Plans to rename South Australia have been floating around for a while now, but so far, nothing has really stuck.
Over the weekend one man had a bold idea.
And unlike us, it wasn’t to see how many doughnuts we could eat in the space of a day, but instead a plan to ditch the name South Australia and simply adopt Adelaide as the new name for our fourth largest state.
Bill Muirhead, agent-general for South Australia in London, said the capital city would be referred to as ‘Adelaide, Adelaide’ and could become as well-known as ‘New York, New York’.
And while it’s not the Big Apple, perhaps the slightly more notable name would help the state build a unique reputation.
But a poll run by The Advertiser has found almost 70 per cent are against the idea.
The state name change was one of six big ideas for Muirhead, all focused on tourism marketing, embracing the state’s potential role as a nuclear storage facility and creating a reality TV show based on the wine industry, The Advertiser reported.
As per News.com Muirhead said: “My point is we are really a city-state.”
“But we are on a land mass four times as large as the UK.”
“Why not be ‘Adelaide, Adelaide’?”
But the suggestion for a state name change has already received criticism, pointing out that Adelaide makes up only a small part of the state in terms of area and much of the state’s mineral wealth comes from outside the capital.
According to News.com other suggestions include ‘Barossa’ as the state is famous for its wine.
This is not the first time a name change has been suggested.
In 1999 Aussie entrepreneur John Singleton suggested the state be renamed Bradman after the cricket legend, and in 2012 the then chief executive of lobby group Business SA, Peter Vaughan, claimed the name was too vague for people overseas.
We have to admit that we think the name South Australia is pretty self-explanatory though.