The FE has no south pole?
That depends on who you ask. It seems few agree with anyone else about what the Earth looks like, other than "it must be flat because it looks flat to me sometimes".
Also I still don't get how a star can never set in the south. The most southern stars would travel around the edge of disk disk, so over the night the star will go from one side of the disk to the other side, wouldn't the stars get further that the northern star over the night.
Also if the earth is flat and the stars are in a rotating sphere, why is the celestial equator at a different angle to the ground depending on your location.
Some say the Earth is a disk with the North Pole at the center and the stars rotate around that - the "unipolar" model. Others say it's a disk with the North Pole at one point and the South Pole at another, and there are two sets of stars, with one set rotating around each of the poles, in opposite directions, and "mesh" at the equator - the "bipolar" model. A relative newcomer posits that the Earth is a disk with a nearly-flat Northern Hemisphere on one side and nearly-flat Southern Hemisphere on the other - "dual-earth". There are others, of course, like an infinite plane, and the "Ice Dome" which is so incoherently explained that few, if any, other than its originator have any idea what it is supposed to be like, and it's unclear if he does either.
Each has obvious deficiencies. The unipolar flat earth has no way to explain southern circumpolar stars at all. To people in the Northern Hemisphere who don't get out much and believe only what they see for themselves or otherwise want to believe, they simply don't seem to exist and therefore this is of no concern. The bipolar model explains what you'd see from each of the poles, but stars on different sides of the Celestial Equator would constantly change in angular distance from each other, which simply isn't seen in the sky. It also fails to competently explain why you would only see half the stars from any given point at any given time. Dual-earth also explains nicely what you'd see at each pole and also why you only see one hemisphere's worth from there, but not, plausibly, how you can see more than a few of the stars in the other hemisphere as you move closer to the equator. Nor is there a sensible explanation how you can go from one side of the disk, at the equator, to the other without noticing what would be very obvious effects. Note "sensible" in that sentence.
The reason you get such fragmented and ill-fitting ideas is, of course, because the Earth isn't flat, so there's no neat way to make straightforward observations fit a flat-earth model.