In the meantime, why not try 
The (long-awaited) "Simple Symington" Tartans Game, which is here at last!!
This page has been visited times since we started counting on 16.11.97
Hello, I'm Zoë Symington, a.k.a "MysteriousGirl" - that name started because my political views are a complete Mystery to everyone except (and sometimes including) myself!! Anyway, something about me - I'm eighteen years old, I live in Scotland, I have A-levels in Economics and Politics, I am a member of the Scottish Liberal Democratic Party, which is a moderate centre-right wing party. If you don't know much about British politics, you could try my British Politics Explanation Page,which gives a very easy and brief resume of the main British political parties, their political positions, beliefs and most cherished policies. If you don't know these things already, reading my explanation page will halp you to understand the issues covered in my main page better.
This page is nominally about politics and political issues which are relevant to Britain - particularly in the changing economic, political and social climate as we move into a new millennium. However, in the two years for which I have been maintaining this page, it has grown into a mishmash of practically everything you can think of. So, if politics bores you, don't despair. However, the aim of the issues which are covered here is not to state my opinion, it is more to create a controversy and make people think about politics. I certainly seem to have achieved this so far - this is a political debate page, and if you have an opinion to add to the debate, please e-mail it to me; I may well put it on the page!!
I have no real set-in-stone opinions on any subject - I sift evidence to decide which side of an argument I see as most justified, but there is no reason why the balance cannot shift - this is not, as is sometimes said, hypocrisy - it is merely a progression.
I will close this brief introduction to me by quoting my long-suffering politics teacher, who for two years struggled to cope with my violently-upheld but usually transitory opinions on everything under the sun: "In my worst nightmares, Zoë Symington is Prime Minister."
If you are odd enough to want to know more about me, feel free to e-mail me.
You may also view my CV Online if you so wish.
Below are banners for some of the things I believe in, campaigns I support, and organisations, webrings etc. which I belong to. The politics follows. Please browse through them!! If you don't have time, then you can Skip The Banners,and go straight to my political issues section.
Visit The Tartan Ribbon Appeal Page
Visit The Blue Ribbon Homepage
Click Here To Sign The Petition
| LinkExchange Member | Free Home Pages at GeoCities |
ThisGeocities
CapitolHill Ringsite is owned by
Zoe Symington
[
Prev
|
Skip
It
|
Next
5
|
Next
]
Want to join the ring? Get the info
If the ring is not operational please go HERE for a list of ring members.
Surf The
Ring By Using The Links Below Want ToJoin This Ringand get more hits for your page? |
 |
Visit TheSoroptimists
Pay a visit to the Royal Air Force
Just to let you all know that Mercedes-Benz are the best cars on earth - but that's just in my opinion!!
Visit Mercedes
While you're here reading about British political issues, why not dip into my quotable quotes, cast your vote in my E.M.U ballot, or follow the fox-hunting debate in "Issue of the Month"?
Politics in history:
The outpouring of national grief was unexpected and, according to some, uncalled for. I believe, like most people, that Princess
Diana was a wonderful and unique woman, despite her flaws. Possibly the show of grief did go too far, and it probably stemmed in part from
a widespread feeling of guilt - all very well to blame it on the media, but it is the consumer who finances the media...
Diana did a great deal for the humanitarian cause, and she set a shining example of love and compassion. No wonder
she was so special to so many people. Almost certainly she was the most human of the royals, and one of the most popular,
after the Queen Mother, who was dubbed "Most Popular Royal" after a nationwide survey.
Princess Diana's work with landmines was well-meaning, even if possibly a little unrealistic.
Landmines are a menace, but it is not so easy to ban something merely because it is cruel...
Diana will be remembered with love and affection by many, many people, including myself. There is no denying
that she did a great deal of good in the world.
Update (26.1.98): The Diana, Princess of Wales Memorial Fund is now approaching the £30 million mark. Earl Spencer
recently announced a charity concert in memory of Princess Diana, which will be held later this summer. Several other concerts are planned. The Princess Diana Rose is now on sale in
some garden centres. All proceeds go to the Memorial Fund.
Mr. Ray Wicks comments: "Diana was a great looking girl and a lovely lady, but what if she had looked like Princess Anne? Would she have been on the covers of magazines worldwide? I think not.
There is a need for landmines in a defensive situation, and they could save the lives of innocent civilians who are suffering from attacks by insurgents. A government which includes the ever-smiling, anti-working-class "tony@new.labour.cool.groovy.gov.uk" has the duty to use ALL means to protect it's citizens (including nerve gas, atomic bombs and mines). What next? Do we destroy all our rifles, tanks, ships and aircraft?"
