p retweeted
If there is one thing every Scot should do is take the time to read this. Chris has broken down in easy readable chunks just how Scotland is a colony of England, UN steps past & present & how we meet the criteria set out. Bookmark this, Scotlands history past, present & future 🏴
Let Us Simply Apply the United Nations Criteria of Decolonisation & See How Scotland Qualifies as a Colony of England
I sense that for certain people there remains a genuine hesitation whenever the idea of Scotland as a colony is mentioned. This confusion is neither accidental nor unique. It's normal & belongs to the very psychology & strategy of colonialism itself. Throughout history, colonised nations have often struggled to recognise their own subjugation, precisely because the coloniser’s greatest success lies in shaping perception; in transforming colonial domination into partnership, & dependence into loyalty. Pride, denial, honour, dignity, & the inherited myths of equality all serve this purpose. In Scotland’s case, the English coloniser ensured that the truth of colonisation was buried under centuries of constitutional language, legal manipulation, propaganda, symbolism & tokenism, cultural assimilation through Anglophone settler colonialism. The result is a nation that has been systematically taught to believe it was never colonised at all, even as the structures & realities of colonisation define its past & present.
When political narratives & domestic constitutional myths obscure reality, international law can help restore clarity. The question of whether Scotland is a colony is not a matter of rhetoric, propaganda, loyalty, or constitutional interpretation; but a matter of legal classification under the framework that governs all decolonisation processes at the UN. The time for hypothetical debate has passed. The international process has already begun.
In 2025, Liberation Scotland, the recognised Scottish liberation movement, began presenting Scotland’s case within the UN system. In March 2025, the UN Secretary General & the C-24 Committee (UN Special Committee on Decolonization) received an advanced notice (petition) from Liberation Scotland on behalf of its now around 20,000 members. In June & October 2025, Liberation Scotland representatives have spoken before the C24 & the Fourth Committee of the General Assembly (C4), intervening on behalf of the peoples of Kanaky (New Caledonia) & Maʻohi Nui (French Polynesia), two Non-Self-Governing Territories (NSGT) officially recognised by the UN, part of the current UN list of 17 NSGTs. These interventions demonstrated Scotland’s understanding of, & active participation in, the same international legal framework that guides all decolonisation processes.
On 18 September 2025, during the 60th session of the UN Human Rights Council, Liberation Scotland organised an international conference at the UN Headquarters in Geneva on Scotland’s Right to Self-Determination under International Law, an event fully promoted & acknowledged by the UN. The conference brought together jurists, scholars, diplomats, NGO leaders, representatives of decolonisation movements worldwide to discuss the legal pathways for Scotland’s restoration of sovereignty. With these actions, Scotland’s decolonisation process entered the sphere of formal international engagement.
The Legal Foundations
Three legal instruments form the cornerstone of the UN doctrine on decolonisation:
1. Article 73 of the United Nations Charter (1945), which defines the responsibility of administering powers (i.e. colonisers) for territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government (i.e. remain colonised).
2. General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples.
3. General Assembly Resolution 1541 (XV) of 15 December 1960, which codifies the principles for determining whether a territory is non-self-governing (i.e. colonised by a coloniser).
These instruments provide the legal matrix through which the international community recognises colonial relationships & supervises their resolution. This is how we can assess legally if a nation like Scotland is colonised by England.
p retweeted
This is important to know!
I can guarantee 100% because it has told us that Spain knows that Scotland is an annexed state and not a region. Spain has been informed by very important law figures. It fears Scotland's independence could be seen as something similar to the Catalonia case but it knows it's not. In no case can Scotland be said to be a case of separatism. The English colonial state wants to make it look like it is but it's not. How can a sovereign state older than England be separatist. It makes no sense. The so-called UK is just based on a colonial treaty that was never implemented. It's just annexation. Scotland is a centuries old sovereign state which is illegally annexed and occupied by the English colonial state. It's an English colony and this is written in a UN report submitted directly to the UN Secretary General and registered in the UN record. Spain will not veto anything since the international justice system will say Scotland has been annexed. Annexation generates erga omnes obligations as a supreme crime in international law. Scotland's liberation movement is exposing all this at the UN. The English colonial state's presence in Scotland is foreign occupation. It's English colonialism.
p retweeted
It was handwritten.
He said he was sorry for the stress. He said he had been under financial pressure after a failed investment in Spain and had allowed his agent to "go too far."
Then he offered to sell me the flat at a discount.
I was stunned.
I had no savings large enough. But after talking to Mr. Brennan and the other tenants, we came up with a different idea.
