Where is the good idea at the heart of Goldsmith's proposal?

"It might seem obvious that MPs such as Sinn Fein's and also would-be-immigrants would be denied entry either to the chamber or the country respectively should they refuse to swear. But what could a British child be refused if he or she refused?" This is the question. The issue with MPs and immigrants is different. MPs choose to stand for election into the service of the state. Immigrants actively choose to come here. Children do not choose to be born here. I don't really think it's appropriate for anyone to be forced to swear allegiance to the Queen. I wouldn't refuse to do so on principle but I think if we're going to have a universal oath of allegiance it would be much better to have everyone pledging their allegiance to the nation in general and their fellow citizens rather than an individual.

"but I think if we're going to have a universal oath of allegiance it would be much better to have everyone pledging their allegiance to the nation in general and their fellow citizens rather than an individual." I thought that pledging allegiance to the Queen is just supposed to symbolise all those things anyway. I suppose it's a bit dated. In the same way that doctors no longer take the Hippocratic Oath in its original format (since it would be a bit odd to swear by Apollo, Asclepius, Hygeia and Panaceia) but take a generic Geneva version ... jude

The beeb are inviting readers to write an oath... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7289520.stm But I think that once its watered down to accomodate current PC thought (no God, no Queen) it will lose its kick.

I wonder how much this review cost to produce an idea like an oath of allegiance. What value does an oath have if it is compulsorily enforced on children? What value does any oath have ever? Without even delving into whether there's anything worth paying allegiance to in the British state or the British crown, this is a load of rubbish. I would no more recite an oath of allegiance than I would vote or fight for the state; its legitimacy is a fiction and I no more belong to it than it belongs to me. Neither would I ask my children to do so.

Obviously an oath will make a huge difference since no-one, particularly politicians, would ever want to break their word.

I don't know whether no God or Queen is PC. Our current political leaders are big fans of both God and the Queen and say so on a regular basis. I don't think my lack of belief in God is a result of PC indoctrination. I got through primary school education in socialist Haringey as a regular church goer, it was only after I'd been educated by the Church of England for five years that I became an atheist. I think asking atheist and agnostics to swear allegiance to God would be ridiculous. If you want people to take things seriously, it's best not to ask them lie. I ambivalent about the Queen.

As the Queen derives her power from the fact that she is the earthly representative of a God that I don't feel exists, I'd find it mighty difficult to take an oath to serve her, and by extension recognise the provinence of her temporal power, with any sense of commitment. Which makes lucky for me that I was born in the UK and have an anglo-saxon skin tone. No-one is ever going to ask me to prove how much I know or care about England, mainly because I am white and therefore unthreatening. Cheers, Mark

sorry Bukh, I didn't think or mean to imply that atheism is a result of Political Correctness. I was refering to the Beeb article and the suggestion that reference to God or the Queen may offend atheists or republicans and should be removed. But an oath made with reference to the Queen or God is meaningless (and if like K, one doesn't believe in the validity of the State, the whole exercise is pointless). The hippocratic oath (generic Geneva version) simply begins, "On my honour..." but what can that mean to children who are raised without any sense of honour or integrity in a fragmented society? I don't think a sense of citizenship is what is missing anyway. What's missing from the lives of too many people is a moral framework and sense of responsibility. Whilst I am not an atheist, I do not want to see compulsory religious indoctrination of children (although many of my agnostic-apathetic friends cite providing their children with a moral system and values as a main motivation for bringing them up Catholics even though they themselves have lapsed) nor do I want to live in a theocracy. Iris Murdoch asks the difficult question of how we find a moral system with no reference to religion. Murdoch was unique in that she herself was not religious like most other critics who felt morality without religion was difficult. Among her concerns are the roles literature, politics, art, and science play in the search for morality in a world that avoids the issue. What is morality? Is it important? Is it true? Can it be taught in schools? Is it the very basis of our existence, or is it just one of many peripheral matters? (Metaphysics as a Guide to Morals, 1982) I think we have to take atheism as our basic starting point for teaching morals to children. If a parent chooses to send their child to a faith school or Sunday school or lessons in the mosque in addition, that's fine, but both the plurality and absence of religion in society means in a non-denominational state school, cannot and should not apppeal to religious concepts. Making them pledge allegience to the crown or state seems a bit irrelevant although I wouldn't have any major objections. jude "Cacoethes scribendi" http://www.judesworld.net

