Lord Goldsmith would like schoolchildren to swear an oath of allegiance to better define our sense of Britishness. Poor unfortunate children are to be made to swear the oath to Queen and country (presumably); one wonders if the new ‘citizens’ will get a certificate or baseball cap to celebrate their inclusion. This is the worse example that could be possibly imagined of a bungled attempt to impose values of tolerance on people from above; the very result of which is the fostering of the intolerance and bigotry which the measures are supposed to stymie.
Firstly, many will object to swearing an oath of allegiance to the Queen or the institution of the monarchy. In a democratic society it is increasingly an anachronism and I think it should be noted that nations which have formed their identity in the process of democratic rebellions against monarchical rule (like the United States and France) already have days to celebrate citizenship such as the ones now being proposed. However, those days are a celebration of the achievements of the people. It is a worthwhile point that it seems a little unfair to ask a Catholic to swear allegiance to a throne that anybody sharing their religion would be prohibited from sitting on; the notion that the monarchy embodies ‘Britishness’ is to view it from the perspective of a visiting tourist.
As a republican it would be deeply hypocritical of me to promise loyalty to a monarch that I do not feel any loyalty too; also this government has to answer the question, are we citizens or subjects? If we are citizens then we should be afforded the rights that citizens are in other countries. It is hard to avoid the impression that this oath is a political gesture designed to inculcate a drone like obedience to the powers that be into children. A government which has broken its basic covenant with the people, as it did over Iraq, by consciously lying to win support for it’s policies also deserves none of the peoples loyalty.
Citizenship, tolerance, these are both concepts that can never be taught in a traditional sense because they are concepts that are learnt not from a textbook but from experiencing life and learning that just because somebody has a different religion does not make them different in every way. You teach it as such by drawing people into the process, making the process relevant to their lives and people then learn through taking action that is relevant to them giving control of their lives. It is thus somewhat ironic that this news has broken the same week as the government has successfully prevented a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.
In that respect proposals like relief on tuition fees and local taxes for those who join volunteers corps are more in line with a progressive notion of citizenship and inclusion. It is a model of the state encouraging, not preaching. More money for projects that foster inclusion and contribute to the building of bridges between communities would also be welcome. A new focus on ‘bottom-up’ multiculturalism, starting at the local level, is the only way forward if the whole notion is not to be pulled apart and discredited.
Darrell Goodliffe is an applicant member from Peterborough
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Thinking of standing for election or re-election next year? Helpful questions to consider
The Joy of Six 1528
Endometriosis and acetylation
How Chancellor Reeves torpedoed the economy
cim
Iain Donaldson
Jennie
Simon
Geoff Reid
10 Comments
Blimey Darrell, you’re prolific! As long as kids are given the choice between swearing an oath of allegiance to the Queen, or simply swearing at the Queen, then I can’t really say I’m that bothered.
Citizens of the country employ politicians to do the house keeping of the countries that make up the British Isles. We are not citizens on behalf of the politicians. Its time they gave up their corrupt ways and started working truly for the good of all of us and not trying to impose their morally bankrupt ideas upon us. The people will decide if they want a stupid worthless oath not some individual totally cut off from reality.
These nonsense ideas are more worthy of Stalinist Russia or Hitlers Germany.
I am ex-armed forces (Navy) and in the navy we did not need to swear an oath because we were the Royal Navy we only needed to sign the articles of war.
I find it distasteful that school children are going to have to swear an oath to be British. The sheer fact that they are entitled to education in the UK is enough. If they break a law or rule at school an oath shouldn’t be used against them – the fact that they broke rule should alone!
I am sure that a Lib Dem govt would free up teachers’ time from the mountains of paperwork and excessive targets and enable teachers to once again be in the position to inspire and lead as well as shovelling information to students.
If pupils want to be in an organisation that swears and oath then we already have the Guides, Scouts and various cadet forces available. If a local school wants pupils to make promises to the school and classmates to be good students and teachers in their judgement feel an oath is the best way for their particular children then fair enough. But not a national oath.
This is not a fascist state. Certainly not if we (Lib Dems) have something to do with it!
The taking of oaths is incompatible with the beliefs of at least one mainstream UK religion.
(though some people who are ostensibly Liberal Democrats have expressed the view that such tolerance and diversity has no place)
I think there are all sorts of reasons why an oath to the Queen is inappropriate. Its also silly to think that an oath of allegiance to anything could be made compulsory in a free society. However this debate shouldn’t get mixed up with a debate about the monarchy itself. Personally I think a constitutional monarchy serves this country well, and is not incompatible with democracy, and while I will defend the right of other Liberal Democrats to hold a different view, the fact is the monarchy survives because it has genuine popluar support.
I can see your point Ian; if you want to put it another way then maybe we should say that this debate is about the kind of citizenship we want….i think the monarchy then becomes relevant in regard to the citizens or subjects question..
I actually think this touches on the need for a written constitution (which could include an update of the monarchy’s role in today’s society such as its detachment from the Church of England). It would be very exciting to have a great constitutional convention, bringing together all sections of soceity, leading through to a document that captured and institutionalised concepts of liberty, freedom, tolerance etc. Then such a document could be used as a tool in schools to facilitate thinking and understanding amongst young people – a more likely route to their commitment to Britain and citizenship than a compulsory oath of allegiance.
If the proposed “oath” is to apply only to those children old enough to have capacity to swear oaths, and is entirely voluntary, then maybe we could live with it. It would be an entirely meaningless gesture and a fancy piece of paper to stick on one’s bedroom wall. Rather like “signing” the Official Secrets Act. Everyone is subject to the law of the land, whether or not one swears an oath of allegiance.
A compulsory oath would be an outrage. Republicans could not conscientiously do it. Nor could Roman Catholics, who do not recognise the British monarchy (and whose Church on three occasions tried to overthrow it): nor Moslems, who cannot swear loyalty to infidels; nor Jews, who only swear loyalty to God.
My uncle used to stay seated in theatres during the performance of the National Anthem, and I suggest the rest of us do something similar if some civil servant shoves a Bible under our noses.
The whole project is obnoxious because it reinforces the notion that people are the property of the state (as do conscription, ID cards, a national DNA database, etc).
We must be loyal to the law, not to Mrs Saxe Coburg Gotha and her dreadful family. Nor to Mr Brown and the mediocrities who occupy his Cabinet.
Initially we’ll ask them to do it once. Maybe because it was so good, we’ll ask them to do it everyday.
The first thing I thought the first time I saw footage of American (USA) school kids recite the pledge of allegiance (which they do daily) was of little German kids in brown uniforms with swastikas doing the same many years earlier.
It’s something we can do without.
Maybe instead of getting kids to pledge loyalty to our rulers we should get them to pledge watchfulness over our rulers.