Liberation Scotland Committee

@RichardJMurphy saying the C word. SCOTLAND IS A COLONY OF ENGLAND. Anyone with an ounce of nous taking the least trouble to examine it sees it. Scots already know it in their bones before having to be told. What Richard doesn't know, we suspect, is that Scots are as sovereign in their own country - by England's agreement, at least in theory and according to the non-operational Treaty of Union and the defiled Claim of Right - as the English are in theirs. This is the first real airing of Scotland's colonial status on the Anglo-British broadcast media, but we are supremely confident it will not be the last. Please repost the living daylights out of it.

Congratulations from Liberation Scotland on your speech Dominic. We join @SSalyers2 in saying we as a liberation movement are privileged to have been present at the UNOG Assembly Hall yesterday to hear delivered the unalloyed truth of the disgrace that is continued tolerance of the most egregious act of barbarity of our times, if not our lives.

My Speech at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva @UNGeneva today (March 18th)! Calling out the US, UK & NATO for their MASSIVE double standards — preaching human rights while letting Israel get away with genocide! The blood of Palestinians and Iranians is on their hands!

IPLSA has produced a fine paper relating Scotland to related colonised territories. Regional autonomy is the ultimate assertion of state sovereignty. In Scotland's case, the devolution framework of the Scotland Act was - cynically and manipulatively, we would claim - devised to provide cover for the violation of Scots sovereignty inherent in a bogus treaty and the consequent absence of all provision and expectation of that treaty. The outcome was to make mockery of the myth of the English colonial fig leaf of "voluntary partnership". The charge of cynicism and manipulation takes little convincing. The infamous post-Brexit Internal Market Act - the product of what the British state itself calls "muscular unionism", but which simply translates as naked strong arm colonial enforcement - has provided ample opportunities to bypass the provisions of the Scotland Act and the useless, ephemeral and readily disposable Sewel Convention regarding English interference in devolved affairs. A fundamental question arises: in what kind of voluntary partnership of nation states is there the need for one partner to grant a limited form of regional autonomy to the other? The question is rhetorical; the answer of course is none. A further key question is raised as to what voluntary and partnership characteristics are inherent in England's need for a nuclear weapon to be imposed on a Scottish people who have repeatedly declared no wish to possess one, yet who bear all risks of having it housed on their sovereign territory. We owe a debt to IPLSA to bring these issues to the attention of an important body of the UN Human Rights Council and to the Secretary General.

Indictment at the United Nations: A Report Submitted Directly to the UN Secretary-General Now Entered into the UN System Exposes Scotland as a Colony and Places the English Colonial State in the Dock Read the full report by Liberation Scotland and partners on the official UN website documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/… A document has now entered the official machinery of the United Nations. Circulated at the United Nations Human Rights Council (61st session), received by the Secretary-General, and registered under UN procedures, this report constitutes far more than an NGO submission. It is an intervention within the normative space of international law itself; and an indictment of the English colonial state. For Scotland as an English colony, it is nothing short of strategic. A Break in the Colonial Narrative For decades, the English colonial state has relied on a carefully constructed fiction. Scotland, the narrative insists, is part of a “voluntary union,” endowed with democratic representation, protected by devolution, fully exercising internal self-determination. It's a colonial lie. This report dismantles that fiction with clinical precision. It identifies Scotland not as a partner, not as a region, but as a territory under colonial sovereignty, explicitly placing it alongside cases such as New Caledonia and French Polynesia. This classification is not rhetorical but analytical, precise, legal, and comparative. It situates Scotland within the global structure of colonial domination. It strips away the British constitutional mythology and replaces it with a framework grounded in international law. Once that shift occurs, everything changes. Devolution Unmasked as Legal Assimilation At the core of the English colonial strategy lies devolution. Presented as a generous transfer of power, it has long been used to argue that Scotland already governs itself. The report exposes this mechanism for what it is. A colonial fraud. The Scotland Act 1998 is described as establishing administrative structures while preserving the overriding authority of the central, colonial English state, constituting a process of legal assimilation designed to negate Scotland’s status as a treaty partner. This is a devastating reframing. Devolution is no longer interpreted as autonomy. It is revealed as a technology of control, a system through which the English colonial centre maintains supremacy while projecting the illusion of self-government. Internal self-determination, in this light, is containment, certainly not liberation. The implication is profound. The English colonial state does not share sovereignty. It absorbs, restructures, subordinates, plunders. The Failure of Internal Self-Determination The report goes further. It demonstrates that systems of internal autonomy, wherever imposed under the authority of the dominant state, remain structurally incapable of delivering genuine self-determination. They operate within what the report identifies as a framework of hegemonic legal pluralism, where the colonised are permitted limited expression only within boundaries defined by the coloniser. Scotland’s constitutional reality is thus aligned with a broader global pattern. From New Caledonia to Okinawa, internal arrangements function not as solutions but as instruments of stabilisation for colonial rule. The conclusion follows with force. External Self-Determination & Decolonisation as the Only Solution The report states unequivocally that external self-determination is the only effective means of guaranteeing the rights of peoples subjected to such structures. This is not a suggestion but a doctrinal position grounded in international and UN law: -Article 1(2) of the UN Charter -The UN General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) -The UN General Assembly Resolution 1541 (XV) The implication is unmistakable. @UN @UNGeneva @UN_HRC @UNHumanRights @antonioguterres

