John Farley - I may need to explain myself a bit better. I am in favour of any professional being licensed/registered, the rest of the post was aiming to describe the difficulties that may arise, and why it may not be practicable. I would rather employ a professional with a recognisable licence/registration than one who has not, this applies to everyone from plumbers to brain surgeons. However, for FT, and probably other professions as well, any system may become so unwieldy and smothered in red tape that it would interfere with the job. This may also result in capable people not getting a licence (and therefore, a job), no matter how good they may be. I also did not mean that any foreign system would be a good basis for any new system, as my knowledge of other systems is so small as to be negligible.
In summary: I am in favour of licences, but believe that it will be too difficult to do without great cost (either excluding people or money).
Genghis - Totally agree, the core skills of test and evaluation will be the same, and ideally could form the basis of a licence. But if the licence is this simple, then the CV, log book and references way of doing it starts to look much easier, cheaper and much less complex.
Another point I have been thinking about, who would be the best people to administer the system? Should it be the CAA, or a voluntary 'code of practice' type arrangement run by SETP/SFTE? Either way it will cost money and pain when it's first implemented, and maybe for a long time after that.
Grey Area - Nicely put, I'll remember that one for future use if I may.
Marxism may sound like a great idea, but has anyone ever made it work successfully?