revolution saint

Peter Reid never managed us but did pretty well in his six or so games with us IIRC.

I was 4 at the time so I have about as many memories of the day as you. I don't get sick of people talking about it though. Funnily enough I only watched the whole match a few years ago and was surprised - my perception was that it had been a smash and grab robbery with Saints getting a goal against the run of play and generally being defensive but that wasn't the case. We played well that game and matched Man United and even though it's too long ago for me, I still feel that joy when Bobby slides the ball home. So, no, I don't struggle to give a toss - I just wish I was old enough to have either appreciated it at the time or been there.

Tom Paine is a huge hero of mine. You have to give credit to anyone who helps incite two revolutions.....although he was rubbish at building bridges.

Absolutely agree with this. Personally I didn't notice any "coming together of the nation", it was just a good excuse to have a day off and next year's golden jubilee day off will be the same.

Or a woman if there is a direct male heir....

Ironic you should bring up independence day as an expression of patriotism....

Money isn't the issue for me so I'm not getting in to that - it's about whether it's fair and right for our head of state to be unaccountable, unelected, undemocratic and there by birth alone. It's an outdated and absurd institution and the fact it's been around for centuries doesn't give it any legitimacy.

It's possible to be patriotic without a monarchy isn't it? I'm sure every republican country will be rushing up to find themselves a monarchy now though.....yes, of course, you're right.

Of course I'm using that as an argument - it's perfectly sensible. There are no prime ministers or MPs preordained at birth. Whilst some people have advantages there is no guarantee of a position of power. The other thing of course is that elected politicians are accountable and if they screw up then we can get rid of them.

I'm oft amused by Monarchists confusing Republicans with being left wing - it's possible to be right wing and republican too. Anyway the only reason money ever gets brought into the argument is because it seems to be the only Monarchist defence against abolition; they bring in money. The whole basis of the Monarchy though is divine right to rule and that's pretty indefensible and stupid isn't it? That's why money is used as an argument - because Monarchists don't want to talk about the fact that this great institution is built upon an absurdity.

Relying on the bewildered herd to come up with a decent argument then Sergie? In any case I believe in democracy but I don't always like it's results - I never said anything to the contrary.

I never said public opinion was the decider in what was right and wrong - reason is. Since you agree with me, or unable to form an argument against me I have to assume I win again.

And you've lost your argument game, set and match

F*ck! If we've all agreed that divine right is wrong but that they've never used those powers and then found out that they have......wow.

Cool, so you agree that hereditary power is wrong, nice one. Welcome to the revolution brother.

Didn't answer the question, try again

So you agree hereditary power is wrong? And don't give the argument that it's never used....in that case there would be no point in having it.

I'd ask the question then - if they're not used should they be removed?, or do you believe in keeping them in the hands of someone purely by the lottery of birth?

Erm, when everyone agrees with me....it's taken long enough with you so not for a while yet....

WTF? come up with an argument at least!

OK I win. Cheers, and don't forget to tug your forelock before bedtime.

Answer the question. They have constitutional power whether they use it or not by the lottery of birth - is that right?

They actually do have power (even if they don't use it) but obviously you think that the british royal family can have the ability to exercise those powers if they see fit purely by the right of birth then? You believe that just because of the lottery of birth they are best positioned to dispose of those powers? And if you believe they don't use them and should never use them then they should be removed, yes?

So you'd agree with removing the constitutional powers they do have?

But you agree that hereditary power is stupid right?