A report on British citizenship recommends that school leavers swear an oath of allegiance to Queen and country to give them a "sense of belonging", and to "mark the passage between being a student of citizenship and an active citizen." This has come in for a large amount of criticism from across the blogosphere and political spectrum, with this post from Asp being the only one that I have seen in support.

I salute the Union Flag on a weekly basis and have made an oath of allegiance to Queen and country literally hundreds of times in my life, as a Scout and a Scout leader, through making the Scout Promise:

And one of the things I do as a Scout leader is explain what this means to new Scouts before they are formally invested.

However, I myself and every other member of the Scout movement does so of our own volition. What is being suggested by Lord Goldsmith is making people do it. People who are British, and have not chosen it, unlike those who come to Britain from another country and want to become British citizens.

I think that it would be a good thing if more people chose to make a pledge of allegiance to Queen and country - but if it isn't by choice, it is meaningless. And that is what implementing this would be: a meaningless gesture, which would do nothing but undermine Britishness, rather than reinforce it.

The governments new[ly reannounced] citizenship tests appear to be expecting immigrants to do more this country than is ever expected of "native" Britons.

So they have to do more than just work and pay taxes - which is itself something that way too many Britons are too lazy to do - but they also have to contribute extra towards public services through an extra levy on their visa, expected to raise a minuscule [in the scheme of public services] £15 million a year. Rather short of the £250 million needed by councils to prevent the need for council tax rises, wouldn't you say?

But not only that, now migrants are to be expected to do charity work and the like in order to show that they are "active" citizens and earn the right to be a subject of the Queen. We don't expect any "native" Britons to do this, so why should an immigrant's citizenship be reliant on doing it?

I don't think that it is all bad though. The idea that citizenship should be have to be earned is a good one, but this is hardly a new revelation. And the same goes for the requirement to speak English. Nothing new, trotted out again by a different Home Secretary and with a few slight differences to go with it.

Basically, this is a gimmick. None of it will cover citizens of other EU countries, and so is basically meaningless in reality.

I'm not exactly thrilled by the Conservatives suggestion of "a limit on the level of immigration" either. Rather, immigration is good for us, and fuelled by economic expansion and the sheer laziness of too many "native" Britons. Benefits: the cause of immigration.

Hell yes! We should celebrate British history. Not all of it is as great, pretty, and morally righteous as we may wish, be we should showcase it anyway. History is essential to the modern world. It made us what and who we are. Through history we learn lessons, and understand the reasons behind the way the world works.

British history is our history. The history of our nation. What made us who we are. We should have a museum of British history to remind us - and the world - of our history, of our role in making the world what it is. Of course it isn't all great but I think that, overall, Britain's role in world history has been positive.

We should have a museum of British history to remind us both of what our nation has done right and wrong in the past, and how we have developed into the nation we are today. After all, it's not like we would have to struggle to fill it!

WTF? That is an absolutely absurd idea. The Union Flag is an iconic image, and there's hardly an easy way in which to combine the Welsh dragon into it without it looking absolutely stupid. A flag is just a symbol, it isn't a direct representation of a nation. All flags are symbols - after all, what else can you do with a rectangle and about three different colours?

As much as I like the aesthetics of the Welsh flag, how could it be adapted into the Union Flag without looking ridiculous? The Union Flag is our flag, and to want to change it just because is just plain stupid.

Source: BBC

Big Ben is back in action.

Should we have a British motto, similar to France's "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity," the US's "In God We Trust" and Belgium's [now ironic] "Strength through Unity". Gordon Brown thinks we should.

I think it's a stupid idea. We don't need an "official" motto any more than we need a written Constitution.

Though, if we are to have one, lets think of some ideas:

"God Save The Queen" - nah, we'd never be allowed to have that.

"Always Open" - well, our borders are remarkably porous for an island...

"Freedom - But Only If You're Part Of A Minority" - too realistic, I suppose.

"Europe Rules UK OK" - again, too realistic...

Any other suggestions?

One British icon - the imperial measurements - are to remain, the EU Commissions has graciously allowed:

Isn't that nice? They've "decreed" that we can keep our own measurements. Isn't that nice of them?

But as our Lords and Masters of the European Commission giveth, they also threaten to taketh away:
So they're letting us keep our own measurements, despite lacking the right to force us to relinquish them. But instead they may cause the end of the red phone box, an icon as quintessentially British as the Routemaster buses [removed by Ken], black cabs, and Big Ben. Even though people have mobile phones, nowadays, it doesn't mean that the battery won't run out!

We should keep these icons of Britishness. We should keep our measurements, our currency, our parliament, our passports, and our phone boxes. They are our heritage. Besides, without the phone boxes, where would Superman get changed?

Gordon Brown announced back in July that the Union flag could now be flown from public buildings on any day, rather than the previous restrictions of 18 days a year. However, this now seems to not apply to Scotland:

"Proposals to fly the Union flag every day on public buildings are set not to apply to Scottish Executive sites.
The government published the plans earlier this week, and they follow Gordon Brown raising the issue of celebrating Britishness in January.
The SNP said Justice Secretary Jack Straw assured the policy would not cover executive buildings.
SNP leader Alex Salmond, now first minister, previously said Britishness "went bust long ago" in Scotland." (BBC)

Whilst it is understandable that on a few places, such as Holyrood, the Saltire [the Scottish flag] be flown alongside the Union flag, it should not replace it. We are all still in the United Kingdom, whichever part you may be in.

What this shows mostly, however, is that despite Gordon Brown's oft-made commitment to Britishness, he is still at heart a Scot - and will give things to Scotland that he won't to England. I have no problem at all with Scottish public buildings being allowed to fly to Saltire - but it should not be allowed as a replacement for the Union flag. And if Scottish public buildings can fly the Saltire, then English public buildings should be allowed to fly the St. George's Cross, and Welsh public buildings the Red Dragon.

We are all supposed to be equal partners in the Union - yet inequality is rampant. If England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are equal constituents of the United Kingdom, then they should all have the same rights and abilities. And it is the English who lose out again and again. It is not acceptable.

Source: BBC

The Union Flag can now be flown on public buildings on any day, after the than restrictions which meant that it could only be flown on certain days of the year - just 18 - have been scrapped. The Union Flag now flies over 10 Downing Street, and will all year round.

This is a very good thing. We are British, and should celebrate that fact by flying our flag. We must reclaim it from the BNP and such like, and fly our flag with pride.

This has quite obviously been done, however, to try and make Gordon Brown into someone seen as 'British', to pull the splinter of the Conservative's attacks on his Scottishness. To that end, he has been banging his "Britishness" drum for quite a while now, since even before he was crowned Labour leader and Prime Minister. But it hasn't, and won't, work. he is still seen as the dour Scot that he is. It is far too engrained in the public's image of him for a few sound bites of "I'm British!" to dispel.

What really doesn't help him is that he represents a Scottish constituency, in which a great number of his proposals - such as on health and education - will not be implemented. Since devolution has come to Scotland and Wales, yet not to England, for the Prime Minister to represent a Scottish constituency is absurd. Gordon's declarations of his "Britishness" won't change this, but rather give the Conservatives the opportunity to point out this absurdity again and again.

Whilst I applaud the granting of freedom over the flying of the flag, Gordon Brown's reasons for doing it are obvious.

Sources: BBC

I'm not sure what to think about the idea of a "Britain Day", currently being pushed by Ruth Kelly (Communities Secretary) and Liam Byrne (Immigration Minister). What, precisely, would it's point be? Ruth Kelly says that "[t]he point of it would be to celebrate the contribution that we all make to society." But why does that need a specific day to do so, and how does that point even connect specifically with Britain?

I support the idea because we should celebrate the history of our nation, though we have to be careful that if we say Britain, we deal with British historical events [after all, Britain is only 300 years old, having been formed by the Act of Union in 1707] - or at least ones that affected the entire British Isles then and since. What event(s) should we pick? The date of the Act of Union itself? But that was not particularly popular at the time anywhere, and caused "rioting in the streets of Edinburgh and almost every town from Inverness to the borders." And most historical events which most people immediately think of with these things were English victories, not British ones - well, either that or Empire-related, and that wouldn't be allowed by the PC mob. Picking the wrong event would be disastrous to the whole idea, as it would automatically make it appear that Britain is nothing more than an extension of England, which it is not, and cannot be.

As much as I like the idea of day in which being British is celebrated, I'm not sure if there is actually any point to it. Being British isn't something that should need to be created through a specific day's celebrations. It should be part of who and what you are. And the best way for this to happen is for it to be taught in school, primarily, but not exclusively, in History lessons. We should teach our children to be proud of their nation's past - Empire included. No-one can argue that what Britain did was perfect by our moral standards, but neither can they argue that Empire was not an essential period of history, and in fact it was the extreme speed with which the era of Empire ended/was forced to end that did more damage than colonialism itself. If we taught our children that British history is something to be proud of, we wouldn't need a "British Day", especially if immigrants to Britain decided to integrate with our customs.

In the end, however, I think that I have to come down as pro a "Britain Day" - but only if the right date is chosen for the right reason, and it is not allowed to be high-jacked by extremist groups of any persuasion. Any "Britain Day" must be for every person living in Great Britain, regardless of race, ethnicity, origin, religion, or anything else. We should fly the Union Flag* with pride, and not use it as a mark of exclusivity, but of inclusiveness.

* It's not the Union Jack unless it's on a ship.

Sources: BBC, The Telegraph