Niall Fernie, the Anarchist ?

[frank ward]

I was amused by Niall's comments on another thread (Maternity issue unites whole community).
Rather than reply on the maternity thread, maybe his remarks could be discussed separately here?

I made some observations about the behaviour of the Labour/LibDem Executive, to which Niall replies: "I have to disagree, the fight is against all political parties, not just the ones who are in power now."

Quite frankly I fail to see the logic in this anarchist view.
In any society there are sections or classes who have particular interests and these interests may be diametrically opposed by other sections. Taxation is an obvious example.

These sections naturally group together in order to defend and expand their own interests, either through pressure groups or political parties, trade unions, trade associations, armed force, secret societies etc etc.

Karl Marx explained this cogently over 100 years ago, nowadays it is described ion the media as Class War (though only when the workers are winning).

I fail to understand Niall's obscure observation that 'the fight' (whatever that means) is against 'all parties'.

When political decisions are made it reflects the power and confidence of the ruling group.

In order to curtail and reverse those decisions that harm your particular class, the most effective means is to form or join a political party. Support for your party is gained by both explaining your views and by criticising your opponents.

For example, my own Scottish Socialist Party will seek to inflict as much damage as possible on the Labour and LibDem parties for their wilful decimation of rural health services. Blame must be correctly apportioned if the action is deliberate and premeditated, as in the case of Caithness Maternity if downgrading goes ahead.

Niall, you understandably express a weary cynicism about the political process but alas it is a fight that must be fought, constantly, by the weak and powerless in order to restrain the avarice of our rulers and the economic system they support.

So are you advocating total abstention from the political process? Is there NO hope for ordinary people ? Are you suggesting we leave the 'scum' at the top?

Please explain yourself

Frank

[Anonymous]

I was amused by Niall's comments on another thread (Maternity issue unites whole community).
Rather than reply on the maternity thread, maybe his remarks could be discussed separately here?

I'm glad that you're amused Frank, it's nice when debating a topic such as this that something can still raise a smile. As my comments were put on the maternity thread and were relating to the maternity thread, I find it strange that you feel you must start a thread to discuss my remarks. Not that it looks like a personal attack or anything

I made some observations about the behaviour of the Labour/LibDem Executive, to which Niall replies: "I have to disagree, the fight is against all political parties, not just the ones who are in power now."

Quite frankly I fail to see the logic in this anarchist view.

Its quite simple really Frank, perhaps your being part of one of those parties makes it difficult for you to understand. I'm sick of all the talk. Every party is guilty of it, doing nothing but talk. We continually switch from one party being in control and the other parties talking about them to another party being in control etc. Very little is dependent on who is in power, they all do things that stomp all over the needs of those who elected them and everyone else talks about it. I won't be fooled again by a party candidate who presents themselves on my door step. They can tell you the absolute truth to your face when recanting their thoughts on the topics you have most interest in, you can agree and disagree with them and properly discuss their and your own feelings on any important matter. Should you decide that your views and their views match more often than not you may decide to vote for them thinking that at least from what you know of the person they are likely to vote in parliament on the side you would take yourself. Shock and horror, the moment the whip cracks, your staunch politician turns to mush and votes with his party. Then you realise what a waste your vote was, for now you see that everything they said can be turned into a lie by the leaders of their party. So, with an issue such as our maternity unit, all political party members have to be very careful what they say in case at some later time, it is turned into a lie by the actions of their party. This has the effect that the ones in power say very little at all other than the usual nothing stretched out into 4 paragraphs on another topic because they know that their party might not support them. From everyone else you hear exactly what you want to hear. Why? Because they all know they can say anything without any comeback. Its all just talk and with out any action it quickly becomes meaningless. From this point of view, I cant wait to see all the political party members trying to claim the glory when NAG wins and we get a fully functional maternity unit restored without time limits and the fear of a reversal in the decision. I fully expect to see you among that lot Frank Is distrusting political parties now considered anarchy?

In any society there are sections or classes who have particular interests and these interests may be diametrically opposed by other sections. Taxation is an obvious example.

These sections naturally group together in order to defend and expand their own interests, either through pressure groups or political parties, trade unions, trade associations, armed force, secret societies etc etc.

Karl Marx explained this cogently over 100 years ago, nowadays it is described ion the media as Class War (though only when the workers are winning).

OK, erm, you've switched from anarchy to Marx, I take it that this bit was trying to make some kind of point or provide some kind of political history lesson.

