Recovering Scotland's suppressed history. Tracking the Line of Struggle.
Fortriu
Joined March 2019
- Tweets8.4K
- Following2.1K
- Followers2.8K
- Likes11.1K
Pinned Tweet
In 1309 Scotland's clergy said Robert Bruce was made king "by their authority."
In 1320, Arbroath declared that a king who betrayed the realm's freedom could be removed.
In Scotland the monarch didn't stand above the realm.
New on Substack: By Their Authority
angrypict.substack.com/p/by-…
Angry Pict retweeted
A discussion with a ‘Unionist’, the lesser spotted colonised mind. He thinks that over half the Scots in Scotland are fenian sympathisers when less than one in 7 Scots is catholic. He can’t see that most independence supporters are of a Protestant tradition and that they can see what he is blind to: we are a colonised people. Scotlands struggle isn’t sectarian, but colonial.
No ‘separatist’ is your term.
I could easily call you an apologist for annexation, not a Unionist. They’re just epithets used to get a point across. But what is the truth? Have you looked properly?
I dislike the British State as it has robbed Scotland blind for 319 years. Has killed or transported large numbers of our people, about 4,000,000 in total. Imposed English law over Scotland and the English Crown over The Scottish Crown. It has never implemented the terms of the Treaty of Union. I know these are facts because I have the evidence. You think it’s a sectarian struggle because that’s what you’ve been told and believe without looking at the contrary information.
You think you are a Unionist and part of the British Empire but the English treat us like second-class (Protestants and catholics alike) citizens and laugh up their sleeves that they’ve convinced some of us we’re part of the club.
Look properly and don’t come back to me until you do. It’s all there. Go ask an AI the right questions and it’ll give you the right answers.
Or you can carry on as you are. Just go ‘bbbaaaahhhh’ and follow the arse in front of you.
Angry Pict retweeted
Absolutely fascinating. Colonialists buried the history of every civilisation they invaded, plundered and occupied. Not one of us was allowed to learn real Scottish history. Ancient records sent to American universities (according to my tutors at the School of Scottish Studies.) Welsh? Irish? The nations of N. America became ‘tribes’, their cities bulldozed, records destroyed. The Africans from whom Western ‘civilisation’ developed had ‘no history’ and the Egyptian civilisation was turned into a kind of hybrid European creation based on the installed regime of the Ptolemaic dynasty. Always, always the coloniser rewrites their crime as the civilisation of a primitive people. Always.
The Nile is not a border.
This is the simplest version of the argument and also the one that should require the least explanation.
The Nile flows from the interior of Africa northward to the Mediterranean.
The civilizations along its length were in constant contact, trading, fighting, exchanging people and ideas and religious concepts and agricultural techniques across what was not a separation but a connection.
The civilization of ancient Egypt did not emerge in isolation.
It emerged in relationship with the Nubian civilizations to its south, some of whose cultures predated the unification of Egypt, which contributed to and drew from Egyptian culture across millennia.
The kings of Kush would eventually rule Egypt as its 25th Dynasty.
And across the centuries that followed, Kushite civilization would leave behind something that still surprises people today.
More pyramids.
In what is now Sudan.
Built by the civilization that the Western imagination has most completely erased.
There are more ancient pyramids in Sudan than in Egypt.
Most people reading that sentence right now are encountering it for the first time.
That is not because the information is obscure.
It is because the information does not fit a story that someone needed to be true.
And the information that does not fit the story does not make it into the classroom.
ALT The Royal Pyramids of Meroë, Sudan. An aerial view of the ancient royal burial grounds of the Kingdom of Kush, one of Africa's great civilizations. These pyramids were built largely between the 3rd century BCE and the 4th century CE to honor Kushite kings and queens. Centuries earlier, Kushite rulers had governed Egypt itself as its 25th Dynasty. Today, Sudan contains more surviving ancient pyramids than Egypt. These monuments are evidence of a civilization that developed its own traditions while exchanging culture, knowledge and power with its northern neighbour across centuries. The Nile did not divide these civilizations. It connected them. The pyramids are still standing. What remains missing from too many classrooms is the history of the people who built them.
Angry Pict retweeted
Please retweet.
The account quote tweets rather than answering directly here.
Note: it refuses to answer questions or provide evidence, simply confusing assertion with evidence.
Nobody disputes that Darien was a serious financial disaster. But the frequently quoted quarter refers to Scotland's estimated liquid capital, not its total national wealth. Nor does financial distress establish sovereign bankruptcy. Where is the accounts evidence that Scotland's public finances were insolvent?
It still misrepresents the Equivalent. Read Article XV. The £398,085 10s was calculated to compensate Scotland for assuming a share of England's existing national debt through taxation. Much was subsequently allocated to Company of Scotland shareholders. Those are two different things.
Nobody is suggesting Scotland and Ireland underwent identical histories. Ireland's military conquest and penal laws are well documented. The comparison concerns parliamentary incorporation: Ireland's Parliament also voted for Union in 1800. Does that vote establish the free consent of the Irish people? If not, why does the Scottish parliamentary vote conclusively establish Scottish consent?
Then it dismisses the Community of the Realm as a "fake constitutional trope" which merely demonstrates it hasn't, probably cannot, engage with the constitutional evidence. The concept appears in Scotland's medieval constitutional record, including the Declaration of Arbroath, while the Claim of Right of 1689 expressly recognised fundamental constitutional limitations on royal authority.
It acknowledges Scotland was a sovereign, independent kingdom before 1707. Which is precisely the point. The question is therefore how, and by whose authority, that sovereignty could lawfully be alienated. It can't answer that question.
I've asked what authority the Scottish Parliament possessed to do so. It hasn't answered.
Angry Pict retweeted
Please retweet.
You're going round in circles in various threads - do keep up.
You've acknowledged that the Equivalent compensated Scotland for assuming debt, conveniently omitting that it was England's pre-1707 debt. Yet you continue asserting Scottish sovereign bankruptcy without evidence. Scotland lost 20-25% of its private liquid assets, how does that = bankruptcy? What were Scotland’s liabilities? Surely you must know if you're claiming bankruptcy?
The wording of your own Treaty & Acts, Article XV, makes that explicit.
scottishhistory.org/resource…
You're clearly either lying, or utterly ignorant of the primary sources - preferring a fairy story instead.
If Scotland was "begging" why did it have to be coerced? The first example in the entire history of the world of coercion to force a result that the party being coerced desperately wanted, according to you.
Likewise, you repeatedly say Parliament voted for Union. Nobody disputes that. The question is whether it possessed the constitutional authority to alienate sovereignty.
You still haven't identified that authority in pre-1707 Scots law, despite numerous requests you do so.
Repeating what happened doesn't establish that it was constitutionally authorised.
Where is your evidence?
Just admit you have none - then no more rebuttals of the nonsense you're spouting will be necessary and you won't need to whine about the length of replies.
Angry Pict retweeted
Please retweet.
Still propagating myth, misinformation, and down-right lies I see Colin - then whining when inevitably blocked for that behaviour.
As ever you're conflating two entirely different questions: participation of individuals in an empire and constitutional subordination to it.
Ireland also supplied imperial soldiers, administrators, politicians and beneficiaries. That didn't make Ireland any less subject to colonial rule. Indeed, the Irish Parliament itself voted for incorporating Union in 1800. Does that make Ireland's incorporation voluntary too?
The participation of Scots in Anglo-British imperialism, however extensive, doesn't establish the legitimacy of Scotland's 1707 annexation either.
Scotland didn't "willingly vote" for 'Union'. The sovereign Community of the Realm was never consulted. A delegated Parliament voted under the pressure of England's Alien Act, economic coercion, military threat and political patronage, against widespread popular opposition.
As for the Darien bailout myth, you confuse the financial losses of private investors with the bankruptcy of a sovereign state. Scotland had no comparable funded national debt to England's, although it had public liabilities. Article XV of the Treaty expressly established the £398,085 10s Equivalent because Scotland was being made liable, through taxation, to contribute towards England's pre-existing national debt. Much of the money that was paid in specie - most of it wasn't, and what was was borrowed, adding to Scotland's post-1707 liabilities - was then allocated to compensating shareholders in the Company of Scotland. That's a financial settlement benefiting investors, not evidence that Scotland was bankrupt or that England had rescued it from insolvency.
Most importantly, but entirely predictably, you entirely bypass the constitutional question: what authority did the Scottish Parliament possess to alienate sovereignty vested in the Community of the Realm?
The participation of sections of Scotland's elite in British imperialism doesn't answer that question, and doesn't retrospectively legitimise 1707.
Certainly every Non-Self-Governing territory has its settlers and collaborators, as ably attested here - unless you're propagating half-baked colonial myth and misinformation from the colonial metropole itself?
Angry Pict retweeted
This is where we’re at- tyranny and toxic Unionism with no integrity or accountability was the issue in 1707 and thereafter.
It seems we have come full circle and the peasants now argue for the masters right to colonise and plunder. The sad part is they can’t even admit to it.
Colin (I'll address you by your asserted name, to avoid more hurty feelings), there's a remarkably consistent pattern emerging here. You repeatedly substitute assertions for evidence, ignore the constitutional questions put to you, and resort to personal insults when challenged.
Nobody suggested Sanjeev Sanyal's credentials constitute legal proof. His observation demonstrates that Scotland's colonial interpretation isn't confined to supposed 'Scottish nationalists'. Rather than engage with the historical argument, you dismiss it as a "victim complex". Has Sanyal got this supposed "victim complex" too?
You also insist Scotland "willingly voted" for Union, confusing a parliamentary vote with the consent of the sovereign people. Yet Ireland's Parliament also voted for incorporating Union in 1800, which you correctly don't regard as proof of voluntary incorporation. You're applying contradictory standards.
You repeatedly invoke individual Scots participating in imperialism as though it retrospectively legitimises 1707. It doesn't. Those are entirely separate questions.
And you keep dismissing the Community of the Realm, an established feature of Scotland's constitutional history, without addressing its implications.
So let's dispense with the insults, assertions and repetition. You've repeatedly avoided one fundamental question:
What specific authority under Scots constitutional law empowered the Parliament of 1707 to alienate the sovereignty of the Community of the Realm?
A parliamentary vote establishes that Parliament voted. It doesn't, by itself, establish that Parliament possessed that authority.
Please identify the constitutional authority, rather than simply repeatedly asserting that the 'Union' happened.
This account is still propagating myth, misinformation, and down-right lies - then whining when inevitably blocked for its behaviour.
As ever it conflates two entirely different questions: participation of individuals in an empire and constitutional subordination to it.
Ireland also supplied imperial soldiers, administrators, politicians and beneficiaries. That didn't make Ireland any less subject to colonial rule. Indeed, the Irish Parliament itself voted for incorporating Union in 1800. Does that make Ireland's incorporation voluntary too?
The participation of Scots in Anglo-British imperialism, however extensive, clearly doesn't establish the legitimacy of Scotland's 1707 annexation.
Scotland didn't "willingly vote" for 'Union'. The sovereign Community of the Realm was never consulted. A delegated Parliament voted under the pressure of England's Alien Act, economic coercion, military threat and political patronage, against widespread popular opposition.
As for the Darien bailout myth, it plays the usual trick of confusing the financial losses of private investors with the bankruptcy of a sovereign state. Scotland had no comparable funded national debt to England's, although it had public liabilities. Article XV of the Treaty expressly established the £398,085 10s Equivalent because Scotland was being made liable, through taxation, to contribute towards England's pre-existing national debt. Much of the money that was paid in specie - most of it wasn't, and what was was borrowed, adding to Scotland's post-1707 liabilities - was then allocated to compensating shareholders in the Company of Scotland. That's a financial settlement benefiting investors, not evidence that Scotland was bankrupt or that England had rescued it from insolvency.
Most importantly, it entirely bypasses the constitutional question: what authority did the Scottish Parliament possess to alienate sovereignty vested in the Community of the Realm?
The participation of sections of Scotland's elite in British imperialism doesn't answer that question, and doesn't retrospectively legitimise 1707.
Certainly every Non-Self-Governing territory has its collaberators, as ably attested here - unless the account is propagating half-baked colonial myth and misinformation from the colonial metropole itself?
Equating Scotland to Ireland to explain “how empires and colonialism works” is a spectacular display of being thick as mince. Ireland was militarily conquered and subjugated.
Scotland was an independent nation that willingly voted for the 1707 Union to bail out its own failed colonial ambitions at Darien. Scots were not just imperial foot soldiers; they were the architects, politicians, and willing co-founders of the British Empire.
The account quote tweets rather than answering directly here.
Note: it refuses to answer questions or provide evidence, simply confusing assertion with evidence.
Nobody disputes that Darien was a serious financial disaster. But the frequently quoted quarter refers to Scotland's estimated liquid capital, not its total national wealth. Nor does financial distress establish sovereign bankruptcy. Where is the accounts evidence that Scotland's public finances were insolvent?
It still misrepresents the Equivalent. Read Article XV. The £398,085 10s was calculated to compensate Scotland for assuming a share of England's existing national debt through taxation. Much was subsequently allocated to Company of Scotland shareholders. Those are two different things.
Nobody is suggesting Scotland and Ireland underwent identical histories. Ireland's military conquest and penal laws are well documented. The comparison concerns parliamentary incorporation: Ireland's Parliament also voted for Union in 1800. Does that vote establish the free consent of the Irish people? If not, why does the Scottish parliamentary vote conclusively establish Scottish consent?
Then it dismisses the Community of the Realm as a "fake constitutional trope" which merely demonstrates it hasn't, probably cannot, engage with the constitutional evidence. The concept appears in Scotland's medieval constitutional record, including the Declaration of Arbroath, while the Claim of Right of 1689 expressly recognised fundamental constitutional limitations on royal authority.
It acknowledges Scotland was a sovereign, independent kingdom before 1707. Which is precisely the point. The question is therefore how, and by whose authority, that sovereignty could lawfully be alienated. It can't answer that question.
I've asked what authority the Scottish Parliament possessed to do so. It hasn't answered.
Claiming the Darien disaster merely affected “private investors” and didn't bankrupt Scotland is a complete joke. Those “private investors” were the Scottish political elite who wiped out a quarter of the nation's wealth; their financial ruin left the country economically paralysed, forcing them to vote for the Union to secure the £398,085 bailout. Furthermore, calling Scottish imperialists mere “collaborators” and equating Scotland’s 1707 parliamentary vote to Ireland’s 1800 vote deliberately erases centuries of violent Irish military subjugation and penal laws. Scotland was an independent, unconquered nation.
Stop hiding behind fake constitutional tropes like the “Community of the Realm” to act as a colonised victim.
Angry Pict retweeted
We really need to see the truth of this. They are sowing fear in order to take us into yet another British imperial war, the product of hung-over colonial minds that never stop mourning loss of empire. But we Scots have zero interest in their geopolitical follies, and every interest in getting out from under their imperial boot heel. They are Scotland's enemy. Russia is not.
They've really fucked up, haven't they?
The class in power is the wrong class, making catastrophic decision after catastrophic decision in the name of a catastrophic rendering of human affairs.
They believe that we, the West, is Rome to Russia's Carthage, and they have acted accordingly to the point where the prospect of war has never been more real.
We have no enemies in Russia, they do. We are not responsible for Britain facing 'hostile states', they are.
Russia is not and never has been a threat to Britain. But Britain is and continues to be a threat to Russia. Britain has not faced the looming threat of a hostile military alliance expanding up to its borders, Russia has.
They can't even fight and defeat poverty in Britain, yet they expect us to fight and defeat Russia.
They can't keep our pensioners warm in winter, yet they expect the grandsons of those pensioners to fight Russia.
They can't even keep all our children properly fed and securely housed, yet they expect their dads to fight Russia.
Despite everything, they want us to play the patriot game, to believe them when they say that Russia poses a growing threat.
The real threat is posed by them and their barbaric ways.
In the year 2026, is this really as good as it gets?
theguardian.com/politics/202…
Angry Pict retweeted
And the treaty that was forced and unlawful to begin with was left inoperative. That means the U.K. has no basis for its partnership claim whether forced and unlawful in Scots law to begin with (it was) or ‘voluntary’. The UK’s diplomatic credentials based on the claim to be constituted on a treaty and ratifying acts, are fraudulent. It is this which both locates Scotland as an annexed and occupied territory (nation), a state in abeyance but not dissolved in international law, and legitimises recalling the Convention of Estates.
Angry Pict retweeted
There is no Union, only annexation.
youtu.be/JffJmWuUiyY?si=5aLS…
Angry Pict retweeted
There Is No Exit. There Is Only Restoration, and a Return.
The fastest way forward isn't the one we've been sold.
Let me start with the word "Scotexit."
I understand why people use it. It's punchy. It conveys urgency. But it contains a hidden concession that costs us a lot before we've started.
"Exit" implies we entered. It implies the supposed union is a door we walked through and can walk back out of - when Westminster decides to unlock it.
That's not what the history shows. That's not what the law shows. And more importantly, that's not a strategy. That's a queue.
The Queue Strategy and Why It Fails:
For twenty years, the mainstream independence movement has been standing in a queue.
The queue works like this: win elections, ask for a referendum, get refused, win more elections, ask again, get refused again, and gradually - the theory goes - Westminster will have to say yes.
It hasn't worked. It won't work. Not because the numbers aren't there, but because the strategy contains a fatal flaw at its core.
It asks the entity that benefits from the union to adjudicate whether the union should end.
That's not politics. That's a permission slip from your abuser.
What the History Actually Shows:
Here's what years of serious historical and legal research - not campaigning, not lobbying, actual scholarship - has established:
The Treaty of Union of 1707 was not a voluntary merger between equal partners. The Scottish Parliament was not a legitimate signatory. It had been dissolved by Queen Anne under authority she derived from a Great Britain that didn't legally exist yet. Its members had been coerced, bribed, and threatened. The process violated the constitutional framework Scotland had operated under for centuries - a framework in which sovereignty resided not in the Crown, not in Parliament, but in the Community of the Realm.
That framework was never abolished. It was suppressed.
That's not a grievance or a myth. That's documented, evidenced, and - critically - it has a legal pathway attached to it.
The Actual Fast Route:
There is no fast route if "fast" means shortcuts. But there is a direct route, which is faster than the queue, because it bypasses the gatekeepers entirely.
It has three components:
One: Assert the correct legal position:
Scotland isn't seeking permission to leave a voluntary union. Scotland is asserting that a coercive annexation, carried out in violation of the constitutional order that governed the relationship between the Scottish Crown and the Community of the Realm, was and remains legally defective.
The claim isn't "let us go."
The claim is "what was done to us was unlawful, and we have never stopped saying so."
That's the position of the Claim of Right - reaffirmed by Westminster itself in September 2016, largely without its members understanding what they were reaffirming.
Two: Take the case to the international arena:
Westminster cannot block what Westminster cannot control. The UN decolonisation framework exists precisely for situations where a metropolitan power will not voluntarily relinquish a colonial relationship. Scotland has a stronger evidential case for colonial status - structural economic extraction, demographic decline relative to the incorporating power, suppression of legal and constitutional frameworks - than many territories that achieved UN recognition.
The route runs through Geneva, through the Human Rights Council, through international legal bodies where Westminster's veto doesn't operate.
This is the route currently being developed - quietly, carefully, and with serious legal preparation.
1/2
Continued 👇
Angry Pict retweeted
Liberation Scotland 2026 Crowdfunder: Scotland’s decolonization isn't just domestic politics but a global geopolitical shift that will send shockwaves far beyond our borders.
True external self-determination demands accountability: telling the truth, confronting historical crimes, securing reparative justice, asserting Scotland’s rightful place geopolitically and under international law. Scotland's global voice has been stolen and the centuries old sovereign state of Scotland must be fully restored.
Now, that fight has started on the world stage. Liberation Scotland has taken Scotland's case directly to the United Nations to challenge the status quo and ensure Scotland's voice is impossible to ignore. State recognition means being accepted by other states as a sovereign state, as a member of the club of states at the UN. So international engagement is absolutely fundamental. Begging the colonial power for freedom is simply nonsense when you are colonised and annexed.
International diplomacy takes independent, grassroots power. If you stand for a free, sovereign, decolonised and restored Scotland, back the mission today, every contribution directly funds Scotland's advocacy at the UN and globally.
Stand with Liberation Scotland. Share the movement. Fund the mission if you want and can:
chuffed.org/project/scotland…
LIBERATION SCOTLAND 2026 CROWDFUNDER ANNOUNCEMENT
Dear Liberation Scotland member / independence supporter:
Liberation Scotland’s mission is to restore the sovereign, independent state of Scotland through the exercise of the right of self-determination and the restoration of the Scottish Constitution.
Our first, essential step is to secure international recognition of Scotland as a Non-Self-Governing Territory (NSGT, i.e. dependency, or colony) at the UN Special Committee on Decolonization (C-24) and so initiate the UN-mandated process of decolonisation of the Scottish nation and its sovereign people.
The critically important international campaign is the responsibility of the Liberation Scotland Committee. We are convinced that, with the support of Scots at home (through Salvo’s domestic campaign), and that of our global diaspora, we will establish a route – clear, deliverable and free from Westminster interference – to restoring Scotland as an independent and sovereign nation state.
We have come a very long way in just a year or so, with 2025 seeing some extraordinary ‘firsts’:
1. Recognition by the eminent KC and most senior scholar of Scots law alive today, Professor Robert Black, that the UK is a legal fiction: it is, and always has been, simply England with its name changed, first to Great Britain and now to the UK, with Scotland annexed and under its control. [1]
2. Notification to the UN, through the required UN process, of the formation of a Scottish liberation movement and the submission of the evidence of colonisation which underpins every decolonisation/liberation movement. This is the first time a Scottish liberation movement has presented the case of Scotland’s relationship with England in the international legal forum.
3. The submission by our associate NGO, International Pro Bono Legal Services Association Limited, to the UN Human Rights Council in January 2026 of a written submission referring to:
a. continued UK hegemonic control of Scotland under the Scotland Act 1998, which established administrative devolution while supplanting treaty-based rights by asserting the authority to override them, thus negating its claim to English/Scottish treaty partnership, and;
b. comparing Scotland’s position vis-a-vis the UK-sited nuclear base on Scottish territory to that of the Ryukyu Islands/Okinawa, making it a target acutely vulnerable to rising geopolitcial military tensions. This is now a public UN document and can be viewed at
UN/A.HRC.61.NGO.210.pdf
This registers our case within the ‘workstream’ of the United Nations.
4. Participation by oral statement at the General Assembly of the UN in New York last June and October and also at the 60th session of the UN Human Rights Council last September where we hosted a successful, standing-room-only fringe event within Geneva’s Palais de Nations. This is the first time that Scotland has been represented internationally as a state-in-waiting, instead of through and as a component part of the UK as its colonising / administering Power.
In this time we have learned the difference between formal, UN process and the murky world of geopolitics; we have gained experience, insight, legal opinion at the highest international level and, most of all, strong and important friendships and alliances. These are the basis for future recognition of an independent Scotland !
In March 2026, Liberation Scotland sent representatives to the UN Human Rights Council 61st session in Geneva where we gave Scotland a presence and a voice at this high-profile, international assembly. And working with new, local advisers, we consolidated and extended our existing partnerships with a number of UN delegates and NGOs and developed others.
In May, a Liberation Scotland delegation attended the annual C-24 Regional Seminar in Nicaragua where advocate Jerôme Bouquet-Elkaïm delivered 4 oral submissions referencing a Scotland ‘waiting at the door’, further consolidating case awareness. The visit significantly extended our network of international partner organisations, raising the profile of Liberation Scotland and building international understanding of and support for Scotland’s case.
In June, Maître Bouquet-Elkaïm delivered the same speeches to the C-24 substantive session in New York.
In July, a delegation attended the Human Rights Council 62nd session in Geneva where it held a successful fringe event chaired by distinguished Professor of international law at the Geneva School of Diplomacy, Alfred de Zayas, historian, and internationally recognised human rights expert who, until his retirement, held one of the most senior legal positions at the United Nations.
Now we have an exciting, multi-pronged strategy building towards listing Scotland for decolonisation. (We promise to share each step as it takes shape and can be announced). It involves international diplomacy, outreach, meetings, event attendance and hosting. There will also be Salvo campaigns at home which will support the international campaign and these may include legal challenges at the Court of Session.
Freedom, sadly, does not come for free. Whilst the British state has endless sums at its disposal, we rely entirely on friends, members and those who understand the bind that Scotland today finds itself in. No-one in Liberation Scotland, Salvo or the LSC takes any income, to make it as low-cost as possible! We estimate that a fund of around £200,000 is likely to be required for timely delivery of our campaign. A significant element of this will be international legal fees.
With this in view, we are today launching a crowdfunder with the initial goal of raising the first £100,000. Among other things, this will allow the LSC to:
convene direct bilateral meetings between LS and senior representatives of member nations of the UN, particularly members of the Special Committee on Decolonisation (C-24) to advance Scotland’s case;
send an LS delegation to participate in the 63rd session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva in September, (including hosting a side event at this);
attend and petition the annual C-24 Substantive Session on decolonisation at UN HQ in New York in October; and
Engage an international legal team of the highest calibre.
Details about our crowdfunder are provided on our Crowdfund platform chuffed.org as well as on our social media platforms (Facebook, X, Bluesky) and on our website at:
liberation.scot/stoppress.ht…
Please support our critical work towards the restoration of Scotland’s nation and people with a financial contribution and be part of Scotland's historic journey to self-determination !
Every donation will be used to support us realise our goal of a decolonised Scotland. Please donate what you can, either via a one-off payment (whether £1 or £100) or alternatively by monthly donation on our crowdfunder platform page at:
chuffed.org/project/scotland…
Or if you prefer to donate via direct bank transfer, our account details are:
· Bank: Royal Bank of Scotland plc
· Sort code: 83-22-26
· Account Name: SALVOSCOT Limited
· Account Number: 00779437
· IBAN: GB66RBOS83222600779437
· RBS BIC/SWIFT: RBOSGB2L
The Liberation Scotland Committee, September 2026
Angry Pict retweeted
"Avatars of the Colonial"
Meaning they openly parade and glorify the act of subjugation right in front of the people who were subjugated with their statues and memorials.
By keeping these statues in central town squares or city centre locations, the colonising state forces the colonised nation to continuously navigate a landscape dictated by their subjugators.
#ScotlandAColony
This might be controversial but I don't think Scotland needs a memorial to Queen Elizabeth II of England.
The £1 million quid could go towards tackling child poverty or homelessness. Solve someone's problem and feed children rather than feed sycophancy.
I think that would be a more appropriate and beneficial use of £1 million.
Angry Pict retweeted
It takes a lot to get tens of thousands of people to riot. For it to happen simultaneously across several countries points to a supranational underlying cause, as opposed to local grievance at
craigmurray.org.uk/archives/…
Angry Pict retweeted
"So that is what it boils down to: is Scotland a voluntary partner in a unitary state jointly created by itself and England in 1707; or is Scotland an annexed territory of a continued and continuing England, cosmetically renamed Great Britain?"
Professor Robert Black KC, emeritus professor of Scots Law, has set out Scotland's legal position in an address, Scottish Statehood and the Law, read at the Scottish Sovereignty Research Group conference in Dunfermline on 18 October 2026. #SSRGConference2026
He calls the question at its centre: "the absolutely crucial legal issue".
Professor Black's address in full:
rblackkc.substack.com/p/scot…
#SovereignScots #ScotlandAColony
Scottish Statehood and the Law
An address delivered at the Dunfermline conference of the Scottish Sovereignty Research Group on 18 October 2026
rblackkc.substack.com/p/scot…
Angry Pict retweeted
Dounreay had a near Chernobyl style runaway reaction in 1968 and dumped the evidence, (most of the core bar the melted rods which could not be removed and are still there for you to see), down a low level waste shaft in the cliff. Despite dropping a tonne of boronated glass on top of it, it went critical in 1978, ejecting its contents as far as the foreshore and destroying the rock structure such that the sea bed and foreshore are now so contaminated that they cannot be remediated. I know because I made the documentary - though the runaway criticality that caused the shaft explosion was not included because that evidence only came to light later on. Never a full public inquiry nor lessons taken and learned. But let’s not get hung up on ‘outdated policies’ eh?
Angry Pict retweeted
What referendum? 2014 was a rigged non-binding colonial poll with a municipal franchise which would be illegal under international law of self-determination. Scotland is not Alberta. Scotland is Algeria and Namibia. Scotland is an annexed state under illegal English occupation, colonised as it's being exposed at the UN. There was never a voluntary union as the whole of Europe documented. The sovereign state of Scotland will be restored. Annexation is considered a major crime in international law.
All of Europe Knew About Scotland’s Annexation and that 1707 Was No Voluntary Union. European states documented Scotland’s annexation by the English colonial state. The diplomatic evidence is overwhelming.
decolonise.scot/all-of-europ…
Angry Pict retweeted
El 20 de octubre de 1952, el gobierno colonial británico declaró el estado de emergencia en Kenia, estableciendo decenas de campos de concentración y llevando a cabo una cacería masiva contra la milicia anti-colonial de los Mau Mau.
Hasta 450.000 kenianos fueron internados en una vasta red de campos de concentración británicos bajo condiciones brutales de trabajo forzado, hacinamiento y maltrato sistemático, siendo muchos de ellos torturados hasta la muerte.
Según la historiadora Caroline Elkins, más de 300.000 nativos fueron asesinados durante la ofensiva colonial en Kenia en 14 años, donde el imperio británico lanzó casi 6 millones de bombas en apenas un año y medio desde iniciar la emergencia.
Apenas unos años después del Holocausto, los imperialistas occidentales seguían matando a inocentes en campos de concentración coloniales en África donde se torturaba y exterminaba a miles de nativos negros.... pero no lo verás en sus libros de historia occidentales.
Angry Pict retweeted
The reasons for these riots aside for one moment, what mass riots clearly demonstrate, whether in France, Italy or England, is that regardless of how well resourced police and military are they cannot hold down the raw rage of the masses. They simply do not have the numbers.
Are you listening Scotland?
