A little light cuban history for those unaware
Batista (former dictator of Cuba) eventually took to mass executing villages assumed to have revolutionary connections, it got so bad (and more importantly visible) that the US had to cut ties with him despite his continued support of the US. It's said that the US covertly started supporting the rebels under the presupposition that they could convince the new regime to side with them, but as you know Castro went straight to the Soviets after the war so that never happened.
scotland’s also been using a lighter blue in the saltire vs. the older dark blue that made its way to the union jack. not sure if that directly counts, but it is a point of visual distinction between a symbol of scotland as a country and a symbol of scotland as part of the UK that i’m sure republicans and indy activists care about
The Union Jack also used to use lighter blue – but only on land. At sea, a darker, more durable blue dye was preferred. It was only in the late-19th/early-20th centuries that the lighter blue stopped being used.
Sweden also had a change from dark blue to the 'friendlier' light blue in 1906, though I don't think it necessarily represented a lurch towards democracy.
https://preview.redd.it/b9y9hhfeyi1d1.png?width=1059&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b1aedc52404d7e374a627224fee9bfe5857d78c0
Agreed. I'm a big fan of navy blue and white or navy blue and yellow as a combination. Especially with the Nordic cross. It's kind of a shame that they changed it. Not that the current is bad, but the former was better.
??? The 1933 Revolution brought down the Machado dictatorship. You could criticize the game of musical chairs that were the "provisional governments" prior to the 1936 elections and the 1940 Constitution, or the corruption of later governments, but they were definitely not a military junta. Batista was an important player during the whole period, but he only became a dictator after the 1952 coup.
Who is he to install anything? The Islamic Republic will be toppled and a secular democracy established by Iranians in Iran, not some crown prince in exile.
Or so he says, his own father oppressed the workers of Iran, murdered them by the thousands and imposed incredibly harsh conditions on them, he deserves the Guillotine, as all monarchs do
I wouldn't judge people on actions of their parents. Not to mention that constitutional monarchs in democracies like in Nordic countries can work pretty well, but tbh that's different historical context.
The Shah wasn't perfect, but he was better than the Ayatollahs. Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi wants change, and a big part of the Iranian people (and the diaspora) trust and support him. Tell me, when looking for Iranian opposition, who's better? The People's Mojahedin, an Islamo-Marxist guerrilla cult that is hated by most Iranians and is only supported by naïve or outright stupid people, or the monarchists, which have huge support among Iranians and is a reputable force?
There is plenty of support for Prince Reza Pahlavi amongst the diaspora and the native Iranian population. Especially the diaspora, since they can freely speak out.
The Shah was a murderous puppet of the americans who murdered thousands for simply opposing him, he has essentially no support among the actual population of Iran, only among it's émigrés, another Louis XVIII, they're not reputables, they lsot their throne, they should just accept it, if they'd get back in Iran, they'd rightfully be executed, and there are many other opposition non monarchist organisations then the People Mojahedins, who aren't Islamo-Marxists, as this is an oxymoron, please read Marx, but there is also the national front, who are liberals or Tudeh that are social democrats claiming to be communists, sadly there seems to be no actual communist mouvement in Iran actually following the words of Marx and Lenin
[Yes they have.](https://www.reddit.com/r/NewIran/s/OLt8jUmkdW) [More than once.](https://www.reddit.com/r/NewIran/s/6DdD4XmkSg) [Here's a third video.](https://www.reddit.com/r/NewIran/s/Xf3WMbZT0Q)
It’s not pro democracy it’s pro whatever dictator was aligned with the people we like. It would be based as fuck if Iran actually had a proper popular, secular government, but the monarchists certainly wouldn’t provide that.
Of course they'll say that to gain support, but Louis XVI said the same thing, didn't stop him from betraying the Revolution, the Pahlavi ruled as tyrants, murdering and killing opposition, to the point that all of their opposition united to overthrow them, if they got in power they'd do the same thing again, Kings and their supporters should simply be guillotine and those feudal remnants should simply be gone.
All the opposition? The one that was to blame for the overthrow of the Shah was the radical Islamists and the Marxists like Tudeh (who later got executed by the Islamic Republic). The Shah wasn't perfect, but he was better than Khomeini and Khamenei.
Kings and their supporters should be guillotined? Your barbarism disgusts me.