"LSDan" comments: "I don't agree about Di at all. I hated her. She is on my dartboard."
Skip to end of page
Skip to top of page
It's a controversial issue. Does Britain really need a monarchy? After all, what does the monarch actually do?
The monarchy may be split and divided now, but in past times, it was something to pull the Brits together, something for the nation to rally round. Surely it could again do this? In the unlikely event of Britain ever becoming involved in another war like World War Two, the monarchy would most likely become the spearhead of the British war effort.
Update (26.1.98): The Monarchy have recently said goodbye to the Royal Yacht Britannia, as a signal that they are willing to bow to the winds of change.
Well, I think we do. I think that the British monarchy is one of the finest institutions this country has. Part of the fabric of Britain. Fair enough, the monarchy has a largely traditional place in society only, but isn't Britain a country famed for tradition? With Europe congealing into just one solid,
nameless mass, should we not make every attempt to keep the single most powerful symbol of British nationality? Despite the disillusionment caused by scandal in the royal family, the British monarchy is still admired and envied by countried throughout the world. One tribe in South America even worships Prince Philip as a God!! Many people visit Britain simply because of the monarchy - although admittedly, the monarchy costs Britain more, in cash terms, to upkeep than it earns from tourism. But is that the point?
Granted, you cannot keep an institution which costs millions of pounds a year just on the off chance of there being a war - that is ridiculous!! But all the same,do we really need to abolish one of the greatest and most revered families in Britain? Let all those who say that the monarchy is unpopular look at all the other people
who turn out to watch the Queen on her visits, cheering and screaming - a result of the patriotic feeling which a visit from the monarch inspires? I think Britain needsthat sense of national unity, especially in days when it seems as if the union may in fact split up...
The yacht had been deemed too expensive to be run, too great a drain on the public purse. The Monarchy will also be abolishing the Royal Train, which reputedly costs over £300,000 for
every journey it makes. A slimmed-down Civil List is also being considered - the only members of the Royal family who will be permitted to draw on it are: The Queen Mother, the Queen,
Prince Charles, and Princes William and Harry.
The Labour Government Announced Plans to Ban Tobacco Sponsorship at Sporting Events Just After They Came To Power
But this manifesto promise could cause very serious problems for many sports, most especially horse-racing and motor racing, both of which are almost exclusively financed by tobacco sponsorship -
Marlboro, Regal, Silk Cut and Benson and Hedges are by now familiar names at sporting events. We frequently see them plastered all over cars, horse rugs, billboards and finishing posts. What effect would a ban on this have? Well, maybe it would cut down on advertising and discourage a few people from smoking - would maybe even give some an incentive to quit. But the effects on many sports would be too appalling to consider.
Knowing this, a certain Mr. Ecclestone, a very important man in the Formula One world, payed a visit to Tony Blair. He offered the new PM a cash donation of one million pounds to scrap the ban. The Labour Party took the money and dropped the legislation. But it got out, of course. A public opinion riot started. To pacify the storm of protest, Labour offered to pay the one million pounds back to Mr. Ecclestone. It then emerged that the party was simply too skint to pay it back. That was when reports emerged that Mr.Ecclestone had offered a further half a million to Labour. He denied this publically yesterday morning. The newspapers are now having a field day with the debate on
how political parties should be funded.The saga continues...
But never mind party funding, what about funding of sports? I don't feel that it is right for the governemnt to dictate who can and who cannot fund a sporting event. The tobacco companies have always been very generous. We should be thanking them, not flinging their kindness straight back at them. Who else could pay for such expensive and important events as Royal Ascot, the Derby at Epsom, the Grand Prix, the Gold Cup? Only if the government itself is willing to pay for these things should it ban tobacco sponsorship.
The effects of tobacco advertising on the smoking population is negligible anyway. Who is going to start (or stop) smoking because of banners and flags around the racetrack? The whole scenario is really rather ridiculous in my opinion.
Update (27.11.97): A debate is in progress concerning a recent announcement that Formula 1 may be exempted from the ban. The government is reconsidering.
Watch this space for updates!!
Skip to end of page
Skip to top of page
The Economic and Monetary Union - Should we join the single currency? The E.M.U was set up in 1991 at the Maastricht Treaty Conference. Ideas to have a single European currency were discussed. Obviously, if you want to merge several currencies, these currencies must all have roughly the same value. To deal with this, the convergence criteria were agreed on - any country wishing to join E.M.U must fall within 3% of the convergence point by 1997. Using some creative accountancy, France, Germany and Italy have all made it. Should the British people agree in a referendum to join E.M.U, Britain could also achieve this. But do we really want to lose the pound?
