 |
Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org
Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites.
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Cado
I Love 'Our Scotland'
Joined: 14 May 2006
Posts: 283
|
 Posted: Sat Oct 20, 2007 2:16 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
I'm surprised you haven't heard of it - though Google ain't good at picking up on the oddities.
Its a very rare Highlands dish, made from a very rare breed of pedigree sheep, well - only a small bit of each sheep.
I just thought that it may count as one of those speciality traditional dishes the EU seem to be so fond of protecting from those who'd nick their 'trade names'.
A bit like Champagne etc.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
dnsp
No Longer a Wean
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 54
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 10:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Cado wrote: | Got a couple of questions for you DNSP.
1) How have you arrived at your policies?
2) Are they policies which you feel are in common with any other political body, as in - you're from the same sphere of outlook, though a different vehicle for those views - or do you feel they are unique to your party?
2) Are they policies you have a deep, personal beleif in?
3) Are they policies that you have opted for because you believe they have potentially 'sellability' - and therefore are you just being an opportunist, a salesman if you will?
4) How would you deal with a difference of opinion where no agreement was possible? As in - the only arrived at settlement is "we'll need to agree to disagree".
5) How would you deal with a difference of opinion (where no agreement was possible) with another group - who held the differing opinion - (irrespective of the size or significance of that organisation)
6) Which do you feel is more important? The rights of the individual or the rights of the State. If you believe they are equal - how would you deal with differing opinions that existed in society, where no agreement was attainable - irrespective of the relative sizes of those organisations/groupings etc.
7) A random hypothetical question - they help take away the boredom of dry questions.
Galileo Galilei proposed that it was the Earth that revolved around the Sun. This was in complete contradiction to the teachings of the Vatican, which beleived that it was the Sun the revolved around the Earth. This disagreement has reached an international court. You have the casting vote. Who would you side with? Galileo or the Vatican? |
Got a couple of questions for you DNSP.
1) How have you arrived at your policies?
Some of the policies are from other parties I agreed with on some points but not the others. While others are from my own mind.
2) Are they policies which you feel are in common with any other political body, as in - you're from the same sphere of outlook, though a different vehicle for those views - or do you feel they are unique to your party?
Well of course there from other political spheres I don’t think no party is having nothing in common with another, but I think our outlook and philosophy is unique to us.
2) Are they policies you have a deep, personal belief in?
Yes they are, to me.
3) Are they policies that you have opted for because you believe they have potentially 'sell ability' - and therefore are you just being an opportunist, a salesman if you will?
No I don’t why would I do that, I created my party because I wanted something better than the option we have now I am a British nationalist and I wanted a party to represent that without being racist to any 1 group in anyway.
4) How would you deal with a difference of opinion where no agreement was possible? As in - the only arrived at settlement is "we'll need to agree to disagree".
Like any other party does sometimes things cannot be agreed, in that case we will work to work out a solution or a compromise.
5) How would you deal with a difference of opinion (where no agreement was possible) with another group - who held the differing opinion - (irrespective of the size or significance of that organisation)
The same as above in most cases we would do our best to use common sense and understanding to reach a goal we would both be happy with.
6) Which do you feel is more important? The rights of the individual or the rights of the State. If you believe they are equal - how would you deal with differing opinions that existed in society, where no agreement was attainable - irrespective of the relative sizes of those organisations/groupings etc.
The Common Good of the Citizens of the Nation before that of Self Interest, for all Citizens of the Nation without regards for ethnic origin or religious beliefs, secondly people can have other opinions but in the democracy we live in there are winners and losers so when there has been a referendum or voting on a issue and the vote is in that will be the decision of the people. A question to you because of your line of questioning do you think we are some sort of Fascist party?
7) A random hypothetical question - they help take away the boredom of dry questions.
Galileo Galilei proposed that it was the Earth that revolved around the Sun. This was in complete contradiction to the teachings of the Vatican, which believed that it was the Sun the revolved around the Earth. This disagreement has reached an international court. You have the casting vote. Who would you side with? Galileo or the Vatican?
In that day and age I have no idea what I would have thought had I been around back then what would you have thought? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dnsp
No Longer a Wean
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 54
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 10:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Holebender wrote: | That's seven. A couple is two.
I have only one question; how many members does this party have? |
Right now we are small we have only 48 and just 1 person is Scotish so far |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dnsp
No Longer a Wean
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 54
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 10:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Holebender wrote: | Not so. I was asking the original poster if he didn't think the name of this party of his sounded uncomfortably close to the name of another party. I didn't accuse anyone of anything.
Mind you, it gets worse when you visit the dnsp website and see all the references to "social nationism". Maybe it's all a spoof? |
because it may remind you of something does not mean it is, and we are not even close to those monsters. Spoof if i wanted to be a Nazi i would be a Nazi but i am not and will never be, i will say its not the 1st time sombody has made a comment like you and the party members and i are considering a name change. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dnsp
No Longer a Wean
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 54
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 10:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Holebender wrote: | | Extreme in what way? Extremely mild maybe? |
Sorry what are you trying to say i am a Nazi ? if you think i am where do you get this hidden knowledge from? there is nothing in my site which is that of a Nazi or a Nazi party. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dnsp
No Longer a Wean
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 54
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 10:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Cado wrote: | | Quote: | | I have to agree, that spoof thought did cross my mind. |
Don't think he's a Nazi.
Think he's a doped up hippy fishing for nazis.
Its his pigeon inglis.... |
Lol i guess you got me!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dnsp
No Longer a Wean
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 54
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 10:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| macnumpty wrote: | | dnsp wrote: | | The same as the rest of Britian [sic] this is one nation, for us Scotland would not be able to break away the same for Wales and England we are one and together we could be a great nation again. |
| dnsp wrote: | | if we took office there would be officials of all the nations that make Great Britain with the sole purpose of making this kingdom better for us all. |
So is Britain one nation, or are there many nations in Britain? And if the answer is both, that there can be many nations within a wider nation state, then why are you "opposed to plans to turn the EU into a centralised superstate with inappropriate economic policies being imposed upon its constituent regions by the EuroCentral bank." What's good for the goose is, after all, good for the gander.
Further, on the one hand you want to:
"Emphasise real multi-ethnic, multiculturalism in all areas and eradicate sexism"
"Respect the free exercise of religion"
"Defend the self-evident truth, 'that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' "
have "Real Liberty and Justice for all the races and cultures of the Nation"
and say that "Steps must be taken to promote the Welsh, Gaelic and Cornish languages"
but you also want to:
"Defend the traditional family unit based on one man and one woman" - isn't that inherently sexist, and going against the notion that "all men are created equal"? (and isn't that statement sexist as well?
"Recognise the Judeo-Christian heritage of our shared values" - what if you don't come from a Judeo-Christian background? Are you still free to exercise your religion? Doesn't promoting Judeo-Christian morality work against multiculturalism?
"Protect our language as our common language " - doesn't that cancel out any promotion of Gaelic, Welsh and Cornish?
And don't all of those policies undermine your pledge for "Real Liberty and Justice for all races and cultures?"
It's not taken very long for these inconsitencies to develop. I'd wish you luck - you certainly need it - but I intend to save my luck for something far less futile. |
I have learned one thing in life whatever you say or write there can be found fault in it by other person, what I wrote is how I see things to be I’m sorry if its not what is right to you. I don’t force anyone to agree with me but for me to say and do nothing makes me part of the problem all I can say is I tried in my own way to make the change to what I think would be for the better, unlike some others whose just sit and complain about how society is and the problems we face in day to day life. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
macnumpty
Getting on a bit!
Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 1853
Location: Exiled down south.
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 10:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
But what you say is essentially a number of buzzwords strung together, ignoring any contradiction or inconsistency between them. Now, fair play for speaking up, but are you doing so because you feel you have something to say, or because you feel you have to say something?