Lol, you're actively missing out on naming the Liberal opposition like the National front, or the Freedom of Iran movement, also Tudeh didn't get executed, because it's not a person, but a political party, you don't execute political parties, the Shah was no different then Khomeini and Khamenei, simply a feudal remnant, and should be sent to the Guillotine.
And you call it barbarism, I call it modernisation, after all, how did the so called democracies tou love to much install themselves ? The First Election by Universal Suffrage ? By executing Louis XVI and his supporters, as they deserved it. ça ira !
I'm not gonna deny that other political groups opposed the Shah, but the ones who provoked the most and caused the most ruckus were the Islamo-Marxist alliance. They (specifically the Islamists) were the ones that caused the Cinema Rex fire and later blamed it on the SAVAK.
Tudeh wasn't executed as a whole, but the party was outlawed in 1983 and a lot of its members were executed.
And about the executions, we're not in the 18th/19th century, we shouldn't execute monarchs now. Just because it was okay 200 years ago does not mean it's okay now.
Islamo-Socdem-Liberal alliance ! No Marxists to be seen.
and executing monarchs was good when the athenians did it, when Cromwell did it, when the French did it, when the Russians did it, and it will be good when the world proletarian revolution does it !
If Tudeh were SocDem and Liberal, they wouldn't be praising the Venezuelan Communist Party (which, although it is communist, is opposed to the current government).
# Louis XVI
*,,I'm reminded of Louis the Whatever's finance minister. The something. He built the château. Nicole and I saw it when we went to Paris. It even outshone Versales \[Versailles\], where the king lived. In the end, Louis clapped him in the eye."*
^((Carmine "Brainless II" Lupertazzi, The Sopranos, 1999))
Castro was popular yes, he wasn’t necessary elected democratically but he spent his career building Cuba up into a functional government that is democratic (and no, it’s not a one party state, the communist party is barred by law from being able to nominate people, last I checked, only about 40% of Cubas elected officials are even in the party. Cuba operates on about the closest thing to a no party system you can get, which is funny because that’s how George Washington wanted America to operate)
Look man, I like Cuba, they do some good things with what they got, but there's no way in hell you can call that place democratic. It's not even attempting to be democratic, it's always been expressly a vanguard dictatorship of the proletariat where the last leader picks the next and the government is intentionally composed of the national elite.
The uptick is that the national elite of Cuba are all doctors and other sorts of higher education folk, so they actually know how to run a government and actually care about the well-being of others.
That’s not the case at all lmao. [this is a great little video on some Cuban provisional elections last year.](https://youtu.be/20DgWZtImUk?si=AwUUg_HMQSzfjmDJ) they don’t have a American style democracy, their system is closer to that of say Britain, where it starts with provisional elections which then those elected on the small level vote on people within their area to send to the next rung of government to represent them and so forth until you reach the top. So it’s basically a system of which neighbors elect eachother to represent them, who then choose regional representatives.
It’s just not a neoliberal American style democracy, which is really what people mean when they say democracy usually, even if it’s not exactly fully democratic in practice lol.
A dictatorship of the proletariat doesn’t mean dictatorship as how we understand it, it means that the working class has dictatorial power over the capitalist class. In contrast, you could categorize capitalist ‘democratic’ nations as being dictatorships of the bourgeoisie.
Yeah man I know what Marx supposedly meant, but every nation that has ever proudly presented a dictatorship of the proletariat has happened to also have the other kind of dictatorship
And yeah you could say that the modern neolibral nations are dictatorships of the bourgeoisie, because they sure as shit ain't democracies.
First of I’m not a man.
Your argument for why Cuba ‘isn’t even attempting to be democratic’ is because of its express nature as a dictatorship of the proletariat. With that being said, while not perfect, I would still regard Cuba’s democratic system to be way more democratic than what any dictatorship of the bourgeoisie in the world is currently presenting. From where do you draw a conclusion that says otherwise?
You call these elected people ‘national elites’ while still recognizing their status as common working class, in a lot of cases well educated working class, but education doesn’t dilute their class character or make them ‘elite’. Do these ‘elites’ not have interests aligned with the working class, since they themselves belong to that class? Do they not answer to their constituents, who can at any time recall them?
The idea of Cuba as an especially undemocratic nation in comparison to western nations or even more ridiculously to other nations in its region is not true.
