Pupils "to take allegiance oath"

A report commissioned by Gordon Brown on the subject of British Citizenship says that school leavers should be encouraged to swear an oath of allegiance to Queen and country. This will, claims the report's author, ex-attorney general Lord Goldsmith, give teenagers a sense of belonging. Those who volunteer to do so may receive council tax and student fee rebates, as well as a "Britishness" public holiday. Welsh Deputy First Minister Ieuan Wyn Jones has already stated that he doesn't think it's appropriate, as has a Scottish Government spokesperson.

Lord Goldsmith believes that these ceremonies would help improve teenagers' sense of what it means to be a British Citizen, and has stressed that he cannot see why Republicans would not want to swear an oath, even though they may not believe in the present system of government. I would say that it's fairly obvious why a Republican would not want to swear an oath of allegiance to the Monarch... The clue is in the fact that they are a Republican. Also, if they did swear an "oath" of allegiance it would not be worth the metaphorical paper it was written on - there's no allegiance there if they are working towards the removal of the Monarchy. Thus, the oath would be a pointless exercise.

Offering a bribe to take the oath also has dubious ethical connotations. If a reduction in student fees is offered, for example, what pressures may be put on a teenager by their parents to take the oath so as to reduce the enormous and potentially unmanageable costs of a university education? Even if no pressure is put on the teenager by their parents to do this, how would the teenager feel about refusing to do something that may save their parents a considerable sum of money? For example, whilst I took a part time job whilst at university and paid rent to my parents (I lived at home as an undergraduate) my father supported me significantly whilst I was studying, paying my course fees. Whilst I am sure he would not have pressured me into taking such an oath had it existed at the time, I would have felt extremely guilty refusing to take it on principal. I was also fortunate in that my parents could afford to help me get a university education. For many teenagers their only chance of being able to afford such a thing may be to take this oath, and that puts them in a very difficult position. Incidentally, if the government can afford to provide a rebate to anyone who takes this oath (potentially the whole of one generation) then they can afford to do it regardless. Why have they not reduced the cost of a university education full stop?

It seems to me that this is just another poorly thought out scheme that won't actually achieve anything close to what those involved would like us to believe it will. People are not going to have any greater sense of citizenship through the swearing of an oath - this needs to be taught in the classroom. In fact, the very act of encouraging people to swear an oath of allegiance is somewhat undemocratic... Also, given the way that the welfare state is abused at the moment, what makes the government think that people won't abuse the Citizenship Oath just to see some financial benefit?