Professor Alan Renwick (@alanjrenwick) & the Colonial Management of Self-Determination Having already addressed the colonial submissions of Professor Nikos Skoutaris (@NikosSkoutaris) of the University of East Anglia and Professor Aileen McHarg (@AileenMcHarg) of Durham University; both colonial English universities, both operating entirely within the constitutional tradition of the administering power; it is necessary now to turn to colonial Professor Alan Renwick, Professor of Democratic Politics (really?) & Deputy Director of the Constitution Unit at University College London (@ucl @ConUnit_UCL), yet another English university at the heart of the "British" i.e. English constitutional establishment. The pattern is worth naming plainly before a single word of his submission is analysed. The Scottish Parliament's Constitution, Europe, External Affairs and Culture Committee, tasked with charting Scotland's constitutional future, has assembled a panel of witnesses drawn from English universities, steeped in English constitutional tradition, and constitutionally incapable; not always through malice necessarily, but through formation & worldview; of stepping outside the framework of the administering power i.e. the English colonial state. The result is entirely predictable. Each submission, in its own register, performs the same function: it translates Scotland's colonial condition into the language of domestic constitutional management, and then offers to help manage it more tidily. Professor Renwick's submission is a sophisticated example of this tendency, and therefore in some respects the most dangerous. Where Skoutaris erased the colonial question by classification and McHarg erased it by factual error, Renwick erases it by proceduralism. His document is not concerned with whether Scotland has a right to self-determination under international law. It is concerned with how to design a referendum that Westminster might find acceptable. The colonial relationship is laundered into a scheduling problem. This is a well-documented phenomenon in post-colonial studies: metropolitan/colonial academic discourse frequently reproduces the conceptual categories created by imperial, colonial power, rendering colonial domination analytically invisible. Professor Renwick's submission is a textbook illustration of that phenomenon, and the Scottish Parliament (@scotparl) received it as expert constitutional guidance. "It Is Widely Agreed That the Union Is Voluntary". The Colonial Epistemology Stated as Fact Professor Renwick opens with what he presents as a point of consensus: "It is widely agreed that the Union is voluntary, and that Scotland is entitled to independence if the people of Scotland wish it." This statement is not a neutral observation but the constitutional narrative of the English colonial state, presented as though it were established fact. And it is the move that does all the work. By beginning his analysis with the presumption of voluntariness, Professor Renwick assumes the very conclusion that international law requires to be examined. This is the reproduction of a colonial epistemology, not constitutional analysis. The claim of a voluntary union is precisely the kind of founding narrative that decolonial scholarship has spent decades dismantling. Colonial powers have systematically described colonial relationships as voluntary political arrangements throughout history. France did not describe Algeria as a conquered territory but as an integral part of France, voluntarily incorporated through historical process. Idem for Portugal with Angola & Mozambique as occupied colonies; described as overseas provinces, deeply connected to the Portuguese nation. In each of these cases, the international community rejected the coloniser's narrative entirely.

You see this, Scotland? Resources owned by the people enjoyed by the people. WHEN you kick the coloniser out of your country. You don't need to bother to tell it to prepare itself. That is England's affair. OUR affair is to tell it the colonial game is up, and put it out.

Sorry but that’s not my idea of an independent Scotland. A Scotland ‘government’ (ruled) by the same disgusting top down party system as the English/UK state? I think not. The Scottish constitution says the people govern the government. You don’t have independence at all if it’s independence/power for the unaccountable elite justified as ‘representative democracy’. Scot’s deserve and are entitled to direct democracy.