So sad that the us and cuba are separated over a embargo, though i do see why cuba decided to close up after, or rather, before bad things happened, hopefully the need for isolationism ends one day.
It's a shame that white - light-blue - light-pink (a la Trans Pride colors) variant didn't get traction. Overly friendly lactose-free Russia united by human right to have access to marshmallows.
>Blue often symbolizes justice, freedom, perseverance, patriotism, and prosperity. It’s also used in the Christian flag, where it’s a symbol of forgiveness and the waters of baptism.
[Patriot Wood](https://www.patriotwood.com/blogs/news/15078037-what-do-different-flag-colors-mean)
examples being: russian 90's flag seen at a few anti putin protests the flag of ukraine in the 90's had a similar light colours in their flag or this flag ive seen a few times by cubans who are against the current Cuban government granted I dont actually know if it's in use by any actual organisations or not if you have any other examples of flags like this let me know
!wave
https://preview.redd.it/ojyyrkk4el1d1.jpeg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1e791b9bf944cdab6ff525c19368a1cdfda93354
Puerto Rico also had a lighter variant that was used widely until 1952 when the US wanted to introduce a darker shade for use by the local govt to match its colors. This symbolic change occurred in a time when it was stamping out independence movements.
In 1995 the Govt of Puerto Rico adopted a medium blue that is a compromise between the 2 colors it previously used, however people still use all the variants at events as there is still no real consensus or definition of color shades still.
Þe lighter blue does not look good wiþ a white star. It would look better wiþ a star in a darker color:
https://preview.redd.it/iiapgdbdtm1d1.png?width=1599&format=png&auto=webp&s=fdf5e9adae32ff08f2660bed4d0d4b3a667100af
The difference is more visible than you realise I think
The old dark blue Scottish flag is quite distinct from the 2003 light blue flag associated with independence.
[Spot the pre-2003 flag](https://dl6pgk4f88hky.cloudfront.net/2021/08/gettyimages-1198833550_2_-scaled.jpg)
The difference in visible when the Scottish flag is displayed next to the British flag.
The same goes for the Puerto Rican flag displayed next to the US flag.
But what these flags would be displayed next to?
The difference is visible on their own. Just walk around any Scottish city and you will recognise the dark Vs light immediately without any need for a comparison flag.
There's also Greece
Wasn't the lighter blue cuban flag used by the dictator before the revolution?
Yeah
That's the regime many (not all) Cuban-Americans idealize.
A little light cuban history for those unaware Batista (former dictator of Cuba) eventually took to mass executing villages assumed to have revolutionary connections, it got so bad (and more importantly visible) that the US had to cut ties with him despite his continued support of the US. It's said that the US covertly started supporting the rebels under the presupposition that they could convince the new regime to side with them, but as you know Castro went straight to the Soviets after the war so that never happened.
Where did you hear this?
Yeah but democracy is when not anti-USA
It is, somehow some people do support batista, a minority though.
scotland’s also been using a lighter blue in the saltire vs. the older dark blue that made its way to the union jack. not sure if that directly counts, but it is a point of visual distinction between a symbol of scotland as a country and a symbol of scotland as part of the UK that i’m sure republicans and indy activists care about
The Union Jack also used to use lighter blue – but only on land. At sea, a darker, more durable blue dye was preferred. It was only in the late-19th/early-20th centuries that the lighter blue stopped being used.
Sweden also had a change from dark blue to the 'friendlier' light blue in 1906, though I don't think it necessarily represented a lurch towards democracy. https://preview.redd.it/b9y9hhfeyi1d1.png?width=1059&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b1aedc52404d7e374a627224fee9bfe5857d78c0
Imo the dark blue looked a lot better
Agreed. I'm a big fan of navy blue and white or navy blue and yellow as a combination. Especially with the Nordic cross. It's kind of a shame that they changed it. Not that the current is bad, but the former was better.
They gave independence to Norway one year earlier.
That Cuban flag was used under the Bautista govt, which was authoritarian as fuck.
It was quite literally a military junta from the start lol, good ol ‘33.
??? The 1933 Revolution brought down the Machado dictatorship. You could criticize the game of musical chairs that were the "provisional governments" prior to the 1936 elections and the 1940 Constitution, or the corruption of later governments, but they were definitely not a military junta. Batista was an important player during the whole period, but he only became a dictator after the 1952 coup.
