<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Republic Scotland</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.republicscotland.org/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.republicscotland.org</link>
	<description>Part of the UK-wide Republic campaign</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 24 May 2011 16:55:00 +0100</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Welcome to Republic Scotland by Martin MacEwen</title>
		<link>http://www.republicscotland.org/2011/uncategorized/hello-world/#comment-3</link>
		<dc:creator>Martin MacEwen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 May 2011 16:55:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.republicscotland.org/?p=1#comment-3</guid>
		<description>Given the provisions in Section 3a of the Treason Felony Act and what appears to be a certain ambivalence by the Law Lords in the 2003 case, would it not be politically astute to campaign for the abolition of this section, amongst others? While many might want to defend the constitutional monarchy, many of these would surely favour an open debate on constitutional change, including the pros and cons of republicanism.

On another, but I would claim related, tack the existing constitution of the UK- quite apart from the issue of the monarch as the head of state- is the dreadful mess of the three/four nation state that is the UK.

Obviously, other than a wholesale break-up, a federal structure structure is essential. The Republic should be busy drawing up an outline structure to attract support and entice discussion.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Given the provisions in Section 3a of the Treason Felony Act and what appears to be a certain ambivalence by the Law Lords in the 2003 case, would it not be politically astute to campaign for the abolition of this section, amongst others? While many might want to defend the constitutional monarchy, many of these would surely favour an open debate on constitutional change, including the pros and cons of republicanism.</p>
<p>On another, but I would claim related, tack the existing constitution of the UK- quite apart from the issue of the monarch as the head of state- is the dreadful mess of the three/four nation state that is the UK.</p>
<p>Obviously, other than a wholesale break-up, a federal structure structure is essential. The Republic should be busy drawing up an outline structure to attract support and entice discussion.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