They want more nuclear power in Scotland so that yet more electricity can be transmitted down to England while Scotland takes the risks - and Scots pay the world's highest domestic electricity price.

It's useful to see this turned round, as it is by this woeful Wikipedia entry. Applying the UK's 'voluntary partner' myth that England and Scotland are in fantasy tango, England can't leave the 'union' without the permission of its Scottish 'partner', any more than Scotland can leave without England's. Kosovo kicks in as Sara describes, and international tango turns to international limbo. Yet, this is all a falsehood; a fabrication designed to capture England's Scottish colony forever. There IS no voluntary partnership; no operational treaty, no fused monarchy and no merged territory. That truth recognised, the Scottish state re-asserts, re-convenes itself. It's that simple.

Scotland could not stop it but we now have some strong international allies. Any one of those states could simply ‘contest’ a unilateral English declaration of independence under the UN Charter provisions on rights of states. Its status would then remain contested, it would not be able to join the UN, make international treaties or behave as an independent state until its status was no longer contested. See Kosovo for the example. Now apply that principle to Scotland. The remedy? Scotland is a colony. Once recognised as a dependency of England it’s all but impossible for any state to contest a declaration of independence based on a democratic event. We have to keep driving this point home as most Scots, most MSP’s and their ‘expert advisers are deeply uninformed about international law. @CraigMurrayOrg

As an English colony, Scotland must bring an end to the English colonial state "United Kingdom" by holding it accountable on the international stage through United Nations decolonisation mechanisms. Every Scot and every citizen of the world must know that England has misled the international community by claiming that Scotland is in a “voluntary union”, when Scotland should have been reported to the United Nations as a colony in the 1950s in accordance with international law and UN obligations of colonial powers. Annexation is a supreme crime in international law. Under international law, Scotland has the right to seek judgment and reparations for colonial theft and crimes from the English coloniser.

@WeeManWiTheFlag @ScotNational That's the way the rentier economy works. But why the Epstein class has to be set loose directly on Scotland is a puzzle and concern.

@ScotNational Where is the electricity coming from, surely like everyone else he will merely be selling us electricity we already produce? 🥴

NEW: Elon Musk’s Tesla has been given the green light to start supplying electricity to households and businesses in Scotland #Echobox=1773317632-2" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">thenational.scot/news/25930674.…

The Scottish Government just published a long, inaccurate and misleading paper with pet jurists claiming Scotland wasn't annexed by England and isn't England's colony, when immediately Starmer pops up to tell them muscular unionism, aka colonial rule, is live, well and as dictatorial and extractive as ever.

Taking independence simply can't avoid recognition by 'outsiders'. The validity of condition of 'independence', also known as internationally as decolonization, is *uniquely* in the eyes of the international community.Beg it from the Brits (NO chance) or take it (UDI), this fact remains. Check the status of Kosovo without it; a phantom state in limbo, which issues passports not recognised in the highest of diplomatic circles. Facts are simply not optional. For confirmation of what we say above, see the opinion obtained by Neale Hanvey from Prof. Robert McCorquodale is.gd/FmpGiM paras. 26 & 27 and that given by Prof. Marc Weller in is.gd/Yy7EdF 4th para from last. Without prior international recognition that Scottish territory is unique, belongs to no-one but the sovereign people of Scotland (aka the extant and very much constitutionally alive Scottish Crown) and is NOT part of the territory of England (aka 'the UK'), England-as-UK can and will hold to its claim we are a voluntary partner and can't leave the UK without England's - as the other putative partner - permission. This is precisely what the two eminent jurists linked to above confirm. The view expressed on this below by Mark Hirst accords, we think, with that of Peter Bell, but much as we agree with Peter on most of the constitutional issues, we disagree with him on this point. Sooner or later it will be necessary to convince the international community that Scotland is an annexed territory demanding of independent statehood, i.e. in possession of the inalienable right to the restoration of its forced suspended status as a nation state. This has become all the more true in a western world that is rapidly regressing towards aggressive colonialism. Better get started now, as we at Salvo and the Liberation Scotland Committee have done.

He works with all sorts on issues of human rights. That one you mention seems to be a more recent JPTi activity. Given there ARE serious persecutions of Orthodox Christians in certain Baltic states, you may not have picked here a very good example. But we'd be interested to see your evidence of 'questionable character'. Up until our own experience, we were not aware of any.

