In terms of personalities whose profiles were raised, Mr Paisley, not surprisingly, was dominant. In one group this produced two distinct schools of opinion, reflecting the 'Paisley as Saviour' versus 'Paisley as the Grand Old Duke of York' debate that their parents' generation had had. Mr Paisley's supposed populism and his authenticity were closely examined in young laypersons' terms and, as indicated, the results were not unanimous. One extremely interesting point raised at this point in the discussion concerned one individual who felt that of the republican personnel they tended to believe what Gerry Adams said, although they strongly distrusted Martin McGuinness. Given the then still fresh memories of Mr Adams carrying the coffin of the Shankill bomber Thomas Begley, it was a very brave sentiment to express and one which it would be very interesting to compare with responses from a wider Protestant audience.
T o draw a cohesive, all-embracing conclusion from the material is a difficult task.
But there did not appear to be an obvious road to travel which made compromise achievable and the 'war' avoidable. Cynicism and doubt about the status quo were evident throughout and there was a tangible desire for improvement in the quality of life, locally and more broadly. Against this, there were no radical mould-breaking voices challenging old sacred cows or really testing the boundaries of each community. Yet there was a strong thrust amongst each group that the process would have to be inclusive, with all aspirations represented and all voices heard. What was clear was that we have a strong body of young people who have sharp and defined emotions and perceptions about the politics of the society they live in, yet who do not have any positive avenues through which to contribute to its civic or political life.