And let me ask my questions again:
Isn't basing a family unit on one man and one woman fundamentally sexist and running counter to your wish for equality?
Does freedom to exercise religion only apply if that religion comes from the Judeo-Christian heritage you intend to promote, and how can you promote a Judeo-Christian morality and multiculutralism at the same time?
How can you protect English as a common language and promote Gaelic, Welsh, Cornish et al at the same time?
_________________
(\_/)
(О.о)
(> < )
^ ^ This is Bunny. Bunny wishes that he was on the electoral roll in Glenrothes, so he could vote for Peter Grant. He also reminds you to read the Our Scotland Blog. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dnsp
No Longer a Wean
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 54
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 11:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| macnumpty wrote: | But what you say is essentially a number of buzzwords strung together, ignoring any contradiction or inconsistency between them. Now, fair play for speaking up, but are you doing so because you feel you have something to say, or because you feel you have to say something?
And let me ask my questions again:
Isn't basing a family unit on one man and one woman fundamentally sexist and running counter to your wish for equality?
Does freedom to exercise religion only apply if that religion comes from the Judeo-Christian heritage you intend to promote, and how can you promote a Judeo-Christian morality and multiculutralism at the same time?
How can you protect English as a common language and promote Gaelic, Welsh, Cornish et al at the same time? |
This is also in our Platform
9. in the traditional family unit which is a female mother, male father & child or children. We promote the family unit as a key basis for a well-ordered and stable society, whilst allowing those who prefer to live Alternative lifestyles to pursue them if they wish.
In regards to Judeo-Christianity that’s our heritage and what I am saying is we would never take that away and that would remain the state religion but on the other hand all people have the freedom to practice there religion freely in this nation.
The said languages are of these isles but they are languages which are on the decline, we would if those people wish in the areas of the country or any school in the British isles would like to maintain there language we would do all we could in assisting and learning and preserving the languages. Maybe even make it compulsory in those areas to have lessons in those languages in schools if that is what the people want. I really don’t see a problem with what we are offering. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dnsp
No Longer a Wean
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 54
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 11:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| macnumpty wrote: | But what you say is essentially a number of buzzwords strung together, ignoring any contradiction or inconsistency between them. Now, fair play for speaking up, but are you doing so because you feel you have something to say, or because you feel you have to say something?
And let me ask my questions again:
Isn't basing a family unit on one man and one woman fundamentally sexist and running counter to your wish for equality?
Does freedom to exercise religion only apply if that religion comes from the Judeo-Christian heritage you intend to promote, and how can you promote a Judeo-Christian morality and multiculutralism at the same time?
How can you protect English as a common language and promote Gaelic, Welsh, Cornish et al at the same time? |
Sorry i forgot to mention in our site in the (in short) this is also stated most of your question can be answered if you take your time reading our site.
The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not commit itself to any particular denomination. And is convinced that our nation can achieve permanent health from within on the basis of the principle: The Common Good of the Citizens of the Nation before that of ones Self Interest. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Holebender
I need ma own bl**dy forum!
Joined: 04 Apr 2007
Posts: 1350
Location: Here or There
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 11:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| dnsp wrote: | | Holebender wrote: | | Extreme in what way? Extremely mild maybe? |
Sorry what are you trying to say i am a Nazi ? if you think i am where do you get this hidden knowledge from? there is nothing in my site which is that of a Nazi or a Nazi party. |
I am not and have not said you're a Nazi. I said the name of your party is uncomfortably close to the name of the Nazi party. Another poster said it was extreme to say closeness to Nazis is uncomfortable and I responded as you have quoted above. I hope that clears things up for you.
I notice an awful lot of "I"s in your post about the genesis of your party and must surmise that it is all your own little vanity project. Organised religion is (thank goodness) dead or dying throughout Europe and if you're hitching your wagon to that dead horse you will go the way of your churches.
_________________
"My instinct is to agree with your opinion of his verse, but I've never so much as glanced at it." - agentmancuso |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dnsp
No Longer a Wean
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 54
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 12:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Holebender wrote: | | dnsp wrote: | | Holebender wrote: | | Extreme in what way? Extremely mild maybe? |
Sorry what are you trying to say i am a Nazi ? if you think i am where do you get this hidden knowledge from? there is nothing in my site which is that of a Nazi or a Nazi party. |
I am not and have not said you're a Nazi. I said the name of your party is uncomfortably close to the name of the Nazi party. Another poster said it was extreme to say closeness to Nazis is uncomfortable and I responded as you have quoted above. I hope that clears things up for you.
I notice an awful lot of "I"s in your post about the genesis of your party and must surmise that it is all your own little vanity project. Organised religion is (thank goodness) dead or dying throughout Europe and if you're hitching your wagon to that dead horse you will go the way of your churches. |
Is not all politics someone’s vanity project? My party is what I think is right, like the labour party thinks there policies are right for me and you. I am not hitching my party to no religious wagon but in this world people have religion and it means more or less to the individual so there must be polices about religion and how it works in society for example I think American politics has far to much religious doctrine in there policies and they impose it on there citizens whatever there religion might be, I know I quote this all the time but you cant please all the people all the time. I am just a man who has come up with my party and its structure, but I am well aware of my own policies and beliefs and merit I really don’t want to be the leader of my party because I don’t have the merit to do that, I believe in my own ideology. So there for of our members we will select a member who has that political knowledge, education in general plus true leadership qualities and merit, we only have one candidate for that position so I think she will become the party leader until another person challenges for that position that has better merit appears and is maybe voted in. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
macnumpty
Getting on a bit!
Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 1853
Location: Exiled down south.
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 1:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dnsp wrote: | | 9. in the traditional family unit which is a female mother, male father & child or children. We promote the family unit as a key basis for a well-ordered and stable society, whilst allowing those who prefer to live Alternative lifestyles to pursue them if they wish. |
So how do you promote the 'traditional' family unit, except by affording those you take part in it special privileges that wouldn't be available to others? And in order to that, you end up discriminating in favour of married heterosexual couples and against one-parent families, same-sex partnerships, and co-habiting non-married couples. Part of that paragraph is empty rhetoric - what isn't clear is which part.
| Quote: | | In regards to Judeo-Christianity that’s our heritage and what I am saying is we would never take that away and that would remain the state religion but on the other hand all people have the freedom to practice there religion freely in this nation. |
But you're supposed to be multicultural, so who is 'we'? How large a crossover is there going to be between the state and the state religion? And how can 'Judeo-Christianity' be a state religion, anyway? If you're going to have a state religion, you have to choose one denomination, or create a new Eclectic one. Or are you suggesting that we have several state religions? And how would that work in terms of policy, on matters such as abortion, divorce or gay rights?
| Quote: | | The said languages are of these isles but they are languages which are on the decline, we would if those people wish in the areas of the country or any school in the British isles would like to maintain there language we would do all we could in assisting and learning and preserving the languages. Maybe even make it compulsory in those areas to have lessons in those languages in schools if that is what the people want. I really don’t see a problem with what we are offering. |
But you said that you want to defend English as a common language. How does that square with trying to promote other languages? And do the same rights extend to those wanting more support for Hindi, Gujurati, Punjabi or Bengali? What about the Polish community? Do you afford them the same rights, undermining your 'English as a common language' line further, or turn them down, undermining your 'multiculturalism' approach?
The problem with what you are offering is that half of it contradicts the other half. To implement part of your manifesto, you would find yourself having to rip up other parts. It seems like your trying to please everyone, but - as happens when people do that - will end up pleasing no one. The whole point of a political movement, especially one in its infancy, is that it stands for something and I'm not clear as to what yours does, other than a bunch of inconsistent slogans.
_________________
(\_/)
(О.о)
(> < )
^ ^ This is Bunny. Bunny wishes that he was on the electoral roll in Glenrothes, so he could vote for Peter Grant. He also reminds you to read the Our Scotland Blog. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dnsp
No Longer a Wean
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 54
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 1:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| macnumpty wrote: | | dnsp wrote: | | 9. in the traditional family unit which is a female mother, male father & child or children. We promote the family unit as a key basis for a well-ordered and stable society, whilst allowing those who prefer to live Alternative lifestyles to pursue them if they wish. |
So how do you promote the 'traditional' family unit, except by affording those you take part in it special privileges that wouldn't be available to others? And in order to that, you end up discriminating in favour of married heterosexual couples and against one-parent families, same-sex partnerships, and co-habiting non-married couples. Part of that paragraph is empty rhetoric - what isn't clear is which part.
| Quote: | | In regards to Judeo-Christianity that’s our heritage and what I am saying is we would never take that away and that would remain the state religion but on the other hand all people have the freedom to practice there religion freely in this nation. |
But you're supposed to be multicultural, so who is 'we'? How large a crossover is there going to be between the state and the state religion? And how can 'Judeo-Christianity' be a state religion, anyway? If you're going to have a state religion, you have to choose one denomination, or create a new Eclectic one. Or are you suggesting that we have several state religions? And how would that work in terms of policy, on matters such as abortion, divorce or gay rights?
| Quote: | | The said languages are of these isles but they are languages which are on the decline, we would if those people wish in the areas of the country or any school in the British isles would like to maintain there language we would do all we could in assisting and learning and preserving the languages. Maybe even make it compulsory in those areas to have lessons in those languages in schools if that is what the people want. I really don’t see a problem with what we are offering. |
But you said that you want to defend English as a common language. How does that square with trying to promote other languages? And do the same rights extend to those wanting more support for Hindi, Gujurati, Punjabi or Bengali? What about the Polish community? Do you afford them the same rights, undermining your 'English as a common language' line further, or turn them down, undermining your 'multiculturalism' approach?
The problem with what you are offering is that half of it contradicts the other half. To implement part of your manifesto, you would find yourself having to rip up other parts. It seems like your trying to please everyone, but - as happens when people do that - will end up pleasing no one. The whole point of a political movement, especially one in its infancy, is that it stands for something and I'm not clear as to what yours does, other than a bunch of inconsistent slogans. |
We want the family unit to consist of the above, but all family units will have the same benifits its not the childs fault it he or she is born to a 1 parent family. We as the state will do all we can to provide for that family and the well being of the child and family, its not double dutch. All things are based on merit for us what you might need another does not each case is different.
From our site (In Short) section
The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not commit itself to any particular denomination. And is convinced that our nation can achieve permanent health from within on the basis of the principle: The Common Good of the Citizens of the Nation before that of ones Self Interest.
In regards to Judeo-Christianity that’s our heritage and what I am saying is we would never take that away and that would remain the state religion but on the other hand all people have the freedom to practice there religion freely in this nation.
The said languages are of these isles but they are languages which are on the decline, we would if those people wish in the areas of the country or any school in the British isles would like to maintain there language we would do all we could in assisting and learning and preserving the languages. Maybe even make it compulsory in those areas to have lessons in those languages in schools if that is what the people want. I really don’t see a problem with what we are offering.
Go to the site there is a essay on Abortion all you need to know is in the site and we have a Q&A section there also thanks for your time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
macnumpty
Getting on a bit!
Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 1853
Location: Exiled down south.
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 2:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
But you're repeating the same mantras. What is the point of 'promoting' a family unit if other models get the same benefits? What happens when no children are involved? I agree that all things are based on merit, but you're trying to be all things to all people. For example, you're trying to be non-denominational, but by providing extra funding for birth control, you instantly go against the Roman Catholic denomination. But by saying you don't condone abortion, though would still allow it, you manage you draw hostility both from the pro-life and the pro-choice side.
