@SinkingUK
Account based inUnited Kingdom
About this account
- Account based in
- United Kingdom
- Connected via
- United Kingdom Android App
Account-level information from X, not a live location or the device used for a specific post.
Pro Scottish Independence Cybernat
Glasgow, Scotland
Joined January 2020
- Tweets2.8K
- Following382
- Followers103
- Likes5.3K
GetMeOutOfHere retweeted
This is first class - Sarah @SSalyers2 explains why the treaty of 1706 was illegal and highlights the dismantling of the Scottish state whilst the English state continued simply rebadged.
GetMeOutOfHere retweeted
What we're arguing at the United Nations, is that we are a colony, we're... youtube.com/shorts/SamZFMQpj… via @YouTube
GetMeOutOfHere retweeted
Sara Salyers and her team deserve real credit for the work they carried into Geneva.
They presented Scotland’s constitutional case with clarity, discipline, and a grounding in international law that few have ever managed.
Their efforts placed Scotland’s situation directly into the UN record.
What was also striking was the UK’s silence.
Faced with a detailed legal argument, London chose not to engage, not to challenge, and not to clarify.
In UN diplomacy, silence is never accidental.
It was a non conventional way to avoid confronting the realities of Scotland’s suppressed sovereignty and the decolonisation framework now being applied.
The UK’s silence speaks volumes and tells the people of Scotland we are on the right track.
👏👏👏🌎⚖️☮️🤔🏴
GetMeOutOfHere retweeted
QUOTE OF THE DAY
The English are the nicest people on the entire planet. Did you know that they spent 1,000 years aggressively trying to gain control of the land that is Scotland, just so that they could benevolently subsidise us?
Gille Losa
GetMeOutOfHere retweeted
The House of Commons formally abolished the punishment of being hung, drawn and quartered in 1870... Except the final line of that abolition Act read, "this Act shall not apply in Scotland."
It was still an option for the Courts should a Scot be dragged before them up until 1949 when it was finally extended to Scotland.
You don't hear the "Better Together" gang crowing about that!
GetMeOutOfHere retweeted
The SCC explains Scotland’s constitution
The full original name is not a footnote it reveals the mechanism of sovereignty
“The Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject, and Settling the Succession of the Crown”
is the correct and historically meaningful name.
For what is being called today
The Claim of Right
Why?
Because it shows, explicitly, that
The Scottish Convention of Estates declared the rights of the people.
They declared the liberties of the people.
They settled the succession of the Crown.
That is not passive.m, symbolic.
or tradition.
It is the people through their constitutional body exercising authority over the Crown.
This is the opposite of English constitutional doctrine, where the Crown in Parliament is sovereign.
In Scotland, the people
(through their representatives) deposed the monarch and then set the terms for the next one.
The name captures that inversion of power.
It was not a “Claim” it was an
Act of Enforcement
Calling it the “Claim of Right” came later, and while it’s a powerful shorthand, it can make it sound like
a petition, tradition, principle
or a claim made to the Crown
But the original name makes clear
It was not a claim, request.
or declaration of sentiment.
It was a binding constitutional act that
listed James VII’s violations
declared he had forfeited the throne
removed him
set conditions for any future monarch
required William and Mary to swear the Scottish Coronation Oath
enforced Scotland’s constitutional order
This is why insistence on the correct name is so important.
It restores the legal force of the document.
William and Mary agreed and that agreement is constitutionally seismic
They did not merely
“accept the crown.”
They accepted
the people’s authority
the Convention’s right to depose a monarch
the constitutional limits placed upon them
the supremacy of Scotland’s ancient laws
the requirement to govern within those limits
This is why the Act is not just historical context it is a constitutional precedent.
It shows that Scotland’s sovereignty is
popular, not parliamentary
active, not symbolic
enforced, not implied
And that the monarchy’s legitimacy in Scotland is conditional, not inherent.
This includes the right to end the so called union.
GetMeOutOfHere retweeted
It’s time to take power back.
For too long, decision makers, councils, and corporations have acted like they own Scotland’s land, wealth, and future. But under Scottish constitutional law, ultimate authority has always belonged to the people.
The Salvo Roadshow is coming to Stonehaven to unpack what this means for your community and how we can use our rights to make real change.
The Agenda and discussion will include:
How reclaiming Scotland’s energy, land, and Common Good assets can fund local services, community projects, and economic security.
Using the historic Claim of Right to challenge bad laws, end corporate overreach, and put local communities first.
