Scotland Said No to the Colonial Union. In Writing. 20,000 Times. The fleet in the Forth, the army on the border, the spy in the Assembly & the mass refusal the printers never touched. Engaging with Liberation Scotland's Colonial Markers [Ref: SCM–CM1a]
Abstract. Liberation Scotland’s Colonial Marker 1 on Military Threat, Occupation, Subjugation might be assumed to be about Culloden. It’s not, or not only. It opens in the autumn of 1706, in the last session of the Parliament of Scotland. This first post advances six propositions based on Colonial Marker 1. (i) The annexation was engineered, not stumbled into. England had pursued the absorption of Scotland since Edward I and had failed at least twice by force. By 1706, it commanded the most developed apparatus of territorial acquisition in Europe (plantation, chartered monopoly, mercantilist enclosure, and above all the extractive treaty). It turned that apparatus on its northern, sovereign neighbour using instruments already field-tested from Munster to Madras. (ii) The coercion was total and ran on three simultaneous tracks. Economic: the Alien Act of 1705, an English statute that would have rendered every Scot a foreigner in English law and closed the English market to cattle, linen and coal (the three arteries of a national economy already exhausted by famine and by the deliberate English sabotage of Darien.) Military: warships in the Firth of Forth within sight of the Parliament House, regiments concentrated at Berwick and Carlisle, an invasion force held at Carrickfergus a day's sail from Ayrshire. Covert: Daniel Defoe, a paid agent of the English Secretary of State, operating inside Edinburgh, inside the General Assembly, writing anonymous propaganda and reporting the resistance to London; while £20,540 in secret Treasury money moved to Scottish parliamentarians under cover of the Equivalent. (iii) Scotland refused, in writing, on a scale unmatched in early modern Europe. Between October 1706 and January 1707, the Estates received 85 addresses from 123 constituted bodies, subscribed by more than 20,000 named men (shires, burghs, presbyteries, parishes, trade incorporations). Almost every one rejected colonial incorporation and annexation in principle. They outnumbered the entire Scottish electorate by more than five to one. The parliament ratified anyway, by 110 votes to 69. (iv) The exits were deliberately closed. The Act of Salvo (the ancient saving clause that kept Scots statutes challengeable against the constitution of the realm) was withheld from the ratification. The final sitting scheduled for 22 April 1707 was never permitted to convene. On the 28th, Queen Anne dissolved the Three Estates from Whitehall, extinguishing the only body competent to assemble as a Convention and rescind what its commissioners had done. These are not the acts of a state confident in the legality of what it has just concluded. (v) The transaction was void by the law of its own century; remaining void by ours. Grotius, Pufendorf and Vattel had already established that consent extracted by force or fraud binds no one. Sovereignty is not the private patrimony of magistrates. Scots law placed sovereignty in the Community of the Realm and made the Estates a delegated legislature with no competence to extinguish the kingdom. What was delivered was not what was signed. The English parliament continued, the English crown continued, English law continued, and 45 Scots were added to a permanent one-in-twelve minority. Within a year, the Treason Act breached the Treaty's own guarantee of Scots law. Ex injuria jus non oritur; no right arises from a wrong. Tallinn, Riga and Vilnius are the capitals of continuing Baltic states today on precisely that reasoning. (vi) The annexation is what made the English empire "British". Before 1707, the possessions were English: Ireland under Poynings' Law, Virginia, Massachusetts, Barbados, Jamaica, and an East India Company chartered by the English Crown from which Scots were barred by statute. After 1707, without one acre changing title or one administration changing hands, the whole apparatus was renamed, although the East India Company for example remained fully English in law. Nothing was shared. A word was changed and a colonised nation was thereby enrolled, in the world's memory, on the side of its own coloniser. The perfect English colonial manipulation and lie.
