The morning news programmes have been majoring on Lord Goldsmith's report on strengthening citizenship. As usual, the report has loads of recommendations and is designed to start a "national debate" (the government's code for: "see if there is an outcry or if we get some good coverage in the Mail").
But the media have alighted on one eye-catching proposal: to have school leavers or 16 year olds pledging an oath of allegiance to Queen and Country.
Part of me thinks that 'we don't do things like that in this country'. We have a relaxed informal democracy where dissent is tolerated and even perhaps encouraged. I would have to down a stiff double whisky before pledging allegiance to the Queen. I am a Republican and although I respect the Royal family as people and fellow citizens, I think they are put into a ridiculous position. However, on balance I can see that there is a general public consensus about our currently constituted Head of State and that the Queen has been a good head of state. So yes, I would pledge allegiance to her, after a stiff Glenmorangie. She is Queen of Scotland as well, after all.
But should 16 year olds take that pledge ? In America they go mad with flag waving. Politicians compete with each other to have the most Stars and Stripes behind them when they give statements. But their country is just 200-odd years old and they've only been attacked twice. Our nation is 1000-2000 odd years old, depending on from when you measure its existence, and we've been attacked thousands of times. We have confidence in our selves. I like that. We don't have to go crazy with flag waving to prove that we are a nation.
So this proposal will go down well with cabbies and Daily Telegraph readers, but I don't like the sound of it. Make it a pledge to the country and it sounds a bit better. The Americans, as pointed out this morning by Lady Kennedy, don't pledge allegiance to their Head of State - it's to their flag. Just as well too, I should imagine that free lobotomies would have to be administered before a lot of Americans would pleadge allegiance to George W Bush.
In closing I would say that many seven year olds already pledge allegiance to the Queen. This is the pledge that some of them take:
I promise that I will do my best,
To love my God,
To serve the Queen and my country,
to help other people,
And to keep the Brownie Guide Law.
I didn't take that pledge. I wasn't a cub or a scout (or indeed a Brownie). So I have never given a pledge of allegiance to the Queen and I hope no-one ever forces me to take one. But do I feel like a citizen ? Do I do my bit ? Of course I do.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
A stiff whisky is needed before an oath of allegiance to the Queen
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
Republicans should be celebrating this - what greater spur to their cause than forcing a bunch of contrary teenagers to pledge allegiance to Charles when he's King...
Good point Tristan !!!!
You could have a choice between making a pledge to the queen or taking a secular pledge to the nation.
I think this proposal goes further than what the US does. It is my understanding that students cannot be required to say the pledge of allegiance in public schools in the States.
Lord Goldsmith is a trustworthy sort who puts loyalty to party leader before such petty things as international law, UK law, independance of the Judiciary and Crown Prosecution Services and the people of this nation.
My only surprise is that we aren't all required to pledge allegience to Gordon Brown and the new labour project.
Anyway, nothing highlighted so far has really been sensible or thought-out - how about if we want people to feel they are part of the same nation, we ensure they are represented and treated the same?
Of course that won't win seats in tory marginal constituencies, and that's almost all national politics boils down to these days. (Credit due to Nick Clegg for rallying against this in his conference speech at the weekend)
I pay my taxes, I obey the laws. I do not think the government should demand anything more than that from citizens. My children are 1 and 2 years old so a little young to say anything (let alone this silly pledge), but I should certainly want to warn them about the dangers of swearing an oath of allegiance to any institution. It sees rather un-british to me.
Voluntary lobotomy? I think a good waterboarding session (its abolition vetoed by Bush yesterday) would be needed.
If this comes in it will turn me from a Burbleite republican to an active, campaigning one, because I don't think people (especially those with no vote on the matter) should be coerced into taking oaths, especially where the object of the oath is a made-up concept called 'Royalty'.
When I read this I immediately thought of Gormenghast - a mad crumbling state with distant out of touch rulers acting out pointless rituals which exist for their own sake and serve no purpose. Thanks, Paul, I was going to leave this alone then you wound me up.
We do already have a pretty similar Citizenship Ceremony, for people taking British citizenship. When Blunkett first proposed it, there were very similar comments about that, and I was among those who thought it sounded very un-British and unnecessary. When I saw the detailed guidance for how the session would run, I was even more horrified.
However when I actually went to such an event (I in fact participated in it, as part of a 'dry-run' before they were formally introduced), it was not nearly as bad as I had feared.
Indeed for people taking British citizenship they are usually genuinely meaningful, and seem to mark an important moment in their lives appropriately, without going completely over the top in a very un-British way. I have seen a few more since, and I know quite a fe others who have participated who have a similar view.
I'm not completely convinced we need them for 18 year olds, but I think they're not necessarily a bad idea. I could see that - if done well - they might well help young people to get some kind of take on the society they are becoming part of. I definitely don't think we should be horrified even about the idea.
I'm afraid I also think the 'Queen' angle is a bit of a red herring. Rightly or wrongly, she is the Head of State and that is meaningful for us as a society. Any of us might think that we ought to have different arrangements for appointing our head of state, but that really is a separate argument from the question of these ceremonies.
Thank you all very much for your comments.
How happy will Muslims and other non-Christians be about pledging their allegiance to the defender of the (Christian) faith?
Doesn't sound very multi-cultural to me, but I'm sure someone has thought this through...
Post a Comment