How we can build a united network of grassroots campaigns across the country.
Event Details:
📍 St Bridgets Church Hall, Dunnotter Avenue, Stonehaven, AB39 2JJ
📅 Saturday 26th September 2026
From 1400-1600pm.
🎟️ Entry: Free & open to all
Register on Eventbrite via the link below:
eventbrite.co.uk/e/199984801…
Whether you're passionate about environmental protection, local democracy, or protecting community assets, your voice matters. Come along, ask questions, and join the conversation on what kind of Scotland we want to build.
GetMeOutOfHere retweeted
LIBERATION SCOTLAND 2026 CROWDFUNDER ANNOUNCEMENT
Feeling a wee bit tearful as I write this, seeing the response in a matter of hours. A heartfelt thank you to everty donor.
Watch the video for an explanation of why the campaign to restore our sovereignty as an internationally recognised fact is essential for any *real*, (non British state controlled), exercise of self-determination. Despite the very hopeul recent events and announcements, we will not be sitting back and celebrating on the basis of another 'wait and hope and trust' promise of another opinion poll in 5 years.
Make no mistake, in 5 years time, Scotland might well have been forced into a proxy war with conscription in place. Data centres are likely to be sucking up our energy and water, polluting our environment and justifying more nuclear power by then. Nuclear subs and nuclear submarune decommissioning for the ingensely populated are of Rosyth and its surroundings will be under way by then.
John Swinney may be gone in 5 years. But whoever replaces him, we are likley to see the same ignorance or dismissal of the real and lawful sovereignty of the Scottish people, whose 'title' in the land and seas of Scotland means not that we are entitled to be consulted, but that our permission is required for these projects.
It's time to push - not to wait! That is what we will be doing internationally with every peaceful and lawful resource at our disposal.
And at home, on the ground, it's time to get ready for the recovery of Scottish sovereignty - to do the preparatory, practical work that is essential , but absent, for a nation which will be ready and able to transition back into its rightful, independent status with its unique identity, constitutional rights and common good provisions restored. Salvo will be helping to make this happen.
chuffed.org/project/scotland…
GetMeOutOfHere retweeted
The UK achieved its 'best' results when it was robbing the rest of the world blind of its resources. Now, having had to abandon its empire, it clings on for dear life to the colonies of the Celtic fringe. Which it is still robbing blind of their resources (in Scotland it is oil, gas, renewable energy, fish, and whisky. And, as ever, its people). What is Burnham referring to with 'when people unite'? You suspect World Wars I and II, essentially one single interrupted war between first cousin kings over which Empire would feed on the other's carcass.
Conscription is a great unifier. Perhaps this is what England's belligerence towards Russia is about. It that's what they think, they have not caught the growing mood of the people, as they begin to get beneath the propaganda to understand the consequences, but not the motive. This is neither 1914 nor 1939.
The truth: there is NO unity on these islands, and never was; there was only ever military conquest in the case of Wales and Ireland and a bogus treaty justifying annexation followed by wars of independence and bloody repression in the case of Scotland.
So, what really is this 'United' Kingdom? It is England the incorrigible imperialist and its three colonial Celtic adjuncts - Scotland, Wales and that piece of Ireland it would not let go of. Apparently, just to remind the world England never packs its bags anywhere without leaving an almighty historic mess. Burnham, the ingenue, and the English elites with their imperial fantasy would do well to try to avoid yet another one of those, especially at this late date in history.
GetMeOutOfHere retweeted
'Media Scots' have been tasked with dismissing the work of @LiberationScot - after all, their well-paid jobs as state stenographers depend on a mythical 'British identity' and a constitutional hoax.
Here's @SSalyers2 of #LiberationScotland in Managua.
Full 6min video 🎥 youtu.be/fnkGbyASUJI?si=WDw7…
"Under international law, treaty law, Scotland has a right to decolonize. Not secession, fundamental right to decolonization.
"And that's what we're doing in Nicaragua. Because the vast majority of the international community, does not know that Scotland is a dependency.
"It has no idea that the United Kingdom is a fraud. It has no idea that Scotland is not part of a unitary state. Once that has been clearly established, everything changes. The whole game changes.
"So everything hangs basically, on the ability of the British state to hoodwink the international community, and Liberation Scotland is here making sure they can't succeed any longer. And then having that formally recognised, that Scotland has this right to self-determination.
"Once that happens, that doesn't make us independent overnight. What it does do, it clears the path. No more 'Section 30', no more Westminster permission, no more Westminster interference in the right of Scots to decide their future. Simply a way to clear the road ahead. And after that, it's up to us."
@LiberationScot @SalvoHighlands @salvo_neil68417 @ScotSalvo @Broonpot @PAlanMcMahon @thomsonchris @CraigMurrayOrg @SSRG2021 @MarkMmcnaught1 @DavidDhenry
The Sunday Times hypocritically attacked us yesterday as "the latest in a long line of nationalist fringe organisations rooted in grievance politics” (YES, independence for this conduit of state propaganda is "grievance politics!") for saying publicly what they themselves wrote about as thwarting the will of the Scottish people.
Please share far and wide.
GetMeOutOfHere retweeted
What Was Taken: The Ledger of English Colonial Extraction
"You cost more than you produce. You would starve without us."
That was the lie told in every English colony across Asia, Africa, the Caribbean. It’s the exact lie still told to Scotland today.
(A quick indicative evaluation based on available data and historical ledgers, applying Patnaik’s 5% real sovereign compounding rate to test the scale of what was taken; imperfect but meaningful. Not evaluating neocolonialism here):
-INDIA (1765-1938 | 173 yrs): $45.0 Trillion minimum
(Prof. Utsa Patnaik, 2017. Clock starts at the 1765 Farman granting the Diwani to "the English Company." Excluded: 165 years of pre-1765 extraction, and the £1.3 billion of unrequited sterling balances run up in 1939-45; a debt then repaid in blocked, non-convertible currency, while the inflationary financing of wartime procurement collapsed rural purchasing power in Bengal and three million died. Compounded, those war balances alone add trillions. The $45T is a floor).
-SCOTLAND (1707-Present | 319+ yrs): $12.0-$15.0 minimumTrillion (cf. below)
-IRELAND (1169-1921 | 752 yrs): $7.0-$9.0 Trillion minimum
(Confiscated land rents 1660-1801 capped at $3.0-$5.0T, with ~11 million acres transferred as Catholic landholding fell from 60% of Ireland in 1641 to 5% by 1776. Absentee landlord rents 1801-1921 = $1.8T. Fiscal over-taxation proved by Westminster's own 1896 Childers Commission at £2.75M/yr = $2.0T. Excluded: the Famine; one million dead, one million driven out, food exported from Irish ports throughout; and the Munster and Ulster plantations before 1660. The true figure is higher. Also the start of actual colonisation can be debated).
-JAMAICA (1655-1962 | 307 yrs): $7.4 Trillion minimum
(Brattle Group Reparations Report, convened by ICJ Judge Robinson. Enslaved labor rents, sugar monoculture, and post-emancipation dispossession).
-REST OF THE ENGLISH CARIBBEAN (1627-1960s+): ~$5.0 Trillion minimum
(Aggregated from Brattle Group national findings for Barbados, Guyana, Trinidad & Tobago, and the Leeward/Windward Islands. Combined Caribbean total: ~$12.4T of England's $23.4T global slavery liability, the remainder falling to the United States and other claimant states. In 1833, England borrowed £20m to compensate 46,000 slaveholders; the enslaved got nothing. Paid off in 2015).
-MALAYA (1874-1957 | 83 yrs): $1.8-$2.5 Trillion minimum
(Mechanism: Jomo K.S. Post-WWII Dollar Pool confiscation, on top of 70 years of tin and rubber export surplus).
-BURMA (1824-1948 | 124 yrs): $1.2-$1.6 Trillion minimum
(Mechanism: J.S. Furnivall. Integration into Indian Home Charges; unrequited rice and oil surpluses).
-NIGERIA (1861-1960 | 99 yrs): $850 Billion-$1.1 Trillion minimum
(Mechanism: Walter Rodney. Marketing Board price suppression; reserves locked in low-yield London bonds).
-KENYA (1895-1963 | 68 yrs): $450-$600 Billion minimum
(Mechanism: Land records. Expropriation of 7.5M acres in the White Highlands; poll-tax labor cartels).
AND THEN THERE IS SCOTLAND (1707-Present | 319+ yrs): $12.0-$15.0 Trillion minimum
(Based on £150B+ annual contemporary resource/energy extraction, trillions in total North Sea hydrocarbon wealth siphoned away; wiping out the sovereign wealth fund that on Norway’s model would today stand comparable to Norway's own $2.2 trillion; arbitrary Westminster debt overheads; deliberate deindustrialisation; destruction of ports/transport & logistics; whisky & other export revenue theft...).
Every figure above except one was produced by external experts talked to do this; a leading economist, an international report convened by an ICJ judge, a royal commission of the coloniser's own parliament.
Scotland's is the sole exception, because no institution has ever been asked to count it.
There is a permanent, publicly funded colonial annual exercise establishing what colonised Scotland supposedly costs England. There has never been one establishing what England took and takes; what England steals from Scotland.
The parallel with Ireland reveals the state's entire playbook:
-In 1896, Westminster’s Childers Commission proved Ireland was systematically over-taxed. London buried it.
-In 1954, a Royal Commission proclaimed Scotland a "voluntary partner" to avoid decolonisation and lie to the UN and the international community. London has quoted it for 70 years.
-In 1992, Westminster created GERS to fabricate an artificial Scottish "deficit" and bury Scotland's sovereign asset potential.
Every account above was closed when the flag came down.
Scotland's is open. The £150 billion is this year's.
Loot the wealth and cook the ledger. Then blame the victim and fund a statistics department to “prove” it.
📷
📷
GetMeOutOfHere retweeted
As a pure coincidence there was a Scottish Parliamentary Committee report published in February this year in which 12 linked law academics/lawyer confirmed that Scotland has absolutely no recourse to international law and the one and only legal route to a referendum/independence is via Westminster permission, just as the SNP keeps saying. One of the supporting submissions specifically mentions our campaign in order to dismiss it as irrelevant without addressing a single one of our arguments. No notification to us of course. (We have spent 4 months taking it apart carefully, correcting and replying to it & running our response past considerably more senior experts before asking for right of reply.) I am 💯 certain this entire, expensive and carefully crafted exercise was their way of addressing the threat we pose to their Westminster only line and the inaction that story justifies.
GetMeOutOfHere retweeted
They are lying and everyone knows it. These centres threaten water and energy sustainability, represent an environmental hazard and provide virtually nothing in terms of jobs or benefits, ‘local growth’ (whatever that means).
The British Crown is the English Crown only and holds no legal title in Scotland. Adding Scotland to an English coronation oath and cooking up a wee ‘oath of accession’ - a bodged up pantomime to dress up annexation as the union for a single kingdom - has legal consequences. It leaves the crown of Scotland intact. It makes British/English Crown administration of the territorial jurisdiction (kingdom) of the Scottish Crown unlawful.
The idea of a single Crown of England and Scotland is heavily advertised by the annexing British state as the reality - but it’s a crock.
And there’s a reason you only ever hear about political and economic union. Because with no union of the crowns (crowns not monarchs) there’s never been a territorial union.
The crown in Scotland is not the monarch. So even if Charles were lawful king of Scots rather than lawful king of the annexing state of England, lording it over his annexed domain of Scotland, his officers would have no legal right to dispose of our territory without consent.
Time to expose the truth about who *really* owns Scotland and why and - more importantly- time to do something about it.
GetMeOutOfHere retweeted
There's lots of self-important unionist talk about how spending per head in Scotland is £2,270 more than in the UK. That's the average figure. Break the spending down into nations and the English regions and it's a much less dramatic difference.
GetMeOutOfHere retweeted
Burnham may have opened a much larger constitutional can of worms than he realises.
The immediate question raised by The National is obvious enough: if the UK is genuinely a "voluntary union", any written constitution must explain how one of its constituent nations can leave.
But that's only the first problem.
Before Burnham can write a constitution, he must establish who has the authority to write it, who the constituent parties are, where sovereignty lies, and whose consent is required to bind Scotland.
A constitution can't simply be handed down by Westminster as though Scotland were merely another devolved administrative region. That would not create a voluntary union. It would simply codify Westminster's existing claim to supremacy.
Nor can Burnham escape the problem by putting the constitution to a single UK-wide vote. That would allow England's numerical majority to impose a constitutional settlement upon Scotland and Wales, abandoning any meaningful claim that the UK is a union of nations.
If, on the other hand, Scotland must consent separately as Scotland, then Scotland is being recognised as a constituent constitutional people. Once that's admitted, the right to withhold consent - and ultimately to withdraw it - becomes very difficult to deny.
Liberation Scotland has therefore correctly identified the question lying behind the exit clause:
By what authority could Burnham bind Scotland into a new written constitution at all?
Is he proposing merely to codify the existing UK? If so, he must explain the legal basis upon which Westminster claims unlimited authority over Scotland, the continuity of the English Crown-in-Parliament, and how an arrangement in which Scotland's Parliament was extinguished while England's continued can honestly be described as an equal and voluntary union.
Is he proposing to replace the existing settlement with a genuinely new British unitary state? If so, that requires fresh constituent consent from the Scottish people. Westminster can't manufacture that consent for them.
Or is he proposing a new multinational constitutional compact? If so, Scotland and Wales must be treated as constituent nations rather than regions, with protected constitutional status, powers of consent and a defined route of withdrawal.
There is no harmless option.
Codification would also force the British state to explain why Northern Ireland already possesses a defined constitutional route out of the UK, while Scotland and Wales remain dependent upon Westminster’s permission. A "voluntary union" cannot coherently mean treaty-backed consent in one territory and indefinite central discretion in another.
The deeper danger is that a written constitution would convert the UK’s carefully maintained ambiguities into legally examinable propositions. Words such as "voluntary", 'union", "nation", "consent" and "sovereignty" could no longer remain empty political rhetoric. They would have to be defined.
And once defined, they could be tested.
Burnham would therefore have to choose between parliamentary supremacy, a single British popular sovereign, or the constituent sovereignty of the nations. He can't have all three.
That is why this is potentially far more dangerous to the Anglo-British state than a debate about devolution or an exit clause.
The exit clause is downstream.
The foundational question is whether the British state can demonstrate any lawful constituent authority to bind Scotland into a new constitution without Scotland first consenting as a sovereign people.
Burnham cannot write a constitution for the existing UK without deciding whether he is codifying an annexation, replacing it with a new unitary state, or negotiating a new multinational compact.
The first exposes the defect.
The second requires Scottish consent.
The third recognises Scotland’s constituent sovereignty.
Bring it on.
"Dr Kirsty Hughes asked: 'Would Burnham's written constitution spell out what a voluntary union means? He seems to think it's about devolution.' "
There is only the slimmest chance of this coming about, and Kirsty Hughes's question hints at why. Even a reworking of the House of Lords is a danger zone, liable to expose the contradictions at the heart of the British pick-and-mix constitution, never mind a complete dismantling and rebuilding – and therefore public examination in minute detail – of the whole sorry lash-up. It would in short time confirm precisely what Sara Salyers has published, and would lead people in their millions straight to the fiction that is the edifice's keystone and gravestone. You wonder if Burnham's taken any advice from the hapless posse of civil servants who might be landed with the nightmarish job of devising a reconciliation of the reality and relationship of the two long-dodged kryptonite Crowns; Scotland’s lethal green to England’s mercurial red. Where could they possibly start but the source they claim for union: the Treaty? Or might they risk a rub of the red to pick up from late-19th century Dicey and no earlier, as the Scottish Parliament's recent legal routes paper outrageously attempted?
All we Scottish nationalists want and need is that Treaty examined in an international forum. Were Burnham foolish enough to go through with this, it would draw not only a hail of well-informed constitutional challenges from Scotland, but exposure by international legal opinion – now alerted to the UK's fictional beginnings – to that deadly green kryptonite.
In 2014 it was about devolution; a dangerous dabbling they got away with without drawing back the constitutional curtain (though the subordination of the Treaty to the Scotland Act is a howler yet to be subjected to the scrutiny of international law). But today it's become serious. Many lessons have been learnt since 2014 about British promises and British bad faith. It's now about external self-determination and decolonization. Burnham's UK constitutional reconfiguration is a potentially self-destructive gamble, a kind of UK hara-kiri. We'd say bring it on.
thenational.scot/news/264299…
GetMeOutOfHere retweeted
Excerpt:
The only presently identifiable constitutional route outside that closed circle is to internationalise the issue.
That doesn't mean the United Nations will simply decree Scottish independence, a movement has to be mobilised within Scotland too.
What internationalisation offers is a different forum, a new starting point.
The UN Charter recognises the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples. The General Assembly and Security Council possess the authority to request advisory opinions from the International Court of Justice on legal questions.
Internationalisation therefore means building the political and evidential case required to remove Westminster’s claim to be both respondent and final judge.
It means placing the formation and operation of the Union, Scotland’s constituent authority, the denial of any democratic route out and the British state’s own historical representations before external governments and international institutions.
It doesn’t guarantee the answer, but it changes who is permitted to ask the question.
Until that happens, the SNP isn’t leading Scotland out of the British constitutional order.
It is administering and containing Scottish opposition within it.