@LiberationScot 1 search of this guy on Google shows a questionable character with alleged Russian influence, nobody knew?

Response to Defamatory Statements by JPTi Joint, Public Statement by SalvoScot Ltd with the Liberation Scotland Committee This is a short account of our dealings with Geneva-based consultant JPTI. The full and detailed account with evidence for anyone interested can be accessed here: liberation.scot/coms/Public-St… In November 2025, the NGO ‘Justice Pour Tous internationale’, (JPTi), announced on its website and across social media, that it had officially terminated its relationship’ with the the Liberation Scotland Committee (LSC) and SalvoScot Ltd following "a material breach of contract and a profound act of disloyalty" - purportedly on our part. Our members and supporters were shocked. Some were dismayed. A very few repeated the claims against us as though these were factual, challenging us to prove otherwise. Constrained by legal considerations, we did not. Much as we wished to tell our side of the story, we followed the rule book, initiating the mediation process as stipulated in the agreement made with JPTi. This is also required in Swiss law before, (for instance), any court order can be requested to enforce a retraction of defamatory statements. We asked you to trust us in the meantime and suggested considering the situation in light of how and when the English state might be most likely to move against any international campaign to free Scotland. To all who did, and who have waited patiently for reassurance, please accept our deep and heartfelt thanks and appreciation. With the conclusion of the mediation process we can now offer the proofs of where the real breaches occurred and why we, not JPTi, ended our working relationship following a dramatic shift in JPTi’s approach and dealings with us (refer to link above and full account for details). What influenced that shift, we will leave to others to decide. These are the facts. 1. The Objective: A Clear Mandate for Decolonization Our agreements (Memorandums of Understanding) with JPTi were explicit. Our sole objective was to gain international recognition of Scotland’s status as a Non-Self-Governing Territory (NSGT) - a colony. The goal was clear, to establish Scotland’s right to external self-determination, free from Westminster’s control. This right formed the basis of our agreement with JPTi, who were hired as a navigator and representative, to help us achieve this within the UN system. This right, JPTs’s director, Sharof Azizov, publicly, unequivocally and resoundingly endorsed at the SSRG’s conference in May 2025 (video: is.gd/pAmJpY from 3m50s to 9m24s). There was no suggestion that he had altered his position on the feasibility or justice of this goal until October 2025. 2. The Breakdown: A Shift from Advocate to Adversary • Failure to Deliver: Despite significant monthly payments funded by your donations, JPTi failed to secure Scotland’s place in the C-24 workstream for 2025 or to arrange any of the bilateral meetings contractually agreed. • The ‘Bombshell’ at the UN: Our trust in JPTi finally collapsed in October 2025, when Sharof Azizov, proposed using his speaking slot at the UN in New York, where he was representing us, to argue for the French state’s position with respect to its colonies rather than supporting the independence movements of those territories. This new stance was a direct repudiation of the decolonisation principle and would have destroyed our credibility within the international liberation movement. He was only prevented when our own ambassador, Craig Murray, intervened. • The New Agenda: It became clear Mr. Azizov no longer wished to advance the cause of Scottish decolonization. Instead, he sought to “guide” us toward a form of enhanced devolution (“Devo Max”) as a sufficient end-point for self-determination. This is the same argument used by the British and French states to maintain control over colonised peoples. Confronted with this fundamental shift - a paid representative advocating for the coloniser’s position - we exercised our right to terminate the agreement. 3. JPTi’s Response: Threats and Defamation Following our termination letter, Mr. Azizov claimed we owed JPTi money for work done on our behalf. He threatened to destroy our reputation unless we paid the equivalent to a month’s fee. The record shows we had overpaid by approximately CHF 4,000. When we refused, he did not seek mediation. Instead, he made good on his threat, publishing his false accusations and sarcastically messaging us: "enjoy the ride". Mr Azizov, despite our lawyers demonstrating to him that he has been paid in full, has continued to demand payment in exchange for removing the defamatory allegations from the JPTi website and publishing a conciliatory statement. 4. Required Retractions & JPTi’s Refusal We sought legal advice. Our Geneva based lawyers demanded that JPTi remove their false statements and publicly acknowledge the following: • That we, not JPTi terminated the agreement due to a difference in political views. It was not terminated because of a breach by us. • That JPTi threatened us with damaging statements if we did not pay them further monies. • That JPTi broke the contractual clause for negotiation and mediation in breach of Swiss law, choosing instead to publish disparaging statements on SalvoScot. • That our sole aim is decolonization, and JPTi was never authorised to steer us toward "devolution" or "autonomy" as a substitute. • That JPTi’s current public position, arguing that internal self-determination (devolution) is equal to full independence, is irreconcilable with our mission and with the rights of colonized peoples. Predictably, JPTi refused. Where We Are Now While we reserve our position, we have chosen not to spend further time and money pursuing a retraction. Instead, we are publishing an evidenced account of events to set against the claims made against us and laying bare JPTi’s intention to damage Liberation Scotland and the LSC. We have not been damaged in the way JPTi intended, however. We are now planning the next stage of a campaign which is being adapted for the seismic shift in geopolitics, re-submitting Scotland’s case under the proper provisions and through the correct channels. We are working with effective partners, including the ECOSOC-accredited NGO, International Probono Legal Services Association (IPLSA), and building alliances with representatives of other colonized nations. These are important relationships which both advance Scotland’s cause and help to establish Liberation Scotland’s solidarity with the wider liberation/decolonization movement. In short, we have emerged wiser and more focused. The fight for Scotland’s right to liberation, to exist as a free and independent nation is stronger than ever. And we hope that you will continue to be a part of it. ENDS

