NATIONAL SERVICE
made very succinctly by writer Stephen Moss in (of all places) The Guardian when he stated that ‘the Bone-heads on the Tory right have actually come up with a good idea’. Some form of National Service currently
exists in a variety of countries all over the world, as well as in a fair few European loca- tions. It is surprisingly common in countries we might think of as rather more liberal in character than Britain, with Denmark, Norway and Finland all requiring their populations to undergo either a military or civilian place- ment. Served terms range from four months in Norway to a year and a half in Denmark, with differing lengths for men and women, and depending on the task undertaken. It’s not an entirely youth-centred institution either – Norway’s upper age limit is 44. But arguably, it is the young who would
benefit most from the reintroduction of National Service. Despite several measures that the Government are introducing, such as the fact that employers no longer need to pay National Insurance for those under the age of 21, youth unemployment remains a huge problem. The number of people under 25 who are not in work crept up in November by 0.5%, resulting in a figure of close to one million. By contrast, the rate of unemployment among those aged between 26-64 fell by 0.2% in the same period. There is a lack of investment in the young,
and there is also a lack of structure in how they are expected to plan their lives. The path from school to apprenticeship, or university to first job, is ever more uncertain, with the small growth in our economy not making much of an impact in real terms, in either jobs or living costs. The pension age is being pushed back further and further, meaning that it will be even longer before swathes of jobs are freed up for those further down the chain. And then there’s their reputation. So many
talking heads, from politicians to business leaders to various ‘celebrities’, decry those under 25 as feckless wasters, incapable of concentrat- ing for more than 30 seconds, hell-bent on living an entitled life and with no discernible skills to recommend them. They forget that the young have always proved irksome to the old, no matter the century. And they also forget that they and their parents’ generations – with grants for university, and the spiralling worth of their property – have had considerably more lucky breaks. National Service wouldn’t fix all of these
problems; in fact it could reasonably be argued that it won’t fix any of them. But it might help to raise a small sense of hope, a confidence that the future of the young is being considered and
‘There’s no reason why there has to be a military element to National Service’
not just discarded. As ever, the important thing with any reintroduction is to avoid the mistakes of the past; and in particular, the spectre of conscription looms large. This is evident by the presence of a current petition on Change. org (which at the time of writing had gained 35,361 signatures) entitled ‘Stop the National Service Bill’. The mission statement declares that the
undersigned do not want ‘conscription into the military for any reason that is not voluntary…[we] do not want our children and grandchildren to fight and die in wars that they or we have no control over.’ An admirable state- ment, with little cause for disagreement. But there’s no reason that the two ideas have
to go together. We already let 16-year-olds join the army of their own free will; it seems point- less to add the option, even in a voluntary capacity, to what would be a mandatory service. Conscription does not need to walk hand in hand with National Service. In fact there’s no reason why there should have to be a military element at all; in America, for instance, there is a strong tradition of non-military service through organisations such as the Peace Corps. Let National Service stand for exactly that – a way for every young person to serve their nation at home and abroad; and more impor- tantly, for the exchange to go both ways. In return for working as carers, in inter-
national development, in civilian public services or for charitable organisations, the young would gain realistic work experience in an environment that made allowances for their age and need to continue learning. They would be required to offer hard work and dedi- cation to the task in hand – and in return they would be given a taste of the wider world, at no personal cost. The current bill makes a point of including
accommodation, with additional payment for all work completed. The opportunity to live away from home, free from parents and at the government’s expense, would herald the first flush of independence for those who can’t afford or don’t want to go to university – though given the top age suggestion of 26 years, it would be perfectly possible for graduates to get on with completing their studies first. A second reading was due to take place in
YOURVIEW DO YOU HAVE
STRONG FEELINGS ABOUT THIS? EMAIL EDITOR@
SCOTTISHFIELD.CO.UK
early September, but has now been pushed back to 28 February. It is unlikely that it will get anywhere near the statute books – and in retaining a military option, the bill is far from perfect. But perhaps it will occasion some food for thought. The Government can’t leave the young struggling for ever, with little hope for the future, and not expect to feel any repercussions.
WWW.SCOTTISHFIELD.CO.UK 23
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192 |
Page 193 |
Page 194 |
Page 195 |
Page 196 |
Page 197 |
Page 198 |
Page 199 |
Page 200 |
Page 201 |
Page 202 |
Page 203 |
Page 204 |
Page 205 |
Page 206 |
Page 207 |
Page 208