Home
Previous letters
Subscribe
Useful links
About me
Contact me
|
WORLD CITIZEN LETTER: 580
View full list of previous letters
Receive future letters by email
WCL 580 Mar 2008
British citizenship
There is currently a big fuss in British politics, led by a prime minister many of whose constituents would prefer to concentrate on Scottish politics and name themselves not British, but Scots. So demands for tests for new British citizens may create more dissension than unity. There are all sorts of potential problems in any drive to define and celebrate an ideal of Britishness amongst a population that traditionally include large numbers of individualists.
British culture? This immediately raises some difficult issues. Nowadays, Bingo, Page Three and the National Lottery appear to be central interests for a large chunk of the population. Presumably the prime minister and his supporters would not care to include binge drinking and football hooliganism as examples to offer the world outside the country, even if they are not rare in the present-day cultural mix and are seen as typical by many outsiders. When creating a course on the British way of life for francophone students, I unashamedly preferred to concentrate upon the traditions of poetry, music, architecture and the arts: the culture of the cultured minority?
The present suggestion being circulated is for children to take an oath of allegiance to the monarch. This will certainly be objectionable to religious radicals like the Quakers; and will also not be welcomed by the many republicans in this country. The majority are probably covert but with a vociferous minority who will be likely to make much fuss about such a requirement. One of the defining moments of English history - the core of Britishness - is 1649, when a king was executed: a warning that has never been forgotten.
Centuries ago, oaths of allegiance were sworn by subjects to their lords, whose feudal superiors could demand further oaths. Such oaths for a considerable time have been exclusive, but the former system had reality to justify it, for we all have a variety of overlapping loyalties. Unfortunately, since there was a great deal of imprecision about the meaning of the oaths, they often became a pretext for justifying quarrels leading to violence and wars.
World citizens will likely have a first loyalty to family, but also to friends, to commune or town, perhaps to county or region, and even to their own state. That may, or may not, coincide with loyalty to nation, but the exclusiveness to nations is what has created catastrophe for participants in wars for centuries. In our continent we now need a loyalty to the European Union, but above all we need loyalty to that essential but neglected entity, the world community.
So if the British government is concerned about citizenship, it should start by recognising that we are all members of one or more minorities and that world citizenship is a basic necessity. Other loyalties are also needed and the first of them will be loyalty to the country that we live in. Scotland yes, Britain yes, Europe yes, if you live in Edinburgh or Glasgow. But the ideals it espouses should be based on the human rights of the individual, of whatever nationality, not upon a possibly illusory "Britishness".
John Roberts
Comment on this letter
View full list of previous letters
Receive future letters by email
Comments on this letter
|
|