“an overly deferential or laissez-faire approach to devolved government". - Keir Starmer The muscular unionism of the Anglo- British colonial mindset, right there, could not be more clearly stated. Devolution to these people is not serious. They'll offer of course, in due course, perhaps soon, some "max" version, and their proxies, astroturfers and troughers in the independence movement will endorse it. But that same colonial mindset will prevail. England will never voluntarily let go of Scotland. Least of all when the US is enforcing a new colonialism at the end of a gun barrel, of which it heartily and full-throatedly aoproves. There is only one exit from this; recognise colonization and decolonize.

@UKaForceForGood @ScotNational No. This is the one and only 'break-up'. And JPTi are not lawyers. They are human rights advocates, with a small 'a'. We have no dispute with any lawyer. What are your intentions, 'A Force For Good' with your union flag?

@ScotNational Didn't they have another dramatic break-up with their lawyers a few months ago?

A group fighting to have Scotland 'decolonised' by the United Nations has said its fight is 'stronger than ever' after a dramatic break up with their legal representatives #Echobox=1773159223-2" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">thenational.scot/news/25924770.…

Economic incomers should have no vote in ANY nation's constitutional future. In France, to get a vote at national elections you must have citizenship and that takes at least 7 years. On a constitutional issue like Scotland's, it should be longer. Students, second home owners, servicement, temporary London civil servants, oil workers from England etc. must have NO vote on Scotland's future.

@Documark @LiberationScot @Roberts56Gavin When we look to our own people at the moment its like cats in a sack . I mainly put this down to the less than genuine SNP as well as economic incomers who support the status quo. I have no idea how to move the situation forward barr England declaring for herself.

Mark, taking independence simply can't avoid recognition by 'outsiders'. The validity of condition of 'independence', also known as internationally as decolonization, is *uniquely* in the eyes of the international community. Beg it from the Brits (NO chance) or take it (UDI), this fact remains. Check the status of Kosovo without it; a phantom state in limbo, which issues passports not recognised in the highest of diplomatic circles. Facts are simply not optional. If you want confirmation of what we say above, see the opinion obtained by Neale Hanvey from Prof. Robert McCorquodale is.gd/FmpGiM paras. 26 & 27 and that given by Prof. Marc Weller in is.gd/Yy7EdF 4th para from last. Without prior international recognition that Scottish territory is unique, belongs to no-one but the sovereign people of Scotland (aka the extant and very much constitutionally alive Scottish Crown) and is NOT part of the territory of England (aka 'the UK'), England-as-UK can and will hold to its claim we are a voluntary partner and can't leave the UK without England's - as the other putative partner - permission. This is precisely what the two eminent jurists linked to above confirm. The view you express on this above accords, we think, with that of Peter Bell, but much as we agree with Peter on most of the constitutional issues, we disagree with him on this point. Sooner or later we will need to convince the international community that Scotland is an annexed territory with the inalienable right to the restoration of its suspended status as a nation state. Better get started now, as we at Salvo and the Liberation Scotland Committee have done.

@LiberationScot @Roberts56Gavin We need to look to our own people to secure our national freedom, not beg for it from the Brits - as the SNP propose- or seek help from dodgy consultants in Switzerland. The most common way for nations to secure independence is to take it, not be granted it by outsiders.