Kingdom united against royal 'oath of allegiance'
A suggestion by Lord Goldsmith that British teenagers be required to take ‘citizenship oaths’ has been greeted with a widespread mixture of anger and derision within the national media, and among politicians in Britain’s devolved parliaments.
The former Attorney General has written a report on citizenship in the UK, in which he recommends compulsory ceremonies for school leavers modeled on those attended by foreign nationals assuming UK citizenship, and “incorporating the oath of allegiance to the Queen and the pledge of commitment to the UK."
Lord Goldsmith said: “I am in favour of people swearing an oath to the head of state. It would mark the passage between being a student of citizenship and an active citizen.
“I absolutely expect that there will be scepticism about it.”
Scepticism has been duly voiced by a number of commentators, contributing to a chorus of disapproval that has greeted the report’s publication across Britain, and within Holyrood and Stormont.
Stormont Social Democratic and Labour Party representative Dolores Kelly warned that the proposal would backfire in Northern Ireland.
She said: “This proposal would only serve to be divisive, dangerous, and counter-productive. It would do little to help a teenager's sense of belonging as suggested, indeed it would only highlight differences in a negative light.”
SNP Minister Jim Mather maintained that objections would be raised in Scotland to the concept of swearing loyalty to the UK.
He said: "We don't support it and neither do the vast majority of parents, teachers and children in Scotland. Loyalty is to each other here in Scotland. Sovereignty still lies with the Scottish people.”
The adverse reaction to the idea of citizenship oaths indicates concerted opposition within the UK to Gordon Brown’s ambition, in the words of his spokesperson, to “entrench the notion of Britishness in British society.”
Labour Peer Baroness Kennedy suggested the notion of pledging loyalty “like the Americans” was “risible,” and Dr Mary Bousted, General Secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, observed: “we are not the USA, we are British.”
Further objections have been voiced over the inclusion of an oath to the Queen in the proposed ceremonies. Asked about how the sympathies of republicans could be accommodated within the citizenship oaths, Lord Goldsmith suggested it did not matter, and that people could still pledge to the simple fact that Britain’s present head of state was a hereditary monarch.
In response, Ted Vallance, writing in the New Statesman, argued that “Goldsmith's remarks show that, despite his legal training, he too places no value on oaths. We can either swear to love the Queen from the bottom of our hearts or we can pledge to obey her merely as our overlord until the revolution comes. It matters not a jot to him. How can active citizenship be inspired by such equivocal testimony as this?”
However, Goldsmith has received support for his efforts to tackle what is widely considered to be a genuine problem.
David Aaronovitch, writing in The Guardian, described Goldsmith’s report as an appropriate reaction to “the difficulty of consolidating a national, British identity, in a time of unprecedented demographic change.”
Lord Goldsmith’s proposals also included making provisions for a National Day for the UK every Autumn. In addition he has suggested that the Union flag could be further exploited as a symbol of British identity.
He said: “I think that some people want to celebrate their identity by using particular symbols, including the flag,” though he conceded, “For other people, the flag doesn't do it for them.”
0 comments on Kingdom united against royal 'oath of allegiance'