Six of us formed a small group and, with a mortgage broker's help, explored buying the building together as a cooperative. It took eight months, but the numbers worked.
Today, the building is owned jointly by its tenants. Our rent covers repairs and the mortgage, and every decision is voted on.
Declan received a fair price.
Some people on social media say I was cruel to take on a landlord who was already struggling. They say I should have accepted his apology and moved on.
Others say tenants everywhere are being squeezed and I did what many were afraid to do.
I only know that I did not want to be frightened into leaving my home.
Was I wrong for taking my landlord to the RTB after he apologised, or was I right to stand up for my neighbours and myself?
p retweeted
Burnham to his Cabinet, 'Fellow members of the Cabinet, we must find out how the natives in Scotland are feeling. Of course like Gove we will not publish anything': nitter.gq/ScotNational/status/21… Burnham is acting like a colonial dictator.
p retweeted
The fact that Andy Burnham only became PM in July & has already commissioned a (secret) poll about Scottish independence tells you everything that you need to know about how terrified he is that Scotland will soon go its own way.
p retweeted
Hi @SSalyers2 once again I tip my hat:
nitter.gq/SSalyers2/status/21194…
No, Angus that’s like comparing kittens and footballs.
We don’t know each other so I guess it’s easy to assume that Salvo latched onto some imaginary, shiny but unrealistic interpretation of a dead historical issue. That’s my summation of the basic attitude we keep encountering, a judgment which functions as a ‘gatekeeper’ against real dialogue. It is too often the underpinning assumption in the debates we have with sceptics and, sadly, obviates any genuinely open minded exchange with those who already think they ‘know’ that we are misguided enthusiasts who are ‘just not in touch with political or legal reality’. On that basis nothing we present to explain either our argument or our strategy gets past their certainty that what we are doing is just the product of that out of touch, naivety. No fact or evidence registers when that assumption is present.
So I have two invitations for you.
First will you consider the likelihood that two years of prior research and checking, followed by two years of consulting and meeting with experts including but far from confined to Robert Black KC, Alfred de Zayas, international human rights lawyer and former chair of the HRC complaints commission, special rapporteur and author of both resolutions and several books, Ambassador George Papadatos of the European Public Law Organisation- an IGO - an ICJ lawyer and a lawyer representing a state at the C24 (can’t name those two but not Russian!), all of whom confirm or have reinforced and strengthened our case, might suggest that we are onto something? And that something might lie in a hitherto unrecognised, constitutional question which changes our understanding of the framework and conditions of Scottish self-determination? Is it possible that if Professor Black who is internationally known and respected can say publicly that for over 50 years he believed and taught the ‘union orthodoxy’ and that, approaching his 80th year, he now finds that orthodoxy to be a fiction, you might be open to considering why?
Second, I will be happy to meet and explain in detail what is involved in the kind of international recognition we are talking about here and how it clarifies and empowers, not replaces, the right of self-determination for Scotland and enabled us to exercise that right freely. How about it?
p retweeted
EXCLUSIVE: We reveal that the Labour Government has been conducting secret Scottish independence polling since Andy Burnham became PM - and now it's refusing to publish them.
It has also refused to publish the costs for the polling operation
p retweeted
The SNP are now demanding the Government publish the documents.
Andy Burnham has repeatedly spoken of wanting move beyond the constitutional question - but at the same time his officials have been secretly spending a lot of time on it. What exactly do these polls say?
p retweeted
An excellent response, but there's an even more fundamental weakness in McAlpine's position.
McAlpine acknowledges the economic extraction, demographic losses, cultural damage and structural underdevelopment that Alf describes, but dismisses the historical processes that might explain them. He recognises the symptoms but refuses to investigate the diagnosis.
His greatest mistake is conflating two questions: how the Scottish people demonstrate their democratic will, and by what constitutional authority that can be exercised.
He proposes sustained 60% support, then negotiations with Westminster. But 60% is a political threshold, not a legal one. What happens if Westminster refuses again? What forces it to negotiate? He never answers. His strategy, like the SNP, ultimately depends upon the cooperation of the Anglo-British state. The state whose authority over Scotland's constitutional future is being challenged.
His claim that the 2014 referendum made the Union voluntary is extraordinary. A vote against constitutional change can't retrospectively establish the lawfulness of 1707, cure any defects, or extinguish the Scottish people's right of self-determination.
His dismissal of international law is indefensible. International law exists even where direct domestic enforcement is unavailable. An authoritative legal opinion isn't an enforceable judgment; recognising sovereignty isn't the same as granting independence.