National identity is very important to the Brits, and the pound is a strong and healthy currency. Would you really want to use Euros instead? I want to hear your views - you can cast your vote in my guestbook, or you can e-mail me. I'll post the results on this page when I have fifty votes.
Mr. David Kirkwood says: "My vote is for the ECU, I feel that communications and technology are naturally merging countries together anyway. If money was invented today, it would be stupid to have more than one currency. However, I am prepared to admit that I don't know enough about economics to say this for sure." [Can I take this opportunity to correct Mr. Kirkwood. The European Single Currency is the Euro, not the ECU. This is quite a common mistake. The ECU means European Currency Unit, a term which is used in calculations in international economics. While I'm at the terminology trouble shooting, allow me to point out that EMU does not mean "European Monetary Union", as many people seem to think. It, in fact, means Economic and Monetary Union, a subtle but important distinction. - Zoë]
Links:
The Treasury - official EMU page
Skip to end of page
Skip to top of page
The debate is ongoing. But, we ask ourselves, will a conclusion ever be reached? It seems unlikely. The new Labour government seem reluctant to take their wind of change THAT far - not surprisingly.
It is doubtful whether the British people are quite ready for such a change. Sure, there will be many who would welcome the change, but the storm of protest which would undoubtedly arise out of such a move
hardly makes the legislation seem worthwhile. No government is ever going to take the risk of legalising hash when the resultant controversy could put them out of office. This makes the argument purely
academic. It seems, however, that EVERYONE has an opinion on the topic. Personally, I do think that it should be legalised - I belive that most of the population of Great Britain is sensible and disciplined
enough to use the drug safely. There will always be a percentage of people who can't use what they can't abuse, but if the government were to spend it's entire legislative time in nannying this small number of
people, we would have nothing. It is certainly true that cannabis is less harmful and less addictive than alcohol or cigarettes, with fewer negative externalites (bad effects on the rest of society). Unlike alcohol,
marijuana use promotes peace and serenity, which cannot be a bad thing to enocurage, particularly in many of today's youngsters (I speak as one myself!!). Apart from having less hooligans on the streets, we would undoubtedly have fewer
stressed and unhappy teenagers - not to mention stressed and unhappy adults. Smoking cannabis is a socialable practice, and provides some much needed deep relaxation from the hurly-burly of modern life, something most of
us could do with.
Not to mention the well-documented health benefits and pain-relief which regular use can bring. Cannabis can, to some extent, help to counter-act the negative effects of nicotine, alcohol, junk food and stress.
It is also a very effective pain reliever - so effective, in fact, that many doctors are lobbying the government for the right to prescribe it as a painkiller, particularly for those with severe joint or muscular pain, such as
sufferers of osteoporosis, arthritis or rheumatism. Thus, a great good can come out of a so-called "bad" thing.
However, let us examine the flip side of the coin. Many people are too comfortable and complacent about cannabis. Although non-addictive in moderate amounts, it is now proven that cannabis can be addictive when large amounts
are smoked over a prolonged time period. It can also lead to extreme psychological dependence, a fact sworn to by many heavy users of hash, many of whom have had to undergo counselling in order to conquer the desire to use cannabis.
It is also not without health risks attached, although many users seem to think it is risk-free. Cannabis is highly damaging to the short-term (and sometimes long-term) memory - after several years of use, many users become so disorientated
that they become incapable of caring for themselves. Some long-term users even forget how to read and write - another well-documented fact. Confusion, dizziness, black-outs, slurred speech, lack of ability to think clearly and rationally, tiredness, raging thirst, insomnia,
persistent sickness, lowered immunity, loss of appetite, general debility, panic attacks, psychological problems, tremors, muscle spasm, ulcers, sores, acute sensitivity to light and pain, partial blindness and deafness...the list goes on and on. These are all side-effects of
marijuana usage, and all these problems worsen with time. Most are irreversible.
But, to be fair, the long-term effects of smoking tobacco are probably more serious. I maintain that if people are educated about the side-effects of marijuana, they should still be allowed to choose whether or not to take the risk. After all, people
know of the dangers of smoking, but many people still do, of their own free volition. We are not living in a nanny state. It is not up to the government to dictate to consumers what they may and may not buy, it is up to them to make sure that consumer is properly educated, and they could
better do that by legalising marijuana, a move which would also enable research to be done more freely and easily. It is unlikely that there would be a hugh upsurge in the number of cannbis users - people against the lifting of the ban would not smoke it anyway, and most of the people
who support the legalisation of the plant which has become a whole culture have smoked it at least once. With consumers more educated about the side-effects of cannabis use, numbers of users may even decrease, as the novelty wore off. Cannabis would lose it excitement without the ban, so
kids would feel less inclined towards using something, which is, after all, very expensive for very little.
