revolution saint

This. It's different (as far as I know), simple, can be sung at a fast tempo (which will suit us) and finally it's the jam ffs!

Mod for the music and fashion but frankly scooters don't cut it for me so not entirely mod.

I love these threads, as if there is a general arbiter of taste to eventually judge who is right and who is wrong. Drink what you like and enjoy it - don't get all snobbish about it. Personally it's lager all the way for me - "ale" I just don't like. I do like Guinness though and grew up on mild (hate that stuff now though). Ultimately though I don't think it's "ale" I dislike as much as the people who decry anyone who doesn't like it. Get a grip - do you really want to be a beer version of a wine snob?

I think you really need to compare him against Chris Nicholl - they had similar constraints and spending limits (and for a fair while the same players). Under Nicholl we never finished lower than 12th, under Branfoot we ceased to be entertaining and became relegation strugglers. Admittedly it may not have been all Branfoot's fault but the rot started there and the football wasn't worth watching.

Missed opportunity if we don't, and needs to be sung at a fast pace which should suit some....

Is birdsong any good? I've nearly bought it a few times but never got round to it mainly because wartime dramas don't really interest me. I did watch the first episode of the dramatisation a couple of nights ago though and underwhelmed isn't the word, I found it very dull which was a surprise given the plaudits the book received.

Erm, not really. By that logic it looks like you're saying we should have got 2 pens with a third turned down, and they shouldn't have been allowed to have their goal stand.....which would make it 2-0 to us. Not quite sure how that evens itself out?

Not if you register him as a loan, and then make it permanent. Boro did it with Juke. That said, it's not normally NA's style to chuck players in without even training with the squad so the best he'd probably get is a place on the bench. Far more likely Lee gets an extended run out. He'll probably score a hattrick as well Now that would be a nice selection dilemma to have.....

Did anyone notice a grim reaper (albeit a tiny one) towards the top right of that clip?

That would make him his own worst enemy.

I think he could be a great player but also think he probably doesn't fit into Nigel's defensive plans; he'll need to be called Danny and be left footed for that to happen.

Simon Dent

Conveniently forgetting you'd had a pop at me earlier in the thread mate. Fact is you really don't like anyone questioning your little hopeful conspiracy theory do you?

Of course you are entitled to an opinion, and other people are entitled to question it as well. Your opinion is that we'll make a third bid (not sign) and strangely enough given that we've said that we're not interested, the player has said he's happy and Celtic have said they don't want to sell, many people disagree with you. I'm not sure what your problem is with people questioning or asking you to justify your opinion is? Surely you should have expected that given you have nothing to back it up with except your own guesswork. Of course you may well be right but you're probably not and that's all anyone is saying. Always makes me laugh when people hide behind the "it's just my opinion" argument when they're pulled up on it as if anyone is trying to deny them the right to an opinion. No one has said that - merely that you're probably wrong. There's been a few instances on this thread (not always you) where the conspiracy theorists have rather weirdly asked people to justify why we won't go back in for Hooper (as if we needed any more evidence); I think Hypo had one a few days ago. I'm sure you'll base your justification on the fact that Celtic made the bid public, conveniently forgetting that actually it was probably Celtic reacting to press reports and not instigating anything. Nigel does it all the time. So don't get all annoyed - I'm just saying that you're probably wrong.

Surely that isn't right? If anything he'd be an Arsenal fan but Pompey? Struggling to believe that......

To be honest a hypothetical situation, that even Hollywood would baulk at, isn't really a great defence of the monarchy - couldn't you have come up with a real example?

Ha ha, sodding eye infection stuffed me up. Could hardly see the tv although I didn't really miss much.

This. So far we haven't signed Rodriguez, Sharp and Hooper and whilst it's nice being linked with them we really need to get someone in quickly. I'm all for a good deal etc bit I can't see us being in a better position for automatic promotion than we are now. Nigel wants to give us the best possible chance of winning the league and this really is the time to back him.

Well that's democracy for you and at least it's accountable but of course it's not infallible. I'd replace our head of state with nothing though as I believe all it's current functions can be carried out easily by the govt of the day. If we believe democracy is a good enough system to run the country though then I'd not have a problem with extending that to an elected head of state.

Of course the difference is that if you get a bad elected head of state they are both accountable and can be removed. I'd take that over heriditary divine right every day of the week and if we're arguing that Liz has a role that isn't just ceremonial then I'd say it's even more important.

I agree - no point in having one really.

No Logo by Naomi Klein should be essential reading. Brands are a waste of money and no guarantee of quality.

The EU parliament and the Scottish Assembly have nothing to do with the monarchy or a replacement for it. Not sure why you've brought that up because it makes no sense. The pomp and ceremony, pageantry and traditions that you like so much can be performed without a monarchy easily enough. Finally the inability to choose your head of state does affect your democratic status.

I absolutely agree with you about the internal market - you really need to have worked in it to understand just how mental it is. I did 12 months on the information side of things and that was enough - little armies of us PCT lining up against Health care provider arguing over our share of the pot. There's a lot of things I'm proud about contributing to - the reduction in waiting lists is one of them but if we're talking about waste and too much beaurocracy then that's the internal market's fault. The stupid thing is that in the internal market world we justified ourselves - the more of us you had then the more money you got. In terms of the NHS as a whole we were a waste of resources.

Good post and good summary although given my username I'm obviously going to disagree with the sentiment though. I think you're right that as republicans we have to put forward and make the argument that an alternative is better. We do have to convince the public that abolishing the Monarchy is a good thing. Personally it annoys me that it's not the institution itself that is enough to convince people. Take Charles Windsor - there are quite a few people who it seems would seriously start to doubt the monarchy upon his coronation because they don't respect him as much as Liz Windsor. Surely that should be the whole point of it though - that you don't get to choose your head of state? You get the card you're dealt and there's nothing you can do about it. Perhaps that's what it would take for people to change their minds but for me it would be for the wrong reasons. Incidentally I'd feel a little sorry for Charlie as much of his problems stem from him actually having an opinion and trying to make his position relevant. Liz on the other hand has pretty much spent her time on the throne silent - none of us know what her opinions are or what she believes in. That seems to be what we want though a monarch that creates as few waves as possible. As for the future? You're probably right - abolition will be a long time coming. As is our nature the monarchy will evolve into something so watered down that at some point it will be purely ceremonial (you could argue that we're already there). I don't foresee any referendum coming up that's for sure. What I do think will happen is a gradual removal of constitutional powers. In many ways that would please the most people - a monarchy in name only that negates the need to talk about an alternative. Ironically I feel it's that fear of an alternative that is the royalists strongest defence - what would you replace them with? Personally I don't feel the need to replace them with anything at all but that's probably a hard sell. On the plus side I am encouraged by the way the debate is going now - we've moved on from people defending the monarchy because it is a decent and fair institution and instead talk about how they are essentially harmless and a nice irrelevancy. We've actually come a long way. I think attitudes are changing and a republican viewpoint no longer marks you out from the crowd, much like being an atheist has become a respected, or at least rational, position as well (you can see why I despise our national anthem!). I probably won't live to see an end to Monarchy but I'll be raising a glass with Tom Paine when it does fall.