FFS, don't believe everything you read!

[rich_jacko]

There's been an awful lot of drivel about Lord Goldsmith's citizenship report in the news over the last couple of days, particularly about how kids will supposedly be "forced" to swear allegiance.

For a start, the idea of citizenship ceremonies is only one tiny part of the report, but it seems to be all the news coverage has focussed on. The rest of the report is a detailed look at the changing portrait of "citizenship" and what it means; how newcomers to the UK might gain citizenship; how to draw communities together; how to get people more democratically active; and so on.

For another thing, the report doesn't in any way say school leavers should swear an oath to Queen and Country. It says that amongst those polled, there was a lot of interest in the idea of citizenship ceremonies for school leavers, and that it's something we should think about and investigate further. It also talks about this in context of citizenship education in schools, and how the ceremony would only be the end point of a whole course learning about democracy, justice, legal and social rights and responsibilities, etc.

The "Oath of Allegiance" is mentioned very briefly in passing as an optional inclusion. A more important part of the ceremony would be formally joining the electoral register. There's also a lot suggesting that the format wouldn't be too prescribed, and that different communities could design their ceremonies to suit them.

The coverage seems to have whipped up a load of Republican feeling as well. It's symbolic. By swearing allegiance to the Crown, you'd be agreeing to abide by the laws and constitutional principles of the UK. You wouldn't be doing HMTQ's personal bidding.

On that subject, I'm always slightly boggled by how many people seem to honestly believe that the Queen sits around in idle luxury, contributing nothing to the running of this country. Ironically, it's ignorance of all this that makes me think yeah, actually Lord Goldsmith, you're right. We do need better citizenship education in this country, if only so people can make an informed decision.

Besides, isn't it a good thing that our Head of State is above the sleazy short-term power squabbles of party politics?

So, without further ado:

[Poll #1153070]

Comments

Swearing allegiance.

[tallbint.livejournal.com]

I just helped a friend fill out an application for a dual nationality passport (he was born in America but moved here on his mother's passport when age 7- he is now 34), he is eligable for a dual passport, but after all the very lengthy forms have been processed, and all the fees paid, he has to attend the Town Hall to swear allegiance to the Queen, and if he doesn't, and within a month of recieving the form, the application will fail.

I object to this practice, allegiance to the Queen does not a British National make.

Re: Swearing allegiance.

[longhairedhippy.livejournal.com]

If he has in his life sworn allegiance to both the British crown and the United States, doesn't that represent a massive conflict of, well, allegiance?

Re: Swearing allegiance.

[tallbint.livejournal.com]

He thinks so! But is required to perform the ceremony anyway, in order to get a passport he is entitled to.

Although he is normally very english, he was humming the Star Spangled Banner as we filled out the form!

Re: Swearing allegiance.

[rich-jacko.livejournal.com]

Some might speculate that this is part of an underhanded drive to cut down on the number of "forinners" getting British passports, by deliberately making it as awkward as possible.

I couldn't possibly comment.

[longhairedhippy.livejournal.com]

I genuinely believe that the monarchy is A Good Thing for this country, culturally and politically, as it helps to ensure a sense of continuity and stability which I suspect is a great comfort to the national psyche.

However. I would not swear allegiance as I have no faith in, nor loyalty to this country. I would not betray its interests to the advantage of another nation, but I don't feel like I belong here any more, I don't feel part of this country, and I don't believe I could rely on it for anything.

(That may sound harsh, but it's how I feel).

[edy-.livejournal.com]

I'm not convinced about the monarchy simply becuase I don't think an accident of genetics means you should automatically become ruler of a country. However I can't see a better alternative as for me an elected head = another form of politician and I don't trust them at all. So, IMO the monarchy is probabaly the least worst option - at least they get a upbringing's worth of training for the job.

[rich-jacko.livejournal.com]

There doesn't seem to be any ideal form of government. I think it's just a case of choosing the least bad option, and our system seems to be less bad than most other countries'.

[bonedancer.livejournal.com]

"It's symbolic. By swearing allegiance to the Crown, you'd be agreeing to abide by the laws and constitutional principles of the UK. You wouldn't be doing HMTQ's personal bidding."

Well then I don't like what it symbolizes, okay? And it's not like anyone has a frickin' choice whether or not they're bound by the laws and constitutional etceteras anyway, so why make a big deal over swearing to abide by them?

If the oath is optional, who's going to bother? If there are financial incentives - of which I have heard talk - doesn't that cheapen the entire concept to the point of worthlessness anyway?

If people feel a connection and/or loyalty to the Queen, good for them - they can swear whatever oaths they choose to, whenever they like. If they don't, trying to get them to say they do is unjust and certain to have the opposite effect.

As we've just seen. Even if The Man was just idly speculating out loud.

rumbled?

[vampyrefate.livejournal.com]

Oh come on, you lot always talk in code and the papers rumbled you.

"we have simplified the tax system" == "you're all going to pay us more"

"we will reduce bureaucracy" == "we'll get rid of three obscure rules and then introduce 50 new ones"

"We are reducing head count" == "we're firing 50 civil servants and then hiring in 100 capita consultants"

"we will think about / we will consult with" == "you lot better get ready for this..."

You might be innocent, it might be that politicians or whoever is distorting what you say, but for us numpties out here, one thing is said and another is often done. I first got introduced to this sort of thing at the humgble age of 12, when the music teacher at school would say things like, "xxxx is very enthusiastic and attentive" == "xxxx is really hopeless at music, but he's a nice kid"

Citizenship ceremonies for newly nationalised immigrants probably isn't too bad an idea, provided the costs for it can be found from the current nationalisation budget. For school leavers I don't think it makes much sense. I'd rather the teachers were teaching the kids, rather than having them oversee oathswearing to the Monarch. We certainly don't need a 'department of Britishness' created as an adjunct to the Home Office...

But as you say it's about symbolism. Perhaps instead of being distracted by symbolism we could look at solving some of the real problems in the land?