"You can't obtain a treaty, by fraud or otherwise, and then do something completely different while still claiming you have one." - Sara Salyers
What the English Colonial State Was, By 1706
Any historiographical account of the 1707 colonial incorporation that opens in 1706 has already capitulated to the coloniser's frame, treating two sovereign realms as though they met at a diplomatic table as fresh peers. They did not. They met at the sharp, coercive culmination of a centuries-long expansionist continuum. That structural continuum of contiguous English colonial conquest is the entire story.
By the year the commissioners sat down in London, the English colonial state had spent over four centuries establishing and refining the operational mechanisms of territorial appropriation through military invasion, demographic plantation, chartered corporate monopolies, and asymmetric treaty-making. It commanded a codified institutional apparatus of colonial extraction unmatched across early modern Europe.
Ireland was subjected to English feudal assertion beginning with the 1169 Anglo-Norman invasion, reduced to a subordinated possession under the English Crown by statute in 1541 (Crown of Ireland Act); and systematically fractured through the Munster and Ulster Plantations; the state-enacted expropriation of native land settled by colonising undertakers, culminating in the catastrophic, genocidal Cromwellian Act for the Settlement of Ireland (1652).
Wales was militarily subjugated under Edward I in 1282 (Statute of Rhuddlan 1284) with its native sovereign line violently extinguished. Its territory was annexed to the English legal structure by the Henrician statutes of 1535 and 1542 (27 Hen. VIII c. 26 and 34 & 35 Hen. VIII c. 26). These statutes liquidated Welsh customary law and mandated the English tongue as the exclusive language of courts, judicature, and public office.
The English Transatlantic Plantation Complex was expanding into an expansive mercantile network with Virginia (1607), Massachusetts (1620), the chattel-slavery plantation model in Barbados (1627), and Jamaica, seized from Spain by Oliver Cromwell's Western Design armada in 1655. Through the Navigation Acts (1651, 1660, and 1663), the English Parliament legally cordoned off this entire transatlantic basin into an exclusive mercantilist monopoly, legally confining shipping, warehousing, and customs revenues strictly to English ports and English vessels.
The East India Company, chartered by Elizabeth I in 1600, operated by 1706 as an armed, corporate state-within-a-state across Madras, Bombay, and Calcutta. Crucially, the East India Company was an English corporation by and in law; chartered exclusively by the English Crown, answering to English statutes, and serving English domestic merchant-capital. Scots were legally proscribed and excluded from its monopoly. They were permitted into its ranks only after their own ancient kingdom had been colonised and illegally incorporated into the English colonial state structure; the classical dynamic of an imperial/colonial metropole opening a junior administrative promotion ladder to pacify the political classes of an annexed territory.
The primary instrument running through this entire trajectory of English expansion was the extractive unequal treaty. Across five centuries, the English state deployed legal compacts to systematically disarm and absorb polities marked for conquest; from Irish Gaelic chieftains under the "surrender and regrant" pacts of the 1540s, to Indian nawabs, West African rulers, Māori chiefs, and Malay sultans. As established in contemporary decolonial jurisprudence (from Antony Anghie to C.H. Alexandrowicz), these instruments were never bilateral partnerships between equals. They were legalistic weapons engineered to extract sovereign title, drafted in metropolitan vocabularies the subject nation was prevented from enforcing, promising reciprocal commercial partnership while executing unilateral administrative and fiscal subjugation.
The Treaty of Allahabad (1765) is the archetypal manifestation of this English colonial methodology. Under its bilateral articles and its accompanying Imperial Farman, the highest binding sovereign edict in Mughal constitutional law, the defeated Mughal Emperor Shah Alam II and the Nawab of Awadh were coerced into granting the diwani, the sovereign prerogative to assess and collect the entire territorial revenues of Bengal, Bihar, and Orissa, directly to the East India Company.
Both the Treaty and the imperial decree explicitly defined the extracting party not under any vague supranational banner, but as the "English Company", since that was what it was, an English company.