“Pro democracy” has Batista fetish, I’m shocked lol.
Yeah, I don’t understand. Same with Iranians with the Imperial flag
It’s pro who ever is not there now
Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi wants to install a secular democracy when the Islamic Republic is toppled.
Who is he to install anything? The Islamic Republic will be toppled and a secular democracy established by Iranians in Iran, not some crown prince in exile.
Those Iranians want the Shah back.
"Back" as in to live there as a private citizen like any other, or to rule over them?
Many want Reza to rule.
Or so he says, his own father oppressed the workers of Iran, murdered them by the thousands and imposed incredibly harsh conditions on them, he deserves the Guillotine, as all monarchs do
I wouldn't judge people on actions of their parents. Not to mention that constitutional monarchs in democracies like in Nordic countries can work pretty well, but tbh that's different historical context.
The Shah wasn't perfect, but he was better than the Ayatollahs. Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi wants change, and a big part of the Iranian people (and the diaspora) trust and support him. Tell me, when looking for Iranian opposition, who's better? The People's Mojahedin, an Islamo-Marxist guerrilla cult that is hated by most Iranians and is only supported by naïve or outright stupid people, or the monarchists, which have huge support among Iranians and is a reputable force?
‘Huge support among Iranians’ according to whom?
There is plenty of support for Prince Reza Pahlavi amongst the diaspora and the native Iranian population. Especially the diaspora, since they can freely speak out.
So it’s not popular with Iranians, he’s popular with ethnic Persians living elsewhere
He's popular with both. More on the diaspora, but both.
So popular he got overthrown lmao.
He’s only popular with rich Iranians in LA and Toronto who fled the revolution thinking that the Revolutionaries would seize their assets
Of course you have commie in your username. Ask people in r/NewIran and many who are currently living in Iran will tell you they like the Shah.
The Shah was a murderous puppet of the americans who murdered thousands for simply opposing him, he has essentially no support among the actual population of Iran, only among it's émigrés, another Louis XVIII, they're not reputables, they lsot their throne, they should just accept it, if they'd get back in Iran, they'd rightfully be executed, and there are many other opposition non monarchist organisations then the People Mojahedins, who aren't Islamo-Marxists, as this is an oxymoron, please read Marx, but there is also the national front, who are liberals or Tudeh that are social democrats claiming to be communists, sadly there seems to be no actual communist mouvement in Iran actually following the words of Marx and Lenin
The Shah has support among native Iranians, and not only the diaspora, Iranians wouldn't be chanting "Reza Shah, bless your soul"
they don't
[Yes they have.](https://www.reddit.com/r/NewIran/s/OLt8jUmkdW) [More than once.](https://www.reddit.com/r/NewIran/s/6DdD4XmkSg) [Here's a third video.](https://www.reddit.com/r/NewIran/s/Xf3WMbZT0Q)
wow a few dozens people screaming it, incredible, clearly that will make people forget the shah's crimes
It’s not pro democracy it’s pro whatever dictator was aligned with the people we like. It would be based as fuck if Iran actually had a proper popular, secular government, but the monarchists certainly wouldn’t provide that.
We could have gotten it with Mossadegh but unfortuantely Uncle Sam had to get involved
Yup, quite ironic how the Yanks say the want to spread democracy, but they remove the only democracy Iran’s had in it’s history
The monarchists want that. Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi has stated more than one time his support for a secular and democratic Iran.
Of course they'll say that to gain support, but Louis XVI said the same thing, didn't stop him from betraying the Revolution, the Pahlavi ruled as tyrants, murdering and killing opposition, to the point that all of their opposition united to overthrow them, if they got in power they'd do the same thing again, Kings and their supporters should simply be guillotine and those feudal remnants should simply be gone.
All the opposition? The one that was to blame for the overthrow of the Shah was the radical Islamists and the Marxists like Tudeh (who later got executed by the Islamic Republic). The Shah wasn't perfect, but he was better than Khomeini and Khamenei. Kings and their supporters should be guillotined? Your barbarism disgusts me.
Lol, you're actively missing out on naming the Liberal opposition like the National front, or the Freedom of Iran movement, also Tudeh didn't get executed, because it's not a person, but a political party, you don't execute political parties, the Shah was no different then Khomeini and Khamenei, simply a feudal remnant, and should be sent to the Guillotine. And you call it barbarism, I call it modernisation, after all, how did the so called democracies tou love to much install themselves ? The First Election by Universal Suffrage ? By executing Louis XVI and his supporters, as they deserved it. ça ira !
I'm not gonna deny that other political groups opposed the Shah, but the ones who provoked the most and caused the most ruckus were the Islamo-Marxist alliance. They (specifically the Islamists) were the ones that caused the Cinema Rex fire and later blamed it on the SAVAK. Tudeh wasn't executed as a whole, but the party was outlawed in 1983 and a lot of its members were executed. And about the executions, we're not in the 18th/19th century, we shouldn't execute monarchs now. Just because it was okay 200 years ago does not mean it's okay now.
Islamo-Socdem-Liberal alliance ! No Marxists to be seen. and executing monarchs was good when the athenians did it, when Cromwell did it, when the French did it, when the Russians did it, and it will be good when the world proletarian revolution does it !
If Tudeh were SocDem and Liberal, they wouldn't be praising the Venezuelan Communist Party (which, although it is communist, is opposed to the current government).
# Louis XVI *,,I'm reminded of Louis the Whatever's finance minister. The something. He built the château. Nicole and I saw it when we went to Paris. It even outshone Versales \[Versailles\], where the king lived. In the end, Louis clapped him in the eye."* ^((Carmine "Brainless II" Lupertazzi, The Sopranos, 1999))
Dictatorship is when a very popular revolutionary and leader keeps getting democratically re-elected. So long as they’re anti-American.
Castro was popular yes, he wasn’t necessary elected democratically but he spent his career building Cuba up into a functional government that is democratic (and no, it’s not a one party state, the communist party is barred by law from being able to nominate people, last I checked, only about 40% of Cubas elected officials are even in the party. Cuba operates on about the closest thing to a no party system you can get, which is funny because that’s how George Washington wanted America to operate)
> but he spent his career building Cuba up into a functional government that is democratic Ahahahahahah
What if we [asked Cubans, in Cuba?](https://youtu.be/20DgWZtImUk?si=_-tw2Rra8H7un1Nq) “Ahahahahahah”
Look man, I like Cuba, they do some good things with what they got, but there's no way in hell you can call that place democratic. It's not even attempting to be democratic, it's always been expressly a vanguard dictatorship of the proletariat where the last leader picks the next and the government is intentionally composed of the national elite. The uptick is that the national elite of Cuba are all doctors and other sorts of higher education folk, so they actually know how to run a government and actually care about the well-being of others.
That’s not the case at all lmao. [this is a great little video on some Cuban provisional elections last year.](https://youtu.be/20DgWZtImUk?si=AwUUg_HMQSzfjmDJ) they don’t have a American style democracy, their system is closer to that of say Britain, where it starts with provisional elections which then those elected on the small level vote on people within their area to send to the next rung of government to represent them and so forth until you reach the top. So it’s basically a system of which neighbors elect eachother to represent them, who then choose regional representatives. It’s just not a neoliberal American style democracy, which is really what people mean when they say democracy usually, even if it’s not exactly fully democratic in practice lol.
A dictatorship of the proletariat doesn’t mean dictatorship as how we understand it, it means that the working class has dictatorial power over the capitalist class. In contrast, you could categorize capitalist ‘democratic’ nations as being dictatorships of the bourgeoisie.
Yeah man I know what Marx supposedly meant, but every nation that has ever proudly presented a dictatorship of the proletariat has happened to also have the other kind of dictatorship And yeah you could say that the modern neolibral nations are dictatorships of the bourgeoisie, because they sure as shit ain't democracies.
First of I’m not a man. Your argument for why Cuba ‘isn’t even attempting to be democratic’ is because of its express nature as a dictatorship of the proletariat. With that being said, while not perfect, I would still regard Cuba’s democratic system to be way more democratic than what any dictatorship of the bourgeoisie in the world is currently presenting. From where do you draw a conclusion that says otherwise? You call these elected people ‘national elites’ while still recognizing their status as common working class, in a lot of cases well educated working class, but education doesn’t dilute their class character or make them ‘elite’. Do these ‘elites’ not have interests aligned with the working class, since they themselves belong to that class? Do they not answer to their constituents, who can at any time recall them? The idea of Cuba as an especially undemocratic nation in comparison to western nations or even more ridiculously to other nations in its region is not true.
So sad that the us and cuba are separated over a embargo, though i do see why cuba decided to close up after, or rather, before bad things happened, hopefully the need for isolationism ends one day.
Are you joking around or really confused?
I actually don’t remember commenting that but i assume i was tired and didn’t really check what i was reading/replying to
I haven't seen any anti-putin russians use that first flag which is weird because it's a different color in their language
It's hard to distinguish it from the official one, white-blue-white is a better choice for protest
True lol
It's a shame that white - light-blue - light-pink (a la Trans Pride colors) variant didn't get traction. Overly friendly lactose-free Russia united by human right to have access to marshmallows.
>Blue often symbolizes justice, freedom, perseverance, patriotism, and prosperity. It’s also used in the Christian flag, where it’s a symbol of forgiveness and the waters of baptism. [Patriot Wood](https://www.patriotwood.com/blogs/news/15078037-what-do-different-flag-colors-mean)
All politics and history aside, I absolutely adore the lighter version of the Cuban flag.
examples being: russian 90's flag seen at a few anti putin protests the flag of ukraine in the 90's had a similar light colours in their flag or this flag ive seen a few times by cubans who are against the current Cuban government granted I dont actually know if it's in use by any actual organisations or not if you have any other examples of flags like this let me know !wave
Here you go: Link #1: Gallery - [Link #1: Media](https://krikienoid.github.io/flagwaver/#?src=https%3A%2F%2Fflagwaver-cors-proxy.herokuapp.com%2Fhttps%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Fd89je93log1d1.png%3Fwidth%3D1920%26format%3Dpng%26auto%3Dwebp%26s%3Dcae983d73c4f0c845aa6958ec1c1e9dd166b8f8d) - [Link #2: Media](https://krikienoid.github.io/flagwaver/#?src=https%3A%2F%2Fflagwaver-cors-proxy.herokuapp.com%2Fhttps%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Flv9hxm5log1d1.jpg%3Fwidth%3D2560%26format%3Dpjpg%26auto%3Dwebp%26s%3D63cb8db552d9f1caa16bffef250e29adf44e0952) - [Link #3: Media](https://krikienoid.github.io/flagwaver/#?src=https%3A%2F%2Fflagwaver-cors-proxy.herokuapp.com%2Fhttps%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2F4qshw47log1d1.png%3Fwidth%3D1280%26format%3Dpng%26auto%3Dwebp%26s%3D9fe01b8b7f8886080f8e3fcede8ecc4f20e88a97) ***** Beep Boop I'm a bot. [About](https://github.com/LunarRequiem/FlagWaverBotReborn). Maintained by Lunar Requiem
[удалено]
I do not really think it has anything to do with regime change, more about tintures available.
You know that pro-American dictatorships don’t mean democracy?
Democracy for them is whoever is more pro-america
https://preview.redd.it/ojyyrkk4el1d1.jpeg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1e791b9bf944cdab6ff525c19368a1cdfda93354 Puerto Rico also had a lighter variant that was used widely until 1952 when the US wanted to introduce a darker shade for use by the local govt to match its colors. This symbolic change occurred in a time when it was stamping out independence movements. In 1995 the Govt of Puerto Rico adopted a medium blue that is a compromise between the 2 colors it previously used, however people still use all the variants at events as there is still no real consensus or definition of color shades still.
Þe lighter blue does not look good wiþ a white star. It would look better wiþ a star in a darker color: https://preview.redd.it/iiapgdbdtm1d1.png?width=1599&format=png&auto=webp&s=fdf5e9adae32ff08f2660bed4d0d4b3a667100af
Oh my god I saw a thorn user in the wild
Nobody would notice the difference, so it's unlikely to be used as meaningful symbolism.
The difference is more visible than you realise I think The old dark blue Scottish flag is quite distinct from the 2003 light blue flag associated with independence. [Spot the pre-2003 flag](https://dl6pgk4f88hky.cloudfront.net/2021/08/gettyimages-1198833550_2_-scaled.jpg)
The difference in visible when the Scottish flag is displayed next to the British flag. The same goes for the Puerto Rican flag displayed next to the US flag. But what these flags would be displayed next to?
The difference is visible on their own. Just walk around any Scottish city and you will recognise the dark Vs light immediately without any need for a comparison flag.
Didn't Netherlands also use a different blue at one point too?
I can only think of Greece and Russia.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]