I attest and affirm by all I hold dear that from this moment and for so long as I do remain a resident of this great country that I will endeavour to be an honest and industrious member of its society that I will attempt to tolerate its customs and traditions that I will be a true and loyal subject to whosoever may reign (so long as it’s not that war monger prince Harry.) that I will do everything in my power to be a good and honest English person. But should I make a mistake and break the law – Can I have the 3 grand and be deported without going to jail first? Note this is a joke at the expense of the government and political correctness and is not pointed at anyone else!

I tell you here and now that I will treat you as you treat me. I tell you that if I feel like co-operating I will and if I don't I won't. I demand my liberty and tell you that after that I'll do my best to live by the principles of mutual aid. I tell you now that I will only do as the state asks if I am coerced. It is clear to me that private ownership of the means of production is unjust and inefficient. I tell you now that all of my life I will argue that this system must end. I make no promises to governments or to gods, and I make no promises to show loyalty to authority of any kind. You can take your flag and shove it up your monarch's backside; I hope your churches will one day all be bowling alleys or dance halls. Hmmmm, I could have quite a lot of fun if the rule was that we could each decide what to say as we stood in front of the Union Flag. Even if you believe in something like liberal citizenship - the hollow sham that it is - whether or not someone takes an oath would be a really stupid way of judging someone's character. I may be a strange fellow with all kinds of weird ideas, but I don't think I flatter myself to say that I make a bloody good neighbour and friend. I don't care what colour, sex, creed, sexuality or temperament you have, if you need help I'll be there..... well okay maybe I'd have a problem if you were a fascist or something like that, but otherwise... Has that idiot Goldsmith suggested the oath for schoolchildren only? What has he said about the increasing numbers of home-schooled kids? And what about my kids - raised in France but as English as I am? Would they have to take an oath upon applying for their first passports?

What really tees me off is that they keep stating that we should take this oath as 'citizens'. We are NOT citizens - we have a monarch - we are 'subjects'. I don't want to be a subject. I want to be a citizen - but even those trying to teach my grandchildren about citizenship don't know the difference. They can have an oath - but it won't be polite.

Am just reading Paxo's book on Royalty.Really good fun.There were two things that resonated in particular.The first was how seriously those in the Forces take their oaths.One described it as like being in love.The dedication of an individual to something greater than him or herself.A huge emotional attachment to duty and service. The second thing it that "the glory of the social monarchy is that it sets the human above the institutional." No Republic does that.

"The dedication of an individual to something greater than him or herself." eh? A bunch of psychopathic barbarians? hehe My daughter won't be swearing allegiance to no fucker..especially a family who have history of murdering each other. Simple as. If they try and force her I shall revolt! :) Oh dear! I think I ruptured my pomposity.

There is a nice description of the point of Royalty in Shaws "The Apple Cart" "If you displease the adventurers who have the press in their pocket." Apparently Prince Charles referred to someone in charge of one of the most populist papers as Lord Voldemort. Yan your child may have ideas of her own.She may be rather more idealistic than her parent.

"Yan your child may have ideas of her own.She may be rather more idealistic than her parent" damn right...she can have those ideas of her own when she's old enough to understand what's going on...and I can betcha bottom dollar she won't be swearing allegiance to noone! Just as the majority of growing individuals, if given the time and the option, wouldn't! lol...idealistic my arsehole. Oh dear! I think I ruptured my pomposity.

Well...

Duplicate

I think we should bear in mind that there are occasions when we HAVE to fight. The problem nowadays is that the fighting seems be based more on ideology than necessity! You have to consider what sort of wars the Queen might chose to be involved in were it to be up to her and not the politicians and military advisors who are supposed to be there to serve. Politicians have their own private ends owe too many favours to too many friends. Think of Blair and the steps that he took... Was it to England or Bush, he did look? Brown is no different - merely less charm. So who would be likely to do us least harm? The Queen has her duty and nothing she lacks. Think of her standing, the respect that she packs. Without fear or favour she would honestly be The best one to lead us - if, so she were free. So give her the benefit and ponder like me. If you must fight for someone... who better than she?