Article 1 of the Treaty of Allahabad (signed 16 August 1765) established:
"A perpetual and universal peace, sincere friendship, and firm union shall be established between His Highness Sujah-ul-Dowlah and his heirs, on the one part, and His Majesty Shah Aulum, and the English Company on the other..."
Four days earlier, on 12 August 1765, the Imperial Farman of the Dewanny, an irrevocable, binding constitutional edict issued under the imperial seal of the Mughal sovereign, had executed the fiscal transfer to that same corporate entity:
"At this happy time our royal Firmaund, indispensably requiring obedience, is issued; that, in consideration of the attachment of the high and mighty, the noblest of exalted nobles, the chief of illustrious warriors, our well-beloved and worthy of our royal favours, the English Company... we have granted them the Dewanny of the Provinces of Bengal, Bahar, and Orissa, from the beginning of the Fussel Rubby of the Bengal year 1172, as a free gift and ultumgau... It is required, that the said Company do exert their endeavours in the diligence of the whole of the affairs of that Subahship, and the promoting of them; that they settle the revenues of the Provinces, and collect them under their own management..."
On paper, it was framed as an administrative fiscal delegacy and mutual alliance with a commercial enterprise; in material reality, it was the catastrophic transfer of the wealth of Asia's richest province to an English corporate machine, reducing the sovereign Emperor to a salaried dependent in his own occupied capital. Nowhere did the text contain the word "colonisation" or “English colonialism”. That’s precisely what colonial legal texts are manufactured to disguise.
Scotland’s 1706-1707 Treaty and Articles of Union belong entirely to this genre of colonial extraction. What the English state executed at Allahabad in 1765 through the East India company had already been designed and field-tested in Edinburgh in 1707; an instrument christened a "Treaty" and a “Union” between two sovereign states that delivered the wholesale annexation of the Scottish kingdom into the continuous legal and parliamentary framework of the English colonial state.
The Client King and the Illusion of the Crowns
The territorial absorption of Scotland was attempted several times by the English Crown. The first two failed on the battlefield.
Edward I (the Plantagenet King of England known as "Hammer of the Scots") attempted dynastic absorption under the Treaty of Birgham (1290) by arranging the marriage of his son, Prince Edward (later Edward II), to Margaret, the Maid of Norway; the three-year-old Norwegian-born granddaughter of King Alexander III and sole recognised heir to the Scottish Crown. Her sudden death in Orkney in September 1290 en route to Scotland collapsed the dynastic pact, triggering a disputed succession that Edward I exploited to claim feudal overlordship over Scotland, unleashing three decades of English invasions, military garrisons, and the First War of Scottish Independence (1296-1328); a national struggle against English military occupation led by William Wallace, Andrew Moray, and Robert the Bruce, culminating in the decisive Scottish victory at Bannockburn (1314) and England’s formal recognition of Scottish sovereignty under the Treaty of Edinburgh-Northampton (1328).
Two and a half centuries later, Henry VIII pursued the identical objective of territorial annexation. Under the Treaty of Greenwich (1543), he demanded the marriage of the infant Mary, Queen of Scots (crowned at nine months old) to his six-year-old heir, Prince Edward (later Edward VI). When the sovereign Scottish Estates formally repudiated the treaty to preserve national independence and renewed the Auld Alliance with France, the English Crown dispatched the Earl of Hertford to execute the scorched-earth terror campaigns known as the Rough Wooing (1544-1551), burning Edinburgh, sacking Leith, and razing the Border abbeys (Melrose, Dryburgh, Kelso, and Jedburgh) to bludgeon the kingdom into submission.
Marriage or direct military invasion; the English geopolitical imperative remained constant, pursued through whichever instrument lay closest to hand.
The third attempt succeeded because it was bought.
Beginning in 1586, under the Treaty of Berwick, Elizabeth I placed King James VI of Scotland on a secret, permanent English Treasury retainer; disbursing a documented £58,500 sterling over sixteen years. This pension was paid directly through London and intentionally withheld, delayed, or reduced whenever the Scottish Crown pursued policies independent of English state interests. The strategic calculus was laid bare in 1580 by the English ambassador to Edinburgh, Robert Bowes. English money was best concentrated directly upon the Scottish King, making him financially subservient to the English Crown and binding the Scottish nobility to London through royal patronage, ensuring that no domestic or diplomatic act of consequence could occur in Scotland without England’s prior knowledge and consent.
From May 1601, James VI conducted secret negotiations for the English succession with Elizabeth’s principal secretary, Sir Robert Cecil, in encrypted correspondence concealed from Elizabeth herself. By the time James rode south to London in 1603, the King of Scots had spent seventeen unbroken years as a paid client of the English state.
This is the dynastic transfer colonial historiography terms the Union of the Crowns; one of the most deceptive pieces of constitutional obfuscation in European history.
There was no "union of crowns," because in constitutional law the two crowns represented mutually incompatible concepts of sovereignty.
In English constitutional doctrine, rooted in absolute monarchical prerogative and Henrician imperial statutes, the Crown is the person of the monarch, the singular font and origin of absolute sovereign power (Rex est imperator in regno suo).
In Scots constitutional law, codified in the Declaration of Arbroath (1320) and enacted in the Claim of Right Act 1689, the Crown represents the community of the realm. The monarch holds conditional, delegated executive authority solely on the sufferance of the sovereign people, ruling strictly according to the kingdom's fundamental laws and constitutions, and subject to lawful deposition if that compact is broken.
A popular, communal sovereignty and an imperial royal prerogative cannot merge. What occurred in 1603 was a dynastic union of persons; one individual simultaneously holding two separate, constitutionally irreconcilable offices.
It removed the operational executive of the Scottish state from Scottish soil. James VI returned north exactly once during his remaining twenty-two years of life, boasting to the English Parliament in 1607 that he governed Scotland from London "with my pen". From 1603 onward, the strategic administration of the Scottish kingdom was directed from the capital of the very colonial power that had spent centuries seeking its destruction.
The Cromwellian Rehearsal
Within living memory of the parliamentarians who assembled in Edinburgh in 1706, the English state had already demonstrated what it was prepared to execute by direct military terror.
In 1650, following the execution of Charles I in London without Scottish consultation, the Scottish Parliament asserted its constitutional sovereignty by proclaiming his son Charles II as King of Scots (under the Stuart dynastic claim to the crowns of Scotland, England, and Ireland). In response, Oliver Cromwell led the English New Model Army, the heavily militarised, ideologically driven standing force of the English Commonwealth, across the Tweed to extinguish Scottish sovereign independence.
Cromwellian forces shattered Scottish Covenanting armies at the Battle of Dunbar (1650) and routed royalist resistance at the Battle of Worcester (1651). English troops occupied Edinburgh, sacked and massacred Dundee under General George Monck, and seized Perth. To enforce permanent military pacification, the occupying administration erected a chain of massive, star-shaped colonial citadels at Leith, Ayr, Inverness, Perth, and Inverlochy; imposing direct military rule through an English Council of State.
Following the defeat of Scottish forces at Worcester, Oliver Cromwell’s regime imposed political absorption by force rather than negotiation:
Ø The Coerced "Tender of Union" (1652): English parliamentary commissioners summoned representatives from Scotland's burghs (towns) and shires (counties) to Dalkeith Castle. They were ordered to accept total incorporation into the English Commonwealth. Refusal meant military occupation, heavy fines, and the confiscation of estates. With the country occupied and defeated, a majority complied under duress.
Ø Dissolution of the Estates: The sovereign Parliament of Scotland (the Three Estates) was barred from sitting and dissolved by English military force.
Ø The Ordinance of Union (1654): Enacted unilaterally by Oliver Cromwell’s Council of State in London, this decree declared Scotland merged into