I have been to the site and it has, frankly, raised all the questions that I've put. In years of following politics, it's only the second time I've visited a party website and had more questions at the end than the beginning. You haven't been speaking to a chap called Mev Brown, have you?
_________________
(\_/)
(О.о)
(> < )
^ ^ This is Bunny. Bunny wishes that he was on the electoral roll in Glenrothes, so he could vote for Peter Grant. He also reminds you to read the Our Scotland Blog. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dnsp
No Longer a Wean
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 54
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| macnumpty wrote: | But you're repeating the same mantras. What is the point of 'promoting' a family unit if other models get the same benefits? What happens when no children are involved? I agree that all things are based on merit, but you're trying to be all things to all people. For example, you're trying to be non-denominational, but by providing extra funding for birth control, you instantly go against the Roman Catholic denomination. But by saying you don't condone abortion, though would still allow it, you manage you draw hostility both from the pro-life and the pro-choice side.
I have been to the site and it has, frankly, raised all the questions that I've put. In years of following politics, it's only the second time I've visited a party website and had more questions at the end than the beginning. You haven't been speaking to a chap called Mev Brown, have you? |
Ok point taken i will take your advice under consideration and to Mev No lol |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
macnumpty
Getting on a bit!
Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Posts: 1853
Location: Exiled down south.
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 7:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
OK, but here's some more advice... if Mev tries to get involved, politely decline. 
Mev was the Tory candidate in Edinburgh East in 2005, then an Independent Candidate in the Livingston By-Election a few months later, then the UKIP Candidate in the Murrayfield By-Election for Edinburgh Council a little while after that . Then he set up his own party (NHSFirst) in time for the Moray By-Election in April 2006, and was going to stand at the top of his party's List in Lothian this May, until he struck up an alliance with Scottish Voice and had to decamp to Central Scotland. Rumour has it he tried to join the Scottish Senior Citizens' Unity Party to stand as one of their candidates as well. His very involvement might kill off your party at the first hurdle - the man's bad luck! 
_________________
(\_/)
(О.о)
(> < )
^ ^ This is Bunny. Bunny wishes that he was on the electoral roll in Glenrothes, so he could vote for Peter Grant. He also reminds you to read the Our Scotland Blog. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dnsp
No Longer a Wean
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 54
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 8:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| macnumpty wrote: | OK, but here's some more advice... if Mev tries to get involved, politely decline.
Mev was the Tory candidate in Edinburgh East in 2005, then an Independent Candidate in the Livingston By-Election a few months later, then the UKIP Candidate in the Murrayfield By-Election for Edinburgh Council a little while after that . Then he set up his own party (NHSFirst) in time for the Moray By-Election in April 2006, and was going to stand at the top of his party's List in Lothian this May, until he struck up an alliance with Scottish Voice and had to decamp to Central Scotland. Rumour has it he tried to join the Scottish Senior Citizens' Unity Party to stand as one of their candidates as well. His very involvement might kill off your party at the first hurdle - the man's bad luck! |
Ok thanks for the heads up on Mev, like i said we are still finding our feet in this game and i take all people´s points and advice under consideration i want everything with our party to be right. Like i said before somewhere in this site i follow my own code based on merit i am not skilled to lead and we are in the process of selecting a leader its my foundation but i am no leader. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rinty
Ready For Afterlife!
Joined: 19 Sep 2005
Posts: 2597
Location: SW Scotland
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 9:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity"
There are already two or more christian parties standing in Scotland. If I were you I wouldnt bother.
You havent really thought this through have you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dnsp
No Longer a Wean
Joined: 18 Oct 2007
Posts: 54
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 21, 2007 9:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rinty wrote: | "The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity"
There are already two or more christian parties standing in Scotland. If I were you I wouldnt bother.
You havent really thought this through have you? |
And you have not really read our site (all of it) you think you are smart picking up this point but in the site we explain the situation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
