This was an interesting question yesterday: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldhansrd/text/101207-0001.htm#10120738000510 It arose from Sinn Fein’s reluctance to take their seats when required to take the oath in its present form. http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/oath-of-allegiance/
I have been aware of this issue for many years. Many Scottish nationalists don’t like it and neither do those who feel we should be a republic. This matter should not be confused with any disrespect for the Queen, it is essentially about your attitude to republicanism and how you identify yourself within the four parts of the UK. There was a jolly Scottish republican song which contained the wonderful phrase “How can there be a second Liz when the first one’s never been’ It sounds far better when sung with a Scottish accent – test me when I’ve had a pint even if I do murder the accent!
I rather think you are muddying personal politics with the constitution. If the head of state was a rabbit chosen annually by the troll living under London bridge it would be no more an argument for your proposition. You can wish to change any aspect of the government, and believe individuals or structures are wrong and work to change them. But requiring you to swear allegiance to the present legal structure whether it be the rabbit or the Queen until such time as it changes is entirely logical.
And yet it IS a pertinent question, which may be more about religious differences than about
republics.
The common cause of atheist socialists, and (roman) catholic republicanism, is, in the politics of religion, the one place where the two different groups do have common ground.
It may only be old labour and new labour with
monks clothes on, but it may go further than that.
The constant jigging of Blair, from one denomination to the other, by courtesy of the Catholic/CofE Bishops was the one thing that gave him the freedom of thought to say what he said and do what he did.
In my humble view, it was the one thing that
gave Blair the huge majority that he did have in 2001, and the concomitant republicanism that went with it, the main cause of rallying the troops to the flag of loyalty in 2003.
The Irish reluctance to take the oath is rather different from the Scottish one,(in an English/UK parliament), I venture to add.
If we look at the word oath in a thesaurus we find:
Main Entry: oath
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: promise
Synonyms: adjuration, affidavit, affirmation, avowal, bond, contract, deposition, pledge, profession, sworn declaration, sworn statement, testimony, vow, word, word of honor.
Accepting that an oath is the the same or very similar to a pledge we can say without a shadow of a doubt it means absolutely nothing to parts of this Government who through their behaviour tomorrow intend to ridicule their oaths and principles.
I am with Croft on this one though, the Queen is a figurehead and the Parliament of the people holds power for her, so in effect you are swearing allegiance to the Nation. Which you already knew and completely understood.
Scottish Nationalists, or at least the SNP, are officially in favour of the monarchy, unless they’ve changed their stance on that recently. As I’m sure you know, Lord Soley, having recited it many times yourself (and indeed it’s confirmed in the link you give) the Oath or Solemn Affirmation pledges “allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors…” no ordinal at all, so perfectly appropriate for Scots.
Croft’s right. No exceptions please.
I’ve never really understood this “controversy” about Elizabeth the ‘Second’. Scotland may never have had a First, but other parts of the (now) [i]united[/i] Kingdom have, and it would ineveitably have caused confusion to have another Elizabeth I.
Provided the next King James is King James VIII, then surely there’s no issue?
The higher regnal number has been ‘policy’ for at least fifty years. Though in practice the likelihood of a Scottish name being used seems slim.
I did post to this blog about the fact that Oaths and Pledges are virtually inseperable and how if Parliamentarians treat one with disdain the fact the other could be worthless. After all if we are saying an oath to the Queen is one to the peoples Parliament and the people of the Country how can one differentiate between one given directly to the people and one to Parliament ?
The fact the post was deleted, well it looks that way, means it possibly offended, or was it politically motivated ?
A fact is fact, no matter the deletion or any other action. A pledge or oath are the same in my opinion and that of our language, so if Parliamentarians do not stand by pledges are they really accepting the responsibility of an oath or will that also be put to one side should a power deal be necessary ?
I have to apologise because obviously my original post was not deleted but not showing as awaiting moderation. The Blog has been stable of late and I wrongly assumed it had been deleted.
I got it wrong, sorry.
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs1355.snc4/162705_117748771623951_100001664874362_119531_4089211_n.jpg
This is currently on Facebook and shows how people feel about pledges and oaths.
I condemn the violence of today, the indiscriminate use of use batons, punches and heavily armoured animals. It is the Polices job to arrest and bring to Court not to dish out violent judgement. Yes some protesters were breaking the law but not all, the indiscriminate use of violence by the Police possibly because they lacked resources is unjustified and had my children or myself been there I could only act in a violent way in self defence which is allowable under British Law.
The Lib-Dems who voted with Government betrayed the Nation in that they gave a pledge, a promise not to vote for a raise in tuition fees. Any oath including the one they took for office is now not worth a damn.
I doubt this will stop here and the first student who dies through misuse of a baton or a horse charge will unleash the fury of parents and a Nation.