Now on to the bit that had me laughing for at least ten minutes, I just couldn't read past it:

I fail to understand Niall's obscure observation that 'the fight' (whatever that means) is against 'all parties'.

Don't get me wrong Frank but did you post your last post by yourself or is there another personality trying to get out? Perhaps just a lapse in memory? "'the fight' (whatever that means)".

These lickspittles are there to implement government policy. The real fight is against their political masters - Labour and their Liberal Democrat partners.

I even quoted this in my last post, how could you miss it? I'm talking about the same fight as you Frank.

When political decisions are made it reflects the power and confidence of the ruling group.

In order to curtail and reverse those decisions that harm your particular class, the most effective means is to form or join a political party. Support for your party is gained by both explaining your views and by criticising your opponents.

I take it that this is a lesson and I am now supposed to renounce my "anarchist" ways. Do you actually think that this is the best way for our country to be run, by a bunch of children that can barely raise an argument without a slagging match following? Have any political parties every actually agreed on anything and changed something for the better? Or do we just continually hear, "whatever they do is rubbish but don't you worry, we'll fix it when you give us the power" Surely there is more to politics than gaining support for your party.

For example, my own Scottish Socialist Party will seek to inflict as much damage as possible on the Labour and LibDem parties for their wilful decimation of rural health services. Blame must be correctly apportioned if the action is deliberate and premeditated, as in the case of Caithness Maternity if downgrading goes ahead.

VOTE FOR FRANK!!! What was is we were discussing here? Oh yes my anarchic behaviour...

Niall, you understandably express a weary cynicism about the political process but alas it is a fight that must be fought, constantly, by the weak and powerless in order to restrain the avarice of our rulers and the economic system they support.

"A weary cynicism"???? Here was me starting to think it was anarchy, but alas, there is a "fight that must be fought", not that any of us knows what that fight actually is

So are you advocating total abstention from the political process? Is there NO hope for ordinary people ? Are you suggesting we leave the 'scum' at the top?

Yes Frank, that would be a good idea wouldn't it. Perhaps we could just shoot them all and be done with it. No, strangely enough, despite my signature, I do believe that everyone who has the right to vote should do so. I simply do not believe that the current party system does anything to help anyone other than themselves. I don't stand alone with my lack of trust in political parties, look at all the independents that have taken seats away from them. At the end of the day, that's exactly what I hope and expect to see in the future, more independents and finally a government from a coalition of independents who can all agree and disagree like normal people. Compromises do not come from one viewpoint.

Please explain yourself

I think I just did

[gleeber]

I’ve been away for a wee while and when I got back and read “Niall Fernie the Antichrist” my heart skipped a beat.
It wisna until I saw the post wiz from Frank Ward that I realised it was a big windup. Hes a windup merchant from a windup political party with a cool windup party leader and I believ that in power, they would be as genuine and authentic as they accuse their opponents of being
Although I think Tommy Sheridan (Franks leader) would make the coolest prime minister ever, their vision of a utopian paradise in Scotland under the Scottish Socialist banner is nothing but fantasy.
I think Nialls right about the uselessness of party politics. Politics by its very nature is pro society and anti personal. The state above all!
Franks vision is no less political than his brothers in the new labour party. They all play the numbers game.
Maybe there is another way for human beings to co-exist, another way to control the masses, not by treating them as numbers in a political casserole, but more as individuals.
Fat chance!

[JAWS]

"The enemy of my enimy is my friend." or to probably misquote a very famous politician - "If I thought enlisting the Legions of Hell would help us I would at least make a favourable mention of the Devil!"

I thought the object of the excercise was to prevent the decimation of Maternity Services in Caithness and the eventual removal of all Medical Services to Inverness.
I have no doubt that once Maternity is gone then another area will be earmarked for destruction, followed by another and another and another until nothing is left.

The Inverness Health Board (because that is what they are) must be delighted to see us squabbling amongst ourselves!
Once they notice cracks they will find ways of widening them in order to divide and conquer.

"We'll have to do it our way because that lot can't even agree amongst themselves."

Every Health Board uses the same excuse, "The Status Quo is not an Option."
They didn't all invent the phrase individually.
It is obvious somebody is yanking their chains and it doesn't take a genius to work out who!

Squabble on Gentlemen and lose your Hospital!

[Anonymous]

Well JAWS, perhaps you should take your points over to the maternity unit thread, where the topic is actually the maternity unit, as in this thread, Frank has decided to debate whether or not I'm an anarchist. I hardly think that anything Frank has to say about me will affect the maternity unit issue one bit, hence he started a new topic.

another way to control the masses

Exactly, as no one involved with party politics would have it any other way, why would they support something that would remove the power they all seek so furiously?

After all, thats all that people like Frank want, to be in control, to be able to tell us what we can and cannot do. To drop responsibility for social services which we all pay for and to legislate on whether we can or cannot have an 80 grand table to meet around (yes Frank, I know that was Jamie Stoned's big decision of the decade). Frank obviously still believes that the masses consider politicians to be of a different breed depending on their colours, dont be silly, we know that you're all the same. All capable of lying, all seeking power, all the last people who it should be given to.

We can see what Frank thinks of the general populus by reading his comments on other politicians, his comments would not be tempered any if it were me seeking election, or nice Mrs Whoever from down the road. Its like a dog fight, the dogs dont care what they fight, they just know they've been slapped about for too long to care and will attack anything thats put in front of them. Similarly with poilitcians, they dont care whether or not an idea is a good one or not, if it didn't drip from their own jaw then they'll tear it to pieces.

Personally I think the Speaker from parliament should be replaced by an experienced Primary One teacher, at least then the poiliticians would have someone who could control them. We used to get the belt in school for shouting across the classroom, being abusive and generally misbehaving, but if you get elected you get 30 grand a year for doing just that

[Fifi]

Niall, on first glance I thought the title of Frank's post was "Niall Fernie - the Antichrist" !! By the tone of Frank's message I should think that was maybe nearer the point he was making about you..... It's getting a bit personal isn't it? After all, I thought we were all supposed to be on the same side in the fight to retain services - "people" versus politicians (and their various politically organised committees). Frank needs to leave his SSP hat outside the door when he attends NAG meetings!

[JAWS]

Niall, it was either the last Speaker or the one before who had been a Teacher.

Parliament isn't just about Playschool, Sorry, I mean PMs Questions. That's just a good thing for the media to entertain us with. Lots of noise for the Radio and lots of to'ing and fro'ing for the Television. It also gives the Pundits and the Chattering Classes something to chatter endlessly about!

Try listening to some of the other debates, they are mostly a lot more sensible.

Democracy is a terrible form of Government. The only problem is that all the others are far worse.

Over many centuries people suffered and died so the I might have a vote.
I'm sorry but I would never have had their courage nor am I arrogant enough to feel I have the right to ignore their sacrifice.

There's a simple solution to voter apathy without all the trendy ideas suggested recently. Miss voting and lose the vote for the next ten years. Miss again and lose the vote for life.

We get the politicians we deserve. Apathetic voters, apathetic politicians.
People that ignore politics, politicians that ignore people.
We are to blame not the politicians, we put them there and they stay there because we are to idle to do anything about it!

[Anonymous]

JAWS, are you sure that democracy is such a bad thing? After all without political parties we would actually have the choice that democracy is supposed to offer.

As for people losing the right to vote, I dont think that would be a good idea, turnouts are poor enough and in 2 elections you would have less people able to vote than could before all the reformations of the last 100 years or more. Perhaps these people feel they have no one to vote for and should be given the opportunity to make that known. I think that by adding a "none of the above" option to the end of all our ballot papers would allow people to vote and show that they did not choose any of the candidates. This would bring back to the ballot box all the people who feel that they cant find someone decent to vote for. If the "none of the above" option wins the election then the seat should be contested again.

Many people have the feeling of "why bother" when it comes to election time and its party politics that has brought this about, people are sick of all the child-like bickering and name-calling. But the people who do not vote are not heard by the rest of us, not really. Their absence is taken as apathy, but is it really? or is it the fact that they didnt like any of the candidates. I feel that everyone should have an option on the ballot paper, even if that option is just to tell us they thought that all the candidates were muppets. After all if a government is elected with a vote from less than 50% of the (voting) population can we really say that the people got their choice? When more than 50% of the electorate didnt vote for them.

Voters in this country are now in the minority. More than 50% of the country regularly does not vote, but yet we take our "majorities" from the minority group who do. Democracy? only just. But despite all the noise about voter apathy, I'm sure the parties love it that way, they only have to convince around 25% of the overall population to vote for them to ensure a win

[frank ward]

Hi Niall. Thanks for responding. I started this separate thread so it would not overlap the maternity issue, and I approach it as a friendly discussion on ideas.

If anybody else I am making personal attacks on you, they’re mistaken. I’ve simply opened a discussion on the political process. I re-read my original post and can find no reason why they should think this.

What prompted me to write was your statement ‘the fight is against all political parties’. Your response has not helped me understand.
You say you’re “sick of all the talk. Every party is guilty of it, doing nothing but talk.”

This is not quite correct. There is constant change and upheaval in society, and often this is precipitated by political motives. ‘Talk’ is the public argument of ideas and policies.
For example, you cannot dismiss as ‘talk’ the behaviour of the present governing party. We’ve seen the continued privatisation of public services, PFI projects, a shambles in the NHS, and no less than 5 wars including the current business in Iraq. These are more than ‘talk’, they are carefully considered plans to enrich the rich.

We in opposition have only ‘talk’. Words are weapons, usually the only weapons we have.

Public argument and discussion is dictated by the media. The SSP has issued dozens of letters and Press Releases, very few get published, and those that do sometimes appear in a distorted form. Public cynicsm displayed towards the political process in general is in part created by the millionaire-controlled press.

To return to the original point…. You ask “Is distrusting political parties now considered anarchy?”
I would say certainly not, all political parties need to be regarded with some degree of scepticism. But Political Parties are not all the same. Some are more democratic than others. The point is however – how do we prevent the abuses of power they often exercise?

The best way is to have the most democratic internal party structures you can devise, and for the political and economic system to be the most democratic you can devise. Under capitalism, these are contradictory.
Simply dismissing the notion of a political party is not the answer. The whole history of the human race has been shaped by political and economic factors, they are inextricably linked.

You say “Surely there is more to politics than gaining support for your party.” You are exactly right. Politics is about involving people to change their own lives and circumstances for the better. For example, take any typical single-issue campaign. Grass roots activity and self-organisation is wonderful and educational. Dormant apathetic people suddenly can become fierce fighters and their lives can change in the process. I regard this as fundamental and necessary for any progressive change in society.

The initial campaigners may think themselves apolitical and apathetic, but their experience rapidly leads them to the realisation that politics permeates everything.

Lastly, regarding the Political Parties, you ask me to “look at all the independents that have taken seats away from them.” Actually, in national elections historically these are few and far between, usually elected on single issues (often lost eventually) and they don’t last long. Worse, nothing is said about those hundreds of ‘independents’ who confidently stand on popular single issues and get trounced, leading to their campaigns suffering badly as disillusioned supporters drift away.

Unfortunately, the idea that ‘independent’ candidates may be an improvement is often (but not always) a false one. Also is the notion of 'democrasy' synonymous with the geographical parliamentary democrasy we have at present? I think not. Jaws thinks not.

I’ve already made this post longer than many would like, so more on these issues later, perhaps?

Frank

[Kenn]

Is it a requirement that politicians once elected then have to swear on oath that they will forsake all common sense?
The electorate may have their differences of opinion but at least they care in a matter of fact way about the things that effect their and those around them's lives.Strikes me that they can also hold a much better debate that the ones that go on in our various elected assemblies.

P.S.And the proleteriate don't shut up shop for 12 weeks

[squidge]

Todays young people dont really see the relevence of politics in their lives. I wonder if that has to do with the lack of passion in politics. Where there is a local issue which glavanises a population - like our maternity unit - there is plenty, but it is missing from national politics. The differences between the parties are blurred, our sense of responsibility to society as a whole is less apparent now than it ever was as we live our lives in nuclear families with little impact on other people. The personalities are so ordinary too - there is no oomph about those on the front benches, nothing to write home about at all

Unless we can make politics relevant to our young people we are fighting a losing battle. It means that voting will continue to fall and the calibre of those attracted to working in politics will also fall, if there is no urge to see politics as public service but only as personal gain then there is far more money and status to be gained elsewhere.

I dont know what the solution is but i worry that the alternative is too scary to contemplate

[JAWS]

Perhaps it's the Young People who have got it right.

People worry what politicians are up to.
Poiticians worry in case people don't find them important enough to bother voting.

Meanwhile the Young People treat politicians with the importance they deserve.
Just like midges, they are a nuisance which has to be tolerasted, but in the long run they are of very little consequence.

They come, they go, and occasionally one of them gets swatted.
Once or twice a century one will tower above the rest and actually make a difference.
As for the rest, well what difference do they make?
How many politicians can you name from 100 years ago?
How many of you can even remember who the Prime Minister was in 1904 without checking?

[golach]

Jaws,
I could not have put it better, I totally agree with you
Golach

[frank ward]

Niall writes:

“Take the SSP as another example, do you really want rich people to be poor and poor people to be rich? Now I know that this cannot be the final goal of the party, but this is the perceived goal given by the policies and arguments from that party.”

Yes, of course I want poor people to be ‘rich’. By ‘rich’ I mean the people of the world can live in peace with economic stability, democratic control over their lives and environment, income security, and good social services when needed. We could raise the quality of life of Scotland, the UK and the whole world.

Of course everyone (almost) would agree with these noble aims and our international leaders frequently claim them to be their own - however the economic system prevents it. Enormous wealth and power is in the hands of the few, and they want to keep it that way.

They are at times organised and co-operative, at most other times in deadly conflict with each other. They use the media, war, violence and intimidation, racism and religion, corruption, trade agreements and the law. Despite all their power they are unable to control it, and the world lurches from periodic booms to slumps and regional catastrophes.

This has been the history of capitalism. Once it could be argued that capitalism replaced the (even worse) feudal system and brought benefits to society. Now it might be argued that the very future of the planet is now threatened.

Do I want these rich people to be poor? Too bloody right I do! If they won’t give it up voluntarily, we should take away their power, because it is the cause of poverty. They can then have the same rights and benefits enjoyed by the rest of society.

Niall, do you think that the Rich are rich by their own merits, and the Poor deserve their fate? The truth is that the rich get richer by making the rest of us poorer. The redistribution of wealth is in the wrong direction – from us to them!
The notion of ‘trickle down’ wealth – whereby we should be grateful for the crumbs - is a fraud accepted by far too many.

Frank Ward
SSP

[scotsboy]

If we are looking at the "big picture" then Frank, are you suggesting that everyone in the West should actually have thier standards of living lowered to enable the World population to have equality?

[©Amethyst]

Todays young people dont really see the relevence of politics in their lives.

Squidge, sorry, but I totally disagree. And you know how old... or young I am.

I dont know what the solution is but i worry that the alternative is too scary to contemplate

Now that I agree with... alternatives can be scary, so why can't we just be happy with what we've got.

From what I see, the UK is a nation of wingers and moaners. We're never happy about anything. People complained about Thatcher, people complained about Major and people are complaining about Blair.

The truth is that the rich get richer by making the rest of us poorer.

The rich become rich by earning a good wage. Doesn't matter how they earn it, they managed to earn that money and I believe it's theirs.

But no matter what we believe, most of the world are bound to disagree with us - but we still believe certain things, don't we?

Meanwhile the Young People treat politicians with the importance they deserve.
Just like midges, they are a nuisance which has to be tolerasted, but in the long run they are of very little consequence.

I'm not sure I understand this. There are young people who see it as their duty to vote. The ability to vote is something that many find a priveledge, and some who are too young wish they could have a say. At least with the voting system, I feel that my voice is at long long last being heard. Even if it's only heard as a faint whisper.

And yes, politicians can make bad choices, but then, don't we all?

As for the rest, well what difference do they make?

Can you not see that some actually try?

Take Blair for example. He thought that going to war with Iraq was the right choice. Wether the wool was pulled over his eyes by Bush or not, he thought it was the right thing to do. I think it turned out to be the wrong thing to do. But out of every wrong thing, surely there must be a right... like the war, at least there's no Saddam in power to murder all the people he took a disliking to.

At least with every major event that happens, we, as a country, can put it behind us and draw something from it. A lesson, if you will excuse the term.

And I hope and pray that the politicians to come, the young people of today, will draw lessons from previous chapters.

And as far as local and national political issues are concerned, I think many are underestimating youth.

Okay, so I'm 19 - but I have opinions!

Like, I think it's appauling that the UK as a whole have such a lack of specialising Psychologists. And it's terrible that my NHS dentist is as far south as Golspie.

I think Blair has made plenty of mistakes. But at least he didn't have an affair then lie to the country!

Or, golach, Jaws, Squidge, should I appologise for being young AND opinionated?

How many politicians can you name from 100 years ago?

That a challenge? lol... William Ewart Gladstone was in office from Dec 1868 - Feb 1874 (Greenwich MP), Apr 1880 - Jun 1885 (became liberal leader after Lord Harrington Retired, Harrington suggested to Queen Victoria that Gladstone take his place), Feb 1886 - Aug 1886 (Gladstone regained his position of PM after defeating Lord Sailsbury's government) and Aug 1892 - Feb 1894 (Gladstone was re-elected but resigned in 1894 after making a speach which requested the destruction of the veto of the House Of Lords. He retained a seat in the Commons until 1895.)

William Ewart Gladstone was born Dec 29th 1809 and died May 19th 1898 of cancer. His coffin was transported on the London Underground and laid to rest in Westminster Abbey.

And to go back even further, Sir Robert Walpole, was the first to live and work at 10 Downing Street even though he did not have the title of Prime Minister. But at the time of his arrival at 10 Downing Street, his post had little authority. Walpole built it up, and made himself an authoritive figure. He was an influentual parlimentarian between the years of 1701 and 1744, when he retired.

Sir Robert Walpole was born Aug 26th 1676 and died Mar 18th 1745.

And Arthur James Balfour became Prime Minister after his uncle, Lord Sailsbury, retired in 1902 and He was PM for somewhere just over 3 years. Which means, Jaws, Arthur James Balfour was PM in 1904.

©Amethyst

P.S. scotsboy, I agree with what you're saying! Well said!

[squidge]

Squidge, sorry, but I totally disagree.

Amethyst sweetie - there are many people in this world who dont like people to disagree with them or challenge them - I am not one of them.

Or, golach, Jaws, Squidge, should I appologise for being young AND opinionated?

I LOVE opinionated its great to see

[JAWS]

Amethyst, don't you dare apologise for being either Young or Opinionated.

We have all been there and anybody who tells you they haven't is either very forgetful, lying, or had a very boring youth! And some of us only managed to grow out of the young part.

I'll have to take your word for Bakfour being PM in 1904.
But don't blame me, I didn't vote for him!

[Zael]

"Amethyst sweetie"

who is this condesending "squidge" person anyway?

I've never read such tripe in all my life, at least amethyst has a point of view. What is squidges point of view? A gaping dark hole above her head when it should be below?

Amethyst may be young but she has at least taken the time to illustrate what she feels on this thread. She may still yet change some of her views as she gathers more intellegence on the matter (in the MI6 sense of the word) but for someone who say she is 19 I think she is proving that at very least she has a firm footing on her views and is looking in the right direction, onward and upwards.

This thread has been a great eye opener into to the views of the older generation (some of them) as they seem to feel that they know it all and can do no wrong. Thats the problem I see being discussed here, the people who have been elected feel they have been so because they know better, but as has been proven many times they do not. As with tony blair. What people are angry with him about is the fact that he listened to GWB instead of the people who elected him. Many many many serious issues have been protested in this country over the centuries but NONE of them have ever caused 1 MILLION people to line the streets, screaming, at the top of their voices, their objections to a government decision. The war in Iraq was seen as a travesty (or worse) by virtually our whole country, and even though I am much in favour of independence, I had to be impressed with the attitude of our English neighbours.

The problem as has been pointed out is that they do not listen, all they do is talk, they dont listen to us and they dont listen to each other, they only listen to things that they think will keep them in office, or get them there. The only interest of a politician is to get power for themselves and once they have it, they ride roughshod over those who gave it to them. To paraphrase, be nice to those on your way up else they will jump all over your face on the way down. And so we do to any poilitician who fails to listen to us. Frank ward is no different, what points from this thread has he taken on board? He should not be arguing against those who may elect them. Judging from his photograph, he is on a last ditch attempt to get a decent job and become one of the rich. Move over frank the youth is coming to replace you, and about time. Frank, my advice to you is to do what your leader did, listen to those whom you wish to elect you. Fight for what they want, what they feel is right, not what you want and what might have been right 40 years ago.

Amethyst, I'd vote for you over frank anyday, simply because that you, even without 40 years of poilitical dogma to drag you down, would still be prepared to listen to an opposing point of view and come to some sort of compromise, unlike the squidges of this world who have as much use for you as a "chocolate giraffe". Ooooooo can we please have swearing allowed on here, I would love to have at squidge for being so downright rude and ignorant.

btw, hi folks, sorry my first post was a bit of a read, but needs must. :)

[Anonymous]

[quoteOr, golach, Jaws, Squidge, should I appologise for being young AND opinionated?

quote]

Amethyst, Never apologise, and please please always have an opinion, even if you are only nineteen. At nineteen I was sailing the world without a care in the world, with no thought of politics apart from when will Scotland become independant or self governing?
Well many years later, I have seen one of my dreams come to fruition, but was I right?
Well £500 million ponds later I am having my doubts,but I voted for it so I have to live with it.
What a powerful statement you have just posted, in my opinion you have more sense than many of our esteemed and so called professional politicians that use this Web Site as their own soapbox.
Amethyist what ever you do never stop posting you opinions. I will always read them...not necessary agree with them though....but I for one will never condem you for being young...again may no agree with you
Golach