Who?

Triplicate

Lost count...

Somewhat bizarrely perhaps, if this were 1642 and if you were writing about Charles I, then I'd be inclined to agree with you mykle; rather Charles I anytime than Cromwell. Unfortunately for you and Camilla this ain't 1642 and the world - material and intellectual - has come a long way since then.

I knew it... America ruins everything (1642 Columbus sailed the ocean blue:) To be honest Krop I wasn't actually suggesting that the Queen steer our military strategies merely that she should be accorded the honour of having a veto on any proposed wars to be fought in her name. Couldn't hurt! Anyway, I notice you haven't offered any alternative...

Oh don't be so silly mykle: the alternative is clear - no nation-states, no fighting for nation states! No hierarchies, no fighting in the cause of hierarchies!

Yes, but before we reach this wonderful chaos you like to dream of Krop, what do we do if a situation develops in which we should fight? Surely you do not believe that we should have left Hitler to it... I think that it's fairly clear that if France had acted earlier then Hitler would have backed down and not had access to all the added resouces he aquired with his expansions. Certainly 'Appeasement' didn't seem to be very effective. So do you suggest we close our eyes and dream of Brotherly Love or what? :O)

It's worth adding that I believe you have to defend yourself, and I notice you do, Krop :O) However, if you think about it - so long as everyone sticks to the principle of defence rather than attack wars would be much more difficult to start. It's when you get to modern military maniacs and their concept of 'proactive defence' (ie attacking but calling it defending) that wars seem to be started surrepticiously in the name of defending the chronically paranoid from the chronically deprived. A paranoia, which of course, has been created by the war mongers in the first place.

Hmmm, mykle, agreeing that it is right to struggle against regimes like Nazi Germany is not the same as saying that any of the Allied Powers fought what could really be called a just war. Firstly, you might argue that had the German left not been paralysed by the terrible twins of authoritarian communism and social democracy more direct action would have been taken to stop Hitler in Germany itself - "Rather Vienna than Berlin" as they used to say in the 1930s, because the people took up arms in Vienna and not in Berlin. Secondly, large numbers of people fought against fascism outside of the framework of the Allied state powers - I live in a part of the world which liberated itself from the Nazis and did not wait for the Americans to become a new occupying power. Thirdly, whereas the Allies were content to fight against Hitler and Mussolini, they did nothing to remove Franco and thus left the Spanish people condemned to living in dictatorship from 1939 to continue to suffer for another three decades. Closing my eyes and dreaming of brotherly love is not part of my agenda, whereas the dominant discourse of the just Allied war effort is all about deception and dreams of patriotism and justice.

... of course you may not realise it:O)

My only point is that sometime you have to fight and, given that, you need to have an army to do the fighting. Having an army you must be prepared to use it... and so don't you think that, should a such time arise when it is proposed that we go to war - that, since it is in the name of the Queen... the Queen should have some say in the matter? :O) I don't argue with any of your points except - that you are not a dreamer :O)

Oh I am a dreamer and there's no shame in that. It's just that my arguments against monarchs, nation states and armies do not rely on dreams for their validity. On the contrary, I would argue that the harmony of well-governed and purely defensive nation-states is a myth, or if you prefer, a dream. The big problem with the idea of an oath of allegiance is that the nation and its symbols, for example the crown, is based on the myth of shared interest. Now I would argue that I have less in common with the Queen of England than I have in common with the ordinary people of any country that the UK might be likely to declare war on. Whether or not I fight is a matter for my conscience, not for some wielder of ancient symbols, some figure representative of the myth of England. Oh, and mykle it is self-evident from the history of wars throughout the modern age that one does not necessarily need an army (at least not in the "By the left, quick march!" style) in order to fight a war. No War But the Class War!

You can fight the wars Krop, first, second or third class ones :o) I'm off back to Thailand where I will probably be offline... So take care of yourself and be lucky!