The UN route isn't about asking foreign bureaucrats to give Scotland sovereignty. It is about challenging the constitutional and international legitimacy of the authority presently claimed over Scotland, and establishing the legal consequences of that challenge.
International recognition of a credible constitutional case could itself transform political consciousness, strengthen Scottish confidence, generate diplomatic pressure and change the circumstances in which the people exercise self-determination. It could therefore contribute directly to the popular mobilisation McAlpine considers indispensable.
Democratic mobilisation and internationalisation therefore can reinforce one another.
Alf's point about 1707 deserved considerably more attention. The dissolution of Scotland's Parliament, the institutional continuation of England's Parliament and the question of whether the resulting constitutional arrangements were lawfully authorised are substantive historical and constitutional issues. McAlpine refused to examine them, much less refute them. He simply declared them irrelevant because they happened three centuries ago.
But the passage of time isn't, by itself, an answer to a question about constitutional legitimacy or its continuing consequences.
McAlpine's political campaigning experience is undoubtedly relevant to winning popular support. It doesn't entitle him to dismiss constitutional history and international jurisprudence as meaningless distractions, particularly when he offers no enforceable alternative to Westminster's continuing veto.
There are legitimate questions about how Liberation's international strategy would proceed, what institutional decisions it requires, and how favourable findings could be translated into practical constitutional change. Those questions deserve precise answers, not ridicule.
The fundamental question isn't simply how many Scots support exercising sovereignty. It is where that sovereignty resides, whether it was ever lawfully alienated, and who possesses the authority to determine how it is exercised.
McAlpine insists that the Scottish people must decide their own future. On that principle there's no disagreement.
What he never explains is why, if the people are the ultimate constituent authority, the exercise of that authority must remain dependent upon Westminster's willingness to cooperate.
That's the glaring contradiction at the heart of his argument, and no number of repaired potholes resolves it.
Robin McAlpine, apparently against his better judgment, finds himself describing the lives of Scots in colonial terms - resource extraction, economic backwardness, population loss and the lost cultural confidence he acknowledges, but exhorts Scots to pluck out of thin air. Independence - and he is not joking, he tells us - has to made about parking places. Robin's contempt for the past - what brought us to the dismal downtrodden, underdeveloped point he readily identifies - is what traps him, and keeps him thrashing aound for a gimmick to galvanize Scots into taking their affairs into their own hands; a parking place, a pothole repair. An 'independence thermometer', even. Professor Baird explains that we need to understand our condition in order to escape it. Postcolonial theory tells us this, just as any psychologist would. It is essential we put a name to it, and that name is colonialism. Doing so demands answers: where did it come from, what was its purpose, does it explains who and what we are? Here, with the asking of these questions, is Robin's sought-after confidence - the secret sauce he identifies as the producer of independence votes. Withouth understanding this, that confidence, and the votes with it, will continue to elude us. Keen to highlight the difference between the nations of the world that have escaped British colonialism and a Scotland still in its grip, here it is in essence: those nations understood their colonial condition, unobscured by adjacence, shared white skin and an imperialism holding out the offer of a subaltern role in its international ambition.
So, what about the United Nations, where Robin says Liberation Scotland is wasting its time? Will international opinion on Scotland as a candidate for recovery of usurped sovereignty have no bearing on the cultural confidence of our people? Will the UK government dismiss peer state judgment pointing to a problem of fundamental constitutional legitimacy? Might it not make a democratic event on Scotland's recovery of sovereignty a slam-dunk for a welcome back into the family of nation states? When it happens, will Scots still be weighing it up against the difficulty of finding a parking space? Robin's immersion in policy and party political strategy may be obscuring a far bigger picture altogether than the simplistic one he is presenting: the overarching picture of a nation recovering from a long colonial past. Liberation Scotland would welcome Robin's further reflection on this conversation. We would welcome all of Scotland's.
youtu.be/9n9WgfDKuEM?is=eaFP…
p retweeted
Robin McAlpine, apparently against his better judgment, finds himself describing the lives of Scots in colonial terms - resource extraction, economic backwardness, population loss and the lost cultural confidence he acknowledges, but exhorts Scots to pluck out of thin air. Independence - and he is not joking, he tells us - has to made about parking places. Robin's contempt for the past - what brought us to the dismal downtrodden, underdeveloped point he readily identifies - is what traps him, and keeps him thrashing aound for a gimmick to galvanize Scots into taking their affairs into their own hands; a parking place, a pothole repair. An 'independence thermometer', even. Professor Baird explains that we need to understand our condition in order to escape it. Postcolonial theory tells us this, just as any psychologist would. It is essential we put a name to it, and that name is colonialism. Doing so demands answers: where did it come from, what was its purpose, does it explains who and what we are? Here, with the asking of these questions, is Robin's sought-after confidence - the secret sauce he identifies as the producer of independence votes. Withouth understanding this, that confidence, and the votes with it, will continue to elude us. Keen to highlight the difference between the nations of the world that have escaped British colonialism and a Scotland still in its grip, here it is in essence: those nations understood their colonial condition, unobscured by adjacence, shared white skin and an imperialism holding out the offer of a subaltern role in its international ambition.
So, what about the United Nations, where Robin says Liberation Scotland is wasting its time? Will international opinion on Scotland as a candidate for recovery of usurped sovereignty have no bearing on the cultural confidence of our people? Will the UK government dismiss peer state judgment pointing to a problem of fundamental constitutional legitimacy? Might it not make a democratic event on Scotland's recovery of sovereignty a slam-dunk for a welcome back into the family of nation states? When it happens, will Scots still be weighing it up against the difficulty of finding a parking space? Robin's immersion in policy and party political strategy may be obscuring a far bigger picture altogether than the simplistic one he is presenting: the overarching picture of a nation recovering from a long colonial past. Liberation Scotland would welcome Robin's further reflection on this conversation. We would welcome all of Scotland's.
youtu.be/9n9WgfDKuEM?is=eaFP…
p retweeted
EXCLUSIVE: The SNP are demanding the UK Government publish 'secret independence documents' after it emerged, that since Andy Burnham became Prime Minister, the Cabinet Office has conducted a secret Scottish independence polling operation
p retweeted
Scotland has really benefited from finding the oil, just take a look at Canary Wharf,
Sit doon ya unionist bam,
Oil is not devolved, its stolen.
p retweeted
Why does @BBCScotland hate Scotland?
p retweeted
If this is true for Scotland with our vast water resources then #CitizenJournalists must make these facts known and refuse them using our power as a sovereign people RP
New documents released by the Scottish government under a freedom of information request show that data centres could cause water shortages, higher energy bills and power cuts.
Sky's @emmabirchley explains.
trib.al/ViooyB0
📺 Sky 501, Virgin 602, Freeview 233
p retweeted
It failed to meet normal international standards on every measure. It was designed and managed to produce the final result. By contrast, look at the conditions applied to the referendums in Gibraltar and the Malvinas where the U.K., confident of its settler populations, went above and beyond the standard applied even in its own elections in order to silence any suggestion of improper conduct and silence the critics in the international community. The govt was determined to show it had met every standard for a fair and impartial vote.
Not so in Scotland where it failed every one.
Please note, even all this still did not satisfy the C-24 or C4 and both remain listed as NSGT’s. (Btw, we use the word colony to make the point. The word colony is rarely used in modern law, but the reality people mean is still here: states administering territories beyond their *own* mainland.) A referendum cannot automatically resolve the unlawful annexation of a territory especially, as in Scotland’s case, when it ignores the principal requirement that a state must not interfere in the exercise of that expression of public will. A referendum conducted on the basis that a component part of a state is seeking secession is not the same as a referendum conducted by (not on behalf of), a still sovereign, annexed nation deciding, not whether to secede, but whether to accept its status on the annexing state’s terms, a status that is absent an operative treaty and absent any rights and obligations whatever under that treaty. This is *not* accepted in international law and the UK state knows this. That’s why it’s that state, not Liberation Scotland, which first raised the question - in 1954 - of whether Scotland was a dependency, colony, in order to publicly deny it. It’s time our self appointed pro-indy spokespersons understood this also.
The cosmetic exercise of ‘the referendum’ was organised to produce exactly Robin’s belief that whatever our status before it, after the referendum this became a voluntary union. That, as you can see, I hope, is not true.
The flagrant manipulation of the process aside, if Scotland was annexed prior to the referendum then a poll managed by the occupying state, (including control of the postal ballot), and which allowed that state to break the terms of the Edinburgh agreement but not the Scottish ‘side’, and which was non binding, is not a legitimate expression of self determination. That unmediated and free, fair process is yet to take place.
P.S No matter who agreed to it, a franchise which includes 2nd home owners, temporary residents (students, military, temporary workers) and recent arrivals disqualifies the referendum as a test of the will of the Scottish people.
p retweeted
The British Anglo State media in Scotland only ever tell the people of Scotland what the British Anglo State wants them to hear. The stealing of Scottish resources is a classic example of how Perfidious Albion operates:
