A 40 minute podcast highlighting key issues of our case.

Beat the Censors

Regretfully there are some among us who seek to censor what others read. Sadly within the YES movement there are sites which claim to be pro Indy but exist to only promote one Party and will not publish articles which come from bloggers who don’t slavishly support that Party to the exclusion of the rest of the YES movement. I ask readers who support free speech to share articles from Yours for Scotland as often as possible as this defeats the effectiveness of the censors.


Free subscriptions are available on the Home and Blog pages of this site. This allows,for an email of each article to your Inbox and that is now how several thousands get my articles each day. This avoids problems that some have experienced gaining access from Twitter and Facebook. You will be very welcome to choose whatever route works best for you.


The work and important development of Salvo has been a beacon of hope in 2022 and as it develops Salvo is creating campaigning hubs throughout Scotland. Salvo will join  with Liberation.Scot and as the campaigning arm of Liberation we are looking at very effective campaigns kicking off very early this year and introducing some new campaigning methods as well as those that have worked well in the past. This requires money so all donations to this site, once the running costs are covered, will go to support the work of Salvo/ Liberation. I think you will see it well used and effective.


We are seeking to build Liberation.Scot to at least 100,000 signatures just as quickly as we can. This is part of our plan to win recognition as an official Liberation Movement via the United Nations. We intend to internationalise our battle to win Independence and through the setting up of our Scottish National Congress will prepare and develop our arguments to win progress in the International Courts. Please help by signing up at Liberation.Scot. It is from those who sign up to Liberation.Scot that the membership of the SNC will be created by ballot.



  1. Yes, sovereignty is not transferable. A story a guide at Stirling Castle told me concerned a woman and her cow, The soldiers in the castle were testing the canons and fired some canon balls from the castle ramparts. One canon ball hit a cow grazing below and the animal was killed. The lady who owned the cow was outraged and marched up to the castle and demanded to see the Scottish King. ( James V, I think). The king agreed to give her an audience and heard her complain. Like the canon ball, she did not miss her mark, and she gave the king a dressing down. The king apologised most sincerely and instructed she be recompensed for her loss. The people are sovereign.

    The king would sometimes dress as a labourer and frequent alehouses and listen in disguise to the people talking freely about their problems, concerns, and views of the king. He knew he ‘ruled’ only by their favour. The people are sovereign.

    Our secret cow of sovereignty has been sorely abused and almost buried alive and we need to address this with all our force: Let us stand with the lady who lost her cow and who who exemplified our sovereignty.

    PS. I love you guys…

    Liked by 4 people

    1. Right so who are we going to gather and confront? It’s mair than a cow we have lost this time.🤣 The Turkish Sultan Suleiman The Magnificent did the same. Went out in disguise for feedback and went around the markets to see if folk were being robbed etc. He was known as the lawmaker.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. The American is to confused and has a dreadful negative attitude., Ive had a gut full of that in my lifetime I would rather hear positive native people.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I didn’t think the American lady was confused – she’s just coming at the issue from a different standpoint. Her country was a colony that fought a Revolutionary War to get rid of the Monarchy and found the 1st modern Republic. Hers is the viewpoint of the citizen of an almost 250 year old Republic, not a Monarchy

      Liked by 2 people

      1. I feel the same as she does and I am not negative, far from it. You know something if you ask questions or voice an opinion of those who are our elected or would be elected far too many are quick to call them names and claim the don’t support independence which is utterly nonsense. So what you are really trying to do is shut others up for questioning authority and as sovereign people we have a right to ask questions without being attacked and accusations made.

        Liked by 1 person

    2. Willie haud yer wheesht that’s not nice. Some of us are grateful and don’t care if she is fae American or not. You might be eating a wee slice of humble pie a wee while doon the line because if the government telt ye to jump aff a cliff would you dae it no questions asked?


    3. Wullie, this lady is neither confused nor negative. She is telling it like it is.

      Whether she is American or not, she has chosen to make Scotland her home.
      Living here, she has seen how we are treated by Westminster and is appalled by it.
      Hence she is trying to do something about iit.
      Whit ur ye dain aboot it other than moaning an groanin?
      You could try Alka-Seltzer fur yer guts TOO, ya numpty.


  3. Excellent and insightful discussion, Iain. I am always amazed by the constitutional knowledge of people such as Sara, Leah and Peter. Contrast this with most of what we know of as the Scottish ‘legal establishment’, most of whom seem to know little or nothing of the Treaty of Union never mind the Claim of Right, yet without the ToU what we know as ‘Scots Law’ widnae even exist. This surely reflects the fact that Scottish lawyers have been ‘out of the game’ constitutionally for ower three centuries, with their focus restricted primarily to domestic law matters; a colonial legal system in other words. When was the last time any international treaty was drafted by a Scottish lawyer, and when was the last time a Scottish court was tasked to opine on the frequent violations of the ToU? This institutional ignorance as Sara says leaves us open to mis-rule by English law and its courts, much like Wales has been since its annexation. Perhaps this explains the institutional/legal and constitutional knowledge gap which the people are now themselves having to address in order to protect the very integrity and continued existence of our nation.

    Liked by 7 people

  4. Sorry for being slow to comment on this…no internet for about a day and a half.

    I feel like myself and Peter Bell approach the issue of Holyrood from completely different directions.

    Peter Bell says there is no reason why Holyrood couldn’t be the vehicle whereby Scottish Sovereignty breaks away from Westminster’s authority. I understand what he’s saying.

    For a time I would have agreed with that. As I described in my original Article about Red and White Sovereignty, both paradoxes, a Sovereign Scotland, and a Sovereign Westminster were allowed to coexist. despite one being a literal contradiction of the other. Not only does the contradiction exist, but Holyrood was designed to exploit the inherent contradiction from it’s inception.

    To recap what I wrote, Westminster claims white Sovereignty rules Holyrood, because Westminster legislation codifies the Parliament, Westminster’s Scotland Act is it’s small “c” Constitution, Westminster delegates power to Holyrood, and Westminster pays all the Bills. So the Holyrood institution is Westminster’s to command, ….with White Sovereignty.

    However, irrespective of the Institution, irrespective of the Scotland Act, and who pays the bills, the people elected to office, the actual MSP’s who sit in the chamber, are delegates appointed by the Sovereign people of the Realm. They are chosen and empowered by the Red Sovereignty of the Scottish people.

    So I asked the simple question, which ultimately “ruled” Holyrood? Did Holyrood have Scotland’s Red sovereignty running through it’s veins? Westminster’s White sovereignty? Or was it pink sovereignty, or raspberry ripple?

    Without repeating that whole article, I believed that for two decades the “soul” of Holyrood was up for grabs, and the paradox would be resolved one way or the other. I was firm in my conviction that Holyrood was ours to be won, a Red Institution, because the Scottish people, and no other, are Sovereign in the Realm of Scotland. We could dispense with the elements of White sovereignty, because these were invasive and had no legitimate claim on sovereignty.

    Despite having a fight we should have won by default, thus permanently securing Holyrood for Scotland, we have had to suffer the cowardice and capitulation of Nicola Sturgeon, who pays lip service to the Claim of Right, and gives her craven acquiescence to Westminster’s colonial encroachment.

    For example, Brexit represented the will of Scotland’s Sovereign People diametrically opposed to the Will of Westminster. What happens? Sturgeon rides roughshod over the Claim of Right and will of the sovereign people, and concedes to Scotland’s Brexit without a struggle, (not even a backstop to match Northern Ireland).

    What an abject failure she was, and a complete disgrace. Had she done her job, had she defended the Claim of Right and the will of the sovereign people, the Union was in it’s death throes because the UK was plunged into an existential constitutional crisis. But of course, to hell with the Constitution, “Queen Sturgeon” knows best, and Scotland was duly subjugated out of Europe.

    Sturgeon “concedes” for Scotland and it’s sovereign people to be ruled by the Scotland Act, Westminster’s colonial beachhead in the Sovereign Realm of Scotland.

    Sturgeon “concedes” to be ruled by the Supreme Court, fuelling the misconception that the Scotland Act now overrules the ancient Constitution of Scotland.

    Joanna Cherry was landing huge and decisive constitutional blows on Westminster’s “claim” to be sovereign, but what happened? Cherry gets sacked, silenced, bullied and threatened because she wouldn’t be party to Sturgeon’s Perverts Charter.

    Peter is now wrong I believe. Holyrood could have been ours, but it’s too late. Holyrood could have been a massive constitutional thorn in the side of Westminster as they wrestled to contain the will of the Sovereign people. Holyrood could have been a Red Institution, but that window has closed.

    After eight years of Sturgeon’s ignominious rule and serial capitulations, Westminster has secured benchmark precedents where the First Minister of Holyrood has knuckled down to set aside the Claim of Right and accede to the will of Westminster. I fervently believe Westminster will NEVER now relinquish these precedents.

    Sturgeon’s cowardice and constitutional illiteracy has cost Scotland it’s Holyrood “parliament”, and largely confirmed the Holyrood assembly is an institution which caters to the invasive doctrine of Westminster’s white sovereignty.

    Of all Sturgeon’s sins and failures, this is the greatest. We would now have a massive uphill struggle to reverse and overturn these precedents, and even assuming we could, we would be handing back constitutional power to the same imbecile who had spent 8 years throwing it away and squandering what were truly heaven sent opportunities.

    I believe it is wiser, and a more prudent strategy to abandon Holyrood, and denounce the Assembly as a colonial outpost espousing Westminster rule, and the “government” inside is a Vichy Administration which fundamentally obeys Westminster, not the Scottish people. That is wholly unconstitutional.

    Accordingly, the job of taking Scotland’s predicament to the UN and International Community, and standing up for the rightful “Red” sovereignty of the Scottish people, the Claim of Right, can only be done by a Convention of the Estates, which swears an oath of exclusive fealty to the Constitutional Sovereignty of Scotland.

    Holyrood, and it’s stooge First Minister, is crippled by Sturgeon’s concessions and capitulations. Let the Captain go down with the ship which she herself steered onto the reef, and let us rejoice that Scotland may be rid of her.

    I would go further. Much further.

    In 2016, Brexit created the perfect storm for Westminster, and an constitutional crisis with one sovereign component of the Union declared for Brexit, and the other sovereign component declared against. Until Sturgeon threw it away, we had the means to plunge the UK into a Constitutional Crisis which the Treaty of Union could not have survived.

    It is my firm belief that if Scotland, through a Convention of Estates moved to impeach Holyrood and it’s feckless First Minister, citing the gross impropriety of Scotland’s Brexit subjugation, we would create yet another existential Constitutional Crisis which again, I do not believe the Treaty of Union would survive.

    I know, I know, moderates won’t like this. I’m not sure I like it myself. But good luck persuading me it’s not what we should do.

    Liked by 7 people

    1. A reply to some of your points
      1)”no internet for about a day and a half”
      you are not alone in combatting breakdowns! I too have had my share!

      2)”Sturgeon rides roughshod over the Claim of Right and will of the sovereign people, and concedes to Scotland’s Brexit without a struggle”,
      Personally speaking I was appalled at Sturgeon’s behaviour over Brexit. Could hardly believe what she was doing and why the Scots were so convinced by her “carrot dangling” that they kept on voting for her. We now know the real business was ensuring the SNP was being taken over by her “Trans/Woke” brigade

      3)”(not even a backstop to match Northern Ireland)”
      I don’t know whether that was feasible. Scotland did not have the equivalent of the GFA and the backing of an EU state like the Republic of Ireland or Gibraltar and Spain. Scotland either had to detach in some way from England and make the EU understand it was a different country that wanted to Remain or go with England’s Brexit. Sturgeon and the SNP did nothing to make the differences count. The EU treated the UK as one entity, which it is, legally speaking, so Scotland went where England went

      4) “I fervently believe Westminster will NEVER now relinquish these precedents.”
      Freedom is never given. It has to be taken. If Scotland wants Independence, it has to take it

      5)”Sturgeon . . . has . . . largely confirmed the Holyrood assembly is an institution which caters to the invasive doctrine of Westminster’s . . sovereignty.” TRUE

      6) “a Convention of the Estates, which swears an oath of exclusive fealty to the Constitutional Sovereignty of Scotland”
      Have you thought about the timing? As far as I am concerned, the Convention would best be set up before the Coronation in May, just to set the cat among the pigeons, the fox in the henhouse, and achieve maximum publicity world wide!Don’t know if that timescale is feasible!Need to ask Salvo and Liberation
      The Convention proposal reminded me of this song


      1. The essence of the Northern Irish Backstop was very simple.

        The Good Friday Agreement was an Internationally recognised peace treaty which explicitly stated there would be no Border infrastructure returned to Northern Ireland as a condition of the Treaty. Brexit however, removed Northern Ireland from the EU, turning the Irish / Northern Irish border into the frontier of the European Union, which required hard border infrastructure which was a specific violation of the Good Friday Agreement.

        Thus the Irish Backstop was a big problem for Westminster, because they had the option of a Brexit which expressly violated the Good Friday Agreement, inviting sanctions and pariah status for the UK precisely when the UK needed new Free Trade Agreements. The alternative, the only alternative was to devise a solution of establishing a border where no border was allowed to exist.

        This line in the sand was treated with typical disdain by the British Government, but they discovered to their cost that both the EU and the US were resolute in their determination to defend the Good Friday Agreement, and thus, the Irish had their backstop.

        The “solution” was the Northern Irish protocol, which removed the necessity of a border in Northern Ireland by creating bespoke status for Northern Ireland which to all intents and purposes kept Northern Ireland in the EU, and shunted the EU’s hard border nominally into the Irish Sea, which greatly disturbed the UK Government because it brokered the high possibility of a United Ireland, and also violated Article VI of the Treaty of Union which required, “ same Allowances, Encouragements, and Draw-backs, and be under the same Prohibitions, Restrictions, and Regulations of Trade, and liable to the same Customs and Duties, and Import and Export”.

        So, to summarise, the Irish “won” with their backstop, there is no Border in Ireland, and the UK Government had to devise a workaround which essentially meant No Brexit for Northern Ireland.

        Ireland flatly refused to entertain a UK Brexit which violated an International Treaty, and the International Community backed them to the hilt.

        So why didn’t Scotland follow Ireland’s lead, and refuse to entertain a Brexit which violated the Treaty of Union, and further still, violated the Claim of Right and Constitutional sovereignty of Scotland? Why didn’t Scotland rise up to defend it’s sovereign interests and the violation of it’s own International agreements? The reason is simple. Nicola Sturgeon capitulated, and subjected Scotland to the humiliation of standing outside in the corridor, keeking through the keyhole, while Brexit negotiations were ongoing.

        All Sturgeon had to do was point out that Scotland’s Brexit defied the will of Scotland’s sovereign people, and thus defied the Claim of Right, and then Scotland would have had it’s own Scottish Backstop, and the Westminster Government would have been required to devise a Brexit which didn’t violate the Claim of Right or the Treaty of Union. Scotland’s sovereign choice to remain in Europe would have been respected.

        However the Scottish Backstop would have been even stronger, because had it halted Scotland’s Brexit by respecting the Claim of Right, the EU’s hard border would have to be running from Gretna to Berwick, and thus Scotland’s non-Brexit would have violated Article VI of the Treaty of Union.

        The reality is, a Scottish backstop would have been a sovereign veto over Brexit happening at all, and the Westminster Government humiliated by having to capitulate to the sovereign will of a Scottish Nation and abandon Brexit, which would have fundamentally changed the hegemony of the Westminster Parliament, and it becomes very difficult to see how the Treaty of Union could have survived after Bonnie wee Scotland subjugated the will of English and took away their Brexit.

        How fortunate for Westminster and disastrous for us, that Scotland had a constitutionally illiterate thunderdunce like Nicola Sturgeon “defending” Scotland’s interests, who couldn’t even think of Scottish Backstop when the Irish were drawing diagrams and showing them to her.

        In 2016, Independence lay in the palm of our hands. It really, really, did.

        A small answer to wullie too… Far from confused or negative, I believe Leah Gunn Barrett has a crystal clear grasp of the situation which would put many an Independence supporter to shame. I would listen again Wullie, and maybe listen too Iain’s who’s who on the Scottish Nation Congress Steering Group.

        It’s a funny thing, (not pointing any fingers at you Wullie), but Scotland, for a place so open an welcoming to people from all over the world holds a special disdain for Scottish diaspora who return here with a foreign twang in their accent. Most famously there was Sheena Easton virtually booed off stage in Glasgow. But I saw similar ridicule for a College tutor who’d spent five years in Canada. God forbid, if I spent any time abroad, I’d have to walk around with a bucket on my head just in case I picked up a wee twang myself and could never again risk opening ma gob in Scotland.

        The whole world knows Sturgeon is a Scot the moment she pronounces the word “wurruld”, but I cannot think of a person I would trust less on just about anything. Is there not something schizo about a nation which can mourn the Clearances and the loss of our kin, being so sniffy about our diaspora and their descendants having a foreign accent? Maybe it’s a colonisation thing we will all need therapy for.

        But it isn’t just Scotland. I spent a couple of years in London, (don’t worry, head was in a bucket the whole time), and I spent some time in digs with an Irish fella who confessed it broke his heart to watch his kids growing up with cockney accents. I had few words of comfort because it was indeed a terrible thing to hear and you couldn’t pretend otherwise. “Well at least it’s not Birmingham” was the best I could do.

        Liked by 3 people

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: