Pinned Tweet
Now live: George Buchanan and the Constitution Scotland Lost
Scotland didn't simply lose a Parliament in 1707.
It lost the sovereign institutions through which a distinct constitutional tradition — rooted in popular authority, fundamental law and conditional government — could ependently.
This article traces that tradition through Buchanan, the wider European constitutional world, the Claim of Right, and the constitutional schism of 1707.
What Scottish popular sovereignty actually meant — and what was interrupted in 1707.
angrypict.substack.com/p/george-bucha…
Scotland didn't simply lose a Parliament in 1707.
It lost the sovereign institutions through which a distinct constitutional tradition — rooted in popular authority, fundamental law and conditional government — could ependently.
This article traces that tradition through Buchanan, the wider European constitutional world, the Claim of Right, and the constitutional schism of 1707.
What Scottish popular sovereignty actually meant — and what was interrupted in 1707.
angrypict.substack.com/p/george-bucha…
3
72
83
2,186
"There's no Zionism without British Imperialism"
Benjamin Moser, author of 'Anti-Zionism: A Jewish History'.
Benjamin Moser, author of 'Anti-Zionism: A Jewish History'.
Watch the full interview here: youtube.com/watch?v=6P9kxT…
Author of ‘Anti-Zionism: A Jewish History’ Benjamin Moser spoke to us about the inextricable relationship between Britain and Zionism.
He shares the historical events that led Britain to promise Palestine to the Zionist movement.
0
3
3
154
Angry Pict retweeted
There's is a fundamental issue at play here. Either McAlpine is unaware of the majority Salvo/Liberation's clearly stated aims and positions, or his misrepresentation of their purpose should be taken as of another purpose, that neither aligns with fact or the delivery of anything tangible to our cause.
I don't think I've ever seen a debate in the Independence/ self-determination forum, that better highlights the divide that we face as a movement. It couldn't be any clearer, this debate exposes the divide between the rhetoric of the 'independence industry' vs the mechanics of building a popular liberation movement.
I don't think I've ever seen a debate in the Independence/ self-determination forum, that better highlights the divide that we face as a movement. It couldn't be any clearer, this debate exposes the divide between the rhetoric of the 'independence industry' vs the mechanics of building a popular liberation movement.
1
15
31
465
Angry Pict retweeted
'Nobody disputes the need to persuade people. The question is how the Scottish people can exercise their democratic will when Westminster controls the existing constitutional mechanism'.👇
Great, ignore history, rely on one single strategy and Westminster being 'reasonable' - and how do you establish that clear, sustained majority? Opinion polls? An election fought on multiple issues? Or a properly constituted referendum, which Westminster can refuse to authorise?
And even if support reaches 60% or 70%, what forces Westminster to recognise it?
Nobody disputes the need to persuade people. The question is how the Scottish people can exercise their democratic will when Westminster controls the existing constitutional mechanism.
That's precisely why we need to develop alternative constitutional and international routes alongside building popular support, not wait until we've reached some arbitrary polling threshold, then once again depend upon Westminster's willingness to cooperate.
The fundamental disagreement is between relying on a single political strategy, whose decisive outcome depends upon the controlling state's response, and developing multiple complementary strategies that apply pressure from different directions.
And history matters enormously here.
The British Empire didn't just relinquish its territories because their populations expressed a desire for independence. Decolonisation was driven by struggles for self-determination, political organisation, changing international circumstances and pressures the British state could no longer ignore.
Yet we're being told that the history of how states respond to challenges to their authority is irrelevant, and that sufficient popular support alone will resolve the problem.
Why deliberately restrict ourselves to one strategy that applies limited pressure when history demonstrates the importance of several?
There's an old saying: those who fail to learn from history are condemned to repeat it.
Shouldn't we be learning from that history rather than dismissing it?
2
4
10
321
Angry Pict retweeted
Very much an uptick in aligned pushback against the Salvo/Liberation UN efforts that began at around the same time as the SNP conference. It's actually measurable. We need tae ask ourselves why?
Who said magic bullet? Not us, Tim. It is an enabler of what we all seek - the right to the democratic expression of the will of the people. Not 60% just a solid majority. If you think 60% or 70% will convince Westminster (expressed definitively … how exactly, since their Supreme Court has ruled out even a poll to determine the level of support?) you inhabit a different UK from the one whose record is sitting in front of you!
5
21
40
945
Angry Pict retweeted
Agreed - on both counts. McAlpine comes across as bombastic and petulant…not a good combination. I thought he had more about him than is apparent here…and a brilliant response from @SymbolStones…
Robin McAlpine has blundered into an issue demonstrating an uncharacteristic level of ignorance salted with pomposity. You can do better than this Robin. Superb riposte from @SymbolStones here x.com/SymbolStones/s…
0
2
1
126
Angry Pict 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.
0
2
3
140
Angry Pict 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.
0
2
1
151
Angry Pict retweeted
The other aspect that needs addressing is credibly challenging GERS.
Thankfully the ONS has done most of the leg work for us.
RUSI, and the Irish Government did the rest…
x.com/Aodh_MagUidhir…
Thankfully the ONS has done most of the leg work for us.
RUSI, and the Irish Government did the rest…
x.com/Aodh_MagUidhir…
They aren’t random spreadsheets!
They come from the ONS website.
Here’s the link (again)…
£86.3Bn main costs
ons.gov.uk/economy/govern…
£2Bn defence costs
ukdefencejournal.org.uk/independent-sc…
£0.3Bn FCO costs
share.google/aimode/eqTvxBt…
£88.6Bn total cost
£2.8Bn surplus
No debt interest!
1
3
5
173
Angry Pict retweeted
'McAlpine fails to address ... not how Scotland achieves independence, but where sovereignty resides, whether it was ever lawfully alienated, and how the Scottish people can recover and exercise their own constituent authority'. That's the crux and the key 👇
Sara, I agree and I think you're making a fundamental foundational point here.
The question clearly isn't just how Scotland achieves independence, but where sovereignty resides, whether it was ever lawfully alienated, and how the Scottish people can recover and exercise their own constituent authority.
That's exactly what McAlpine fails to address. He assumes that sufficient political support will eventually force Westminster to negotiate, whilst leaving Westminster's claimed constitutional authority fundamentally unchallenged. That places him firmly in the same constitutional camp as the SNP, no matter how much he criticises their competence as devolved administrators.
Your comment also exposes the false choice presented throughout the debate. International recognition isn't a substitute for the Scottish people exercising sovereignty. It could establish the constitutional and international framework within which they exercise it, without depending upon Westminster's permission.
But I think your final concern is especially important, perhaps the most important of all.
Recovering Scottish statehood and restoring popular sovereignty aren't necessarily the same thing.
We could conceivably remove Westminster's authority only to reproduce its model of parliamentary supremacy in Edinburgh, transferring power between institutions without fundamentally changing the relationship between the people and those who govern them.
That would risk squandering the constitutional opportunity that restoration presents.
To me that's why the preparatory work matters now, not simply after international recognition. The principles of the Community of the Realm, the limits upon delegated authority, and the constitutional position of the people themselves need to be understood and developed before any transition.
Otherwise we risk allowing the politicians who inherit the restored Scottish state to determine the nature of its sovereignty.
The objective can't simply be a Scottish replacement for Westminster. It must be the recovery of the Scottish people's authority to determine, establish and control their own constitutional order.
I think that's the deeper argument your work has consistently been making, and it's one the debate barely touched, if at all.
4
7
13
908
Angry Pict retweeted
Who said magic bullet? Not us, Tim. It is an enabler of what we all seek - the right to the democratic expression of the will of the people. Not 60% just a solid majority. If you think 60% or 70% will convince Westminster (expressed definitively … how exactly, since their Supreme Court has ruled out even a poll to determine the level of support?) you inhabit a different UK from the one whose record is sitting in front of you!
4
36
77
2,351
Angry Pict retweeted
Angry Pict's post here is the most precise and clearest statement of the differences highlighted between Liberation and Robin McAlpine.
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.
3
11
10
526
Angry Pict retweeted
"We could conceivably remove Westminster's authority only to reproduce its model of parliamentary supremacy in Edinburgh, transferring power between institutions without fundamentally changing the relationship between the people and those who govern them."
100% with this. It is the debate most conspicuously emerging from the present disturbances in nation states all over the Western world; the disconnect between government and people, a simulated democracy where the priorities and interests of the populace are overtly/covertly subordinated to those of the governing classes and faceless powerful influences forcing disastrous policies for ordinary people and vast profits for obscenely wealthy military and IT interests.
Scotland's constitutional, political and social traditions, so abhorred down the ages by an Anglo-Norman absolutist, pyramidal power mentality that the English spent 500 years trying before finally destroying it, are extraordinarily in tune with these world events right now.
Without bothering to understand our past, we might easily plough on, vote harvesting for an 'independence' polity depressingly little different from the detestable one England imposes on us. That is actually what is happening; what the SNP is doing and what so many pundits like Robin McAlpine are content to support.
We mustn't be led into this trap. We need a Convention of the Estates, by whatever modern name we choose, right now, founded on our constitutional rights and not on the unfounded, unanchored, 'independence' rhetoric Scots are starting to sense is being sold to them.
100% with this. It is the debate most conspicuously emerging from the present disturbances in nation states all over the Western world; the disconnect between government and people, a simulated democracy where the priorities and interests of the populace are overtly/covertly subordinated to those of the governing classes and faceless powerful influences forcing disastrous policies for ordinary people and vast profits for obscenely wealthy military and IT interests.
Scotland's constitutional, political and social traditions, so abhorred down the ages by an Anglo-Norman absolutist, pyramidal power mentality that the English spent 500 years trying before finally destroying it, are extraordinarily in tune with these world events right now.
Without bothering to understand our past, we might easily plough on, vote harvesting for an 'independence' polity depressingly little different from the detestable one England imposes on us. That is actually what is happening; what the SNP is doing and what so many pundits like Robin McAlpine are content to support.
We mustn't be led into this trap. We need a Convention of the Estates, by whatever modern name we choose, right now, founded on our constitutional rights and not on the unfounded, unanchored, 'independence' rhetoric Scots are starting to sense is being sold to them.
0
24
29
393
Angry Pict retweeted
"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."
Further important reflections on the Baird-McAlpine debate.
Further important reflections on the Baird-McAlpine debate.
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.
0
43
64
969
Angry Pict retweeted
Robin McAlpine has blundered into an issue demonstrating an uncharacteristic level of ignorance salted with pomposity. You can do better than this Robin. Superb riposte from @SymbolStones here x.com/SymbolStones/s…
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…
7
36
67
1,994
Angry Pict retweeted
This.
It's as if our own side is actively putting barriers in the way. 👇
It's as if our own side is actively putting barriers in the way. 👇
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.
2
5
10
435
Angry Pict retweeted
The answer to the precise way in which international recognition that we are annexed and not a partner in the union is that it removes the former understanding of Scotland as a territorial component of a lawful, unitary state and replaces it with the understanding that Scots have a right to very specific form of self-determination in which the U.K. govt plays no part. Nothing more can or will come from the UN other than observers at any rectify gate the route. It does nothing more than that so at that point it’s over to Scots to make their wishes known. That’s a huge undertaking and one that requires preparation right now. My worry is that we might lose the opportunity to recover the rights and provisions of the former state if Scotland and wind up with another version of the pseudo democracy we are living under. Independence is the opportunity for radical change, real popular sovereignty and the reincarnation of what was best about the ancient Scottish state.
2
42
80
871
Angry Pict 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.
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.
Interesting to see some actual discussion on this, and both from outwith the SNP. Interestingly a part of the debate not shown here has RMcA make the point that the 2014 referendum actually closes the historical question around union being voluntary or not. 1/2
6
133
170
4,810
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.
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…
15
87
128
6,355
Angry Pict retweeted
"England is falling over its old internal arrogance that it can still play as an international player in international politics, and over this one, they might break up."
– Michael von der Schulenberg, former high-ranking United Nations diplomat who served as a UN Assistant rector at the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) in Vienna and is currently a Member of the European Parliament.
Irish reunification – for all the English huffing and puffing – is priced-in; Wales needs movement elsewhere for impetus, leaving Scotland in the frontline for taking this bogus colonial union apart. World diplomats know it – what England, the world's most unbridled coloniser, practised on the Celtic fringe – and are enthusiastic about seeing it rectified. Yet, for the most perplexing of reasons, some in Scotland talk of 'crawling to New York bureaucrats' and want this all hushed up; the bottle that is the UK and its oppressive Supreme Court and imposed English parliamentary sovereignty hermetically sealed against such external scrutiny, intense interest and downright encouragement. It brings to mind Tom Nairn's parish pump and those who would have us stand around it talking to ourselves.
– Michael von der Schulenberg, former high-ranking United Nations diplomat who served as a UN Assistant rector at the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) in Vienna and is currently a Member of the European Parliament.
Irish reunification – for all the English huffing and puffing – is priced-in; Wales needs movement elsewhere for impetus, leaving Scotland in the frontline for taking this bogus colonial union apart. World diplomats know it – what England, the world's most unbridled coloniser, practised on the Celtic fringe – and are enthusiastic about seeing it rectified. Yet, for the most perplexing of reasons, some in Scotland talk of 'crawling to New York bureaucrats' and want this all hushed up; the bottle that is the UK and its oppressive Supreme Court and imposed English parliamentary sovereignty hermetically sealed against such external scrutiny, intense interest and downright encouragement. It brings to mind Tom Nairn's parish pump and those who would have us stand around it talking to ourselves.
4
117
177
3,124