I leave the decision up to you. The facts are before you. But I would be really interested to hear from you and find out your views on the subject.
However
, Mr. Zak Adams disagrees. He says "Please remember...the damage you are referring to in this article is most likely the result of altered marijuana...marijuana that is adulterated."
[NB: This is probably a good time to mention that every fact in this article is supported by the Medical and Scientific Institute of the USA. - Zoë]
Pot Links:
The Bill reads "It shall be illegal to hunt with dogs any wild animal"
It has sparked the fiercest debate of the decade. Moral issues are at a fore - Britain is, after all, a nation of animal lovers. Speaking as an animal lover myself, I really don't think that it is necessary or productive to ban fox-hunting. I find the arguments for the defence of hunting infinitely more persuading than the weak, whining voices of those who would have hunting banned. I think I will scream if I hear one more ignorant but well-meaning protester say "It's cruel to the fox". As for the anti-hunt activists, they are the ones who should be banned - self-righteously preaching about cruelty to foxes, they will happily spray the fox-hounds with CS gas and pepper sprays, leaving the unfortunate, and wholly innocent, hounds writhing in agony. They talk to us about cruelty to the horses - whilst happily laying traps and bloackades to break horses legs or maim them seriously. How can anyone listen to these people? Most of them are completely insincere, and are merely trying to asuage their guilty consciences by protesting for the rights of foxes - and wearing leather jackts while they do it.
Walt Disney has a lot to answer for. Foxes are NOT cute or cuddly, they are stinking, vicious pests, who cause infinitely more damage than the huntsmen who chase them. The fox population must be controlled, and the only alternatives to hunting are even more barbaric -
Hunting is only allowed when foxes have no young, so there are no cubs killed or left motherless. It is, in fact, a common misapprehension that every hunted fox is caught - well over sixty percent escape. Only elderley or infirm foxes are actually caught in most cases.
Many areas of valuable countryside are kept in good repair specifically for hunting purposes - natural areas which would be allowed to die and waste without regular hunts. Hedgerows and fences are kept in good repair, benefitting not just the hunts, but also the animals who live in them. And yet hunt protesters, so called "animal lovers", wilfully damage and destroy these fences and hedges.
And what of the many breeds of hunting horses and hounds? Many rare breeds would simply die out without hunting.
Hunting is an integral part of country life, and is virtually harmless compared to many other sports and pastimes - angling, for example. Those who claim that fish feel no pain when speared by a fish hook have never been beside a fish underwater when this happens - have never witnessed the alarm and distress of the fish, and the panic through the rest of the shoal. So why not ban angling? Hunting is an entire culture - ban huting, and you have banned part of our heritage. Millions of people will lose their jobs, from breeders of hounds and horses, to stable boys, masters of hounds, hunting journalists, feed merchants, hunt curators, whole stables.... we don't need that contribution to the unemployment problem - literally millions of lost jobs. Against all this, all the anti-hunt protesters can say is "It's cruel to the fox." Even this could merely be a symptom of class jealousy - who knows? But I know which side I'm on. Update (29.11.97) A vote taken in parliament yesterday sent the Wild Mammals (Hunting With Dogs) Bill to the second reading by an overwhelming majority. Political analysts predict that the Bill will stall, further on in it's progression through parliament. There was a three line whip for attendance of the vote yesterday. Update (16.12.99) The Scottish Parliament has now taken up the fight with a vengeance, and the bitter war rages on. Although it seems as if the bill is on the brink of success, the controversy still boils to a peak. In Westminster, the bill is still being closely scrutinised in the Committee Stage, after nearly two years.
However,
Mr. David Kirkwood has a different viewpoint on this issue. He says: "I think that foxhunters do it because they enjoy it - did you know that foxes breed and die in such a controlled manner that foxhunting doesn't actually lower the number of foxes in the country. Likewise, if foxhunting were stopped, the number of wild foxes would not rise. As for hunting dogs and horses, their deaths would be "one offs", whereas fox deaths are ongoing".
On the other hand
, Mr. Ray Wicks thinks differently. His opinion: "Why do people who know nothing about a subject (the Range Rover driving, green wellie wearing, university educated twits who live in suburbia and London) decide that they can dictate to the majority who do know about it (ie, people who live in the country and have their pets torn apart by foxes) how they should act/live/exist?"
A member of the Royal Air Force Air Training Corps.
If any item, graphic, phrase, word etc. on this page offends you, I'm glad to have caused a controversy. Please e-mail me all complaints!! Future BIG BALLOT - Freedom of Speech on the Internet.
© 1997 Zoe H. Symington
Get your own Free Home Page