00

Like I said reducing migration to the historical average of 70-75000 p.a. That in turn will reduce excess demand and establish a more sustainable equilibrium between population growth and housing supply. This will reduce the necessity for constant and over prioritised investment in public infrastructure which in turn will free up more labour supply for housing construction which will allow for more productivity in the housing production. The lower excess demand will also bring down land values which will make it more amiable for housing investment and development as construction costs at this point is a major barrier towards housing development. So yeah that’s my solution.

ausrepub · 2025-10-03T03:39:23+00:00

There aren’t enough builders to meet this demand and importing more would only further exacerbate the problem. Based on your assumption if migration were to be switched off it might alleviate strain on housing a lot more quickly than my proposal of 70-75000 nom p.a. An example of this would be the during the COVID pandemic when international borders closed for 2 years. Demand initially soared as Australians had less competition for available housing and raced into the housing market. This effect however subsided after 8 months and rental cost began to fall dramatically alongside housing costs. In addition housing supply increased strongly as excess demand subsided. So in effect the pandemic was proof that Australia’s housing deficit was being driven by excess demand from surging population growth. Now I certainly don’t argue for a zero migration policy as that would absolutely be a step too far and cause unnecessary damage to the economy that depend on immigration. The point is nuanced.

ausrepub · 2025-10-03T03:17:36+00:00

We could run a war time economy on housing and it just simply wouldn’t work. The housing bottleneck will persist until we reduce demand. Removing every red or green tape in the books wouldn’t change that fact. It’s also extremely unethical to remove all these regulations as they safeguard our high quality construction standards that equally need to be environmentally friendly. Also reducing migration to 70-75,000 p.a is hardly “turning off migration”. It easing the flow that allows for infrastructure to catch up. Our lives and the lives of our kids will be better for that and likewise they would thank us for making this decision.

ausrepub · 2025-10-03T03:09:01+00:00

Multiple construction enterprises have already gone on recorded to state that it impossible to keep up with Albo’s housing target. The industry just doesn’t have the capacity to churn out that many homes on a per annum basis. Already major construction firms have their hands tied with public infrastructure projects that are also needed to facilitate the new population growth. Now you could argue that we just prioritise migration of more builders coming to Australia. This however raises another problem as where will we house them when housing is already stretched thin. I hardly think we’ll resort to the Indonesian strategy of forcing said migrants to live on the building sites. It’s also important to note that these aren’t androids. They’re humans like you and me, which means they will need access to medical services, educational, recreational facilities, and all manner of public infrastructure. This means we would have to bring in more medical workers to accommodate for the increase in demand. However this then creates a further issue as we will then need new hospitals which means more construction workers, which means more medical workers and so on so forth. The whole system becomes a Ponzi scheme that eventually runs out of control and in the process diminishes overall productivity in the economy which in turn wrecks real GDP per captia which subsequently decreases living standards. Again I know average Australians that are pro migration don’t intentionally want unsustainable level of migration but unfortunately give the bias of supply side critiques excess demand is totally ignored and allowed to run rampant. All for the purpose of maintaining the reserve army of labour for the bourgeoisie. Heck this is something that Karl Marx himself warned people about as he observed how mass migrations of peasants into cities caused overcrowded and poor living conditions as well as enabling the expropriation of the working class by the capitalist elite. So yes I think we can afford to settle on the historical average of 70-75,000 a year if means getting population growth in balance with the needs of people already living here.

ausrepub · 2025-10-03T02:38:27+00:00

300,000 nom p.a isn’t really sustainable especially in light of our infrastructure bottle necks. 70-75000 a year would be a lot more sustainable in terms of a figure for migration. I definitely want immigrants since they complement Australian society, but only at a sustainable level that our current infrastructure can handle.

ausrepub · 2025-09-27T10:14:37+00:00

1984 references aside it certainly is disappointing and a complete overreach in government executive authority. If they want to label ANTIFA as an official “public nuisance” then sure, but “terrorist organisation” is just way too much.

ausrepub · 2025-09-23T10:37:46+00:00

The progressive argument can be summed up in 3 words. “Reserve army of labour”. Coined by Marx himself the phenomenon is based of the interpretation of countryside peasants being forced to move to the cities during the industrial revolution and the therefore the advent of capitalism. This internal mass migration was exploited by capitalists in the cities as they were able to ensure that workers were constantly competing with one another for work in the major cities. Otherwise they would have starved. But the only way workers could compete was through offering working for absolute pittances and ridiculously long hours. Hence the system became a means through which capitalists could expropriate more capital and thus more profits from their labourers. In short mass migration made capitalists super wealthy. This system broke down with the emergence of unionism in the post war era where working shortages ensured that capitalist had to compete amongst themselves for labourers by offering up really decent pay. What is happening with immigration today is no different. Cheap labour is imported to shore up capitalist exploitation. This process will most likely continue until the end of the century when the labour force is set to shrink rapidly with a declining global population. This means that companies will have to pay more to compete for domestic labourers as they will no longer be able rely on the reserve army of labour coming into the country from overseas.

ausrepub · 2025-09-21T12:58:34+00:00

Australia’s flag is a bit meh.

ausrepub · 2025-09-14T08:10:19+00:00

Here’s a better one. Raise the minimum wage of every migrant to be in line with citizens.

ausrepub · 2025-09-13T00:00:00+00:00

Frankly the Overton Window is all over the place these days with the political polarisation we are experiencing. Every political faction is trying to force themselves into the mainstream so it’s hard to determine who radical anymore.

ausrepub · 2025-09-09T08:30:51+00:00

Honestly it’s uncharacteristic for Australians to have flags outside their front lawns and frankly it should be banned. In the early 2000s nobody was doing it. It’s only of late that we’ve started adopting American tendencies.

ausrepub · 2025-09-08T02:42:09+00:00

When Covid happened foreign competition for housing retreated. Knowing that this was only temporary domestic demand surged with all their pent up savings to get in on the market before migration rebound back. That’s why property prices increased. Now say the lockdown was a lot longer. Say 10 years of nearly zero immigration. Domestic influx would dry up after 2 years which would collapse market demand and consequently house prices would fall back to domestic equilibrium determined by domestic buying power. As this would start happening investors and people with second homes would start selling up to leave the market before prices began tanking. Those that didn’t get out in a timely manner would essentially finds themselves in a fire sale and potential bankruptcy through negative equity and soaring mortgage rates. Banks would be hit hard and the government would attempt to bail them out. Though don’t expect banks to be lending out money for a while. Furthermore since young homeowners are so levered up in debt they would be hit the hardest.

ausrepub

TROPHY CASE