I pledge my allegiance …
Lord Goldsmith, one of Britishness Brown’s anti-English chums, has decided that it would be a rather good idea if children were forced to take part in a citizenship ceremony and pledge allegiance to the Queen to boost Britishness.
This would, of course, only apply to England because education is devolved in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It will be only English children that have Britishness thrust upon them just like they do with the current Britishness lessons. And it’ll only be English children that have to pledge their allegiance to the Queen.
I’m a monarchist, I don’t have a problem with pledging allegiance to the Queen. But children should be given the choice – they’ll be leaving school at 18 by the time this happens (another policy the British have imposed only on England) and old enough to have made up their minds whether they’re monarchists or republicans.
However, pledging allegiance to the British state I do have a problem with. The Scottish government have already said that they’re having none of this and the Welsh and Northern Irish government’s will have a similar opinion. Either all children are indoctrinated with No Mandate Brown’s faux-Britishness and forced to pledge allegiance to the Queen or none of them are.
The proposals have been condemned on all fronts, quite rightly described as a gimmick by many. Most importantly, teachers are dead against the idea. The British government is planning to offer bribes such as discounted university tuition fees to drum up some interest. The tuition fees that Scottish students don’t have to pay but which English students do because Scottish MPs voted to impose them on England against the wishes of the majority of English MPs. Way to rub salt in the wound!
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Agree completely with wot you have wrote Stuart.
I’m also uncomfortable with the idea of this allegiance pledge, not because I’m against a pledge per se but because I just see this as a knee-jerk reaction to separatism and Muslim fundamentalism, and perhaps even wider social tensions.
It’s not like the Government wasn’t warned about any of this, we all saw it coming. And now this. A stupid gimmick that only the English will be subjected to.
March 11th, 2008 at 11:41 pmMark Steel’s column in the Indie has it best:
there are probably other bits of his report, not yet published, which go: “Loyal British citizenship will be enhanced by dismantling the system of local government, and replacing it with a network of barons. A sense of modern national unity will be advanced if citizens, who shall also be known as ’serfs’, kneel before them on the third Sunday of each month and offer them their wives as chattel. This measure, I feel, should bring about a rapid decrease in the practice of city centre binge-drinking.”
March 12th, 2008 at 12:40 amThe Indie made a funny, whatever next?
Gareth, the most bizarre thing is that whilst Lord Goldsmith is proposing a pledge of allegiance to the Queen, he’s also proposing to water down treason laws further. So what is it, either the Queen is special or she’s a nobody. About time they made up their mind.
March 12th, 2008 at 6:52 amAnother mad scheme from Bonkers Brown! Is there no length these Loon Labour freaks won’t go to to deny Englishness? They managed to get through an entire 12-minute spot with Baroness Kennedy (critical of the plan) and Goldsmith on Radio Four yesterday morning without mentioning ‘England’ or ‘English’ once. Plenty of mentions of Scotland, Wales and even ‘Republicans’ as objecting to the idea, though; but not the English, who are obviously supposed to just lie down, take it and think of the Empire! Well, they deserve what’s coming to them next time we get a chance to boot them out of office – that’s if the electoral system plus the Scottish and Welsh MPs don’t keep them in power. The lunatics have definitely taken over the asylum.
March 12th, 2008 at 7:32 amTHE BRITISH CITIZENSHIP not good reading! one annoying item re note 3. quote. To consider the difference between the different categories of British Nationality..What is there to consider,I wonder.. whether England is England ? the majority will settle in England or will they be TOLD it is Britain… also another comment..new steps to promote the learning of English,including language LOANS!..for people who cannot afford to pay for the lessons outset. oh yea! funding well your council tax will rise !
March 12th, 2008 at 10:01 amIt’s when schemes like this are proposed that it’s obvious to me that the discussions about Britishness are following two completely different paths.
On the first path the argument is about the Union. Do we want it or not? It’s the only game in town in Scotland and it’s mirrored on sites like this and in Wales and NI where the discussion focuses on the separate national identities within the British State or whether a British state is neeeded at all.
The second path is simply not really connected to the first at all, it’s all about how to integrate immigrant minorities into the UK. Separate national identities within the UK are not a factor at all.
I’ve often felt when commenting on articles about Britishness which adhere to this integration philosophy that any comment I make which refers to Scotland (or England) is a non-sequitur. It is not what the article was about nor does it have any relevance to the author.
This integration mindset about Britishness is perhaps summed up by “Englishness” as an exclusive identity and “Britishness” as an inclusive identity. That’s why those who are on the integration path hate to refer to England or Englishness. Once you realise this is how they define the terms “Englishness” and “Britishness” it’s easy to spot the usage.
The integration argument does have some relevance to the Union argument as there is a basic assumption that Britain is a unitary state and has been for all time but sometimes I can’t see any point in commenting on articles which take this integration view of “Britishness”.
The Britishness Committee or whatever they’re called is currently in Scotland at the moment but I think all this has achieved is confusion all round because it’s two disconnected arguments about identity assuming they’re all talking about the same thing.
Even as a means to integrate minorities into Britain I think this loyalty oath stuff is a non-starter.
March 12th, 2008 at 12:51 pmHeadline in todays Times ‘Scots lead rebellion against oath of allegiance’……Alex Salmond, SCOTLAND’S FIRST MINISTER, led the attack’.
The First Ministers of Wales and N.Ireland will also, I’m sure, have a view.
So who is putting England’s point of view? Gordon Brown?
Mr Brown’s spokesman is reported as saying that ‘The Prime Minister very much welcomes Lord Goldsmith’s review. It has a number of interesting proposals in it and no doubt there will be a debate on them”
Again, who will put England’s view? Unlike the other home nations we do not have a First Minister elected by the people of England to speak for us. In fact the English view will also be the British view because this government does not recognise that there is a difference!
So, what is the English position on this? It’s impossible to say because, as usual English and British are conflated!
March 12th, 2008 at 2:42 pmThe point is, Derek, that the English view as such is being deliberately suppressed. As you say, there is no official voice for England; and in the interview on Radio Four yesterday, and in his report itself, Goldsmith stubbornly avoided making any reference to England or to English people as such as having any distinct point of view or input into said debate. He just referred to a multiplicity of identities within Britishness. At least, this is consistent: the whole British-citizenship exercise is orientated towards suppressing the idea of England and the English as a nation; so it makes sense not to refer to England and to pretend that it does not exist – not one single reference in a 12-minute item.
In answer to your specific question, none of the mainstream parties have any distinct policies or make any attempt to represent England and the English people; so they can’t speak for England on this topic. It’s up to organisations like the CEP or the English Democrats, plus the blogging community, it seems to me. The more we point out the lunacy of all this, the more we might gradually be heard. After all, the English people are not as stupid as the Westminster politicians think we are.
March 12th, 2008 at 4:13 pmIn fact britologywatch I’d go futher in your last sentence and say that we English are not as stupid as the Westminster politicians are!
March 12th, 2008 at 6:41 pm“the English people are not as stupid as the Westminster politicians think we are”.
I’m sorry britologywatch but I think there are a few million out there that havn’t got a clue about the present situation, as has been stated elsewhere, to them britain is England and England is britain, and Westminster is the English parliament, when people were quized about swearing allegience to britishness on the TV news the other day not one of them challenged the reporter or even mentioned England, they just mumbled something to the effect that it’s not british to do that sort of thing, so that put it all into context to me.
Remember, there are 500 or so English MP’s at Westminster that are stupid, or am I being naive, they have their snouts wedged too tightly in the trough to want to do anything about the situation that might eventually rob them of their “nice little earner”, they just lie back and think of britain! and we have to suffer the indignity of being stateless people.
March 12th, 2008 at 8:01 pmFunny thing this Britishness! When Gordon Brown goes rushing over to Paris,when England were in the Rugby World Cup final,was he thinking of Britishness or England winning the World cup! either way gordons on a winner ! when the Ministry of defence banned RAF men & women from wearing there uniforms in public was that Britishness or Cowardice! heaped on our marvellous servicemen.. All you hear on the news !bad weather in southern Britain ! how can you have southern Britain- instead of England! what absolute rubbish! reckon these think tanks spread over the country are writing scripts/guidelines for news-announcements/statements all the supermarkets there british no English Products,only the people working there it is nothing more than blatant properganda & discrimination !
March 12th, 2008 at 8:48 pmHey! Teacher leave those kids alone!
March 12th, 2008 at 9:58 pm—–to England.
March 13th, 2008 at 12:11 amI agree with Dougthedug that there is a complete disconnect between all this official talk about British nationality and citizenship, and the debate about separate identities and political representation for the different nations of the UK. That’s why the former camp can’t even mention England, because once you start conceiving of England as a distinct entity from Britain, then the whole Britishness thing is in danger of collapsing like a house of cards. Why? Because it is essentially a vehicle through which the government is trying to channel the English quest to redefine their national identity, value system and political future – relying on the identification many English people still make between Englishness and Britishness. Of course, it’s also a means for the political establishment to try to hold on to their power base: hoping people won’t notice the difference between English laws and policies, and UK ones; so they won’t realise the lawmakers are democratically unaccountable.
Once people realise that the old identification between England and Britain is no longer adjusted to the reality on the ground (all the nations of the UK seeking to define their own paths) or the political realities (England as the only UK nation without democratic representation for its own affairs), then they’ll realise the futility of all the Britishness malarkey. The problem is it’s not just nonsense but dangerous nonsense: the government seems seriously intent on trying to impose it. It seems barely conceivable that they could actually get away with it, and they might need EU-led regionalisation to achieve it. But it needs to be denounced for what it is: the attempt to craft a new unitary Britain that is predicated on the denial not just of England but of the other nations of the UK as nations. This madness must stop.
March 13th, 2008 at 6:34 amWell Said ! SPOT ON!
March 13th, 2008 at 7:34 amThis British = English thing incorperates several issues as previously pointed out, one of the devisive elements is not
March 13th, 2008 at 7:57 amswearing allegiance to the Queen of England/UK. We know there are certain groups indeviduals that refuse to Swear, if you want to become a member of Parliament, you must take the oath. The lack or refusal of swearing the oath, gives out the signal no-one cares or wants the Royals hence not popular! get rid of the royal family & its institution, another English foundation is threatened ! you may not agree, but i see devisivness & deceit…. one of the reasoning i support the Monachy
I agree with you, WessexMan. I support the monarchy (they’re Kings and Queens of England, after all) and the establishment of the Church (of England). While these institutions are still in place, then at least there’s some official recognition of England as being at the heart of the UK and as the nation that actually holds it together. If we moved to a federal UK or an independent England, then that could be the time to revisit these institutions; because then the English nation wouldn’t need those symbols to guarantee its existence.
March 13th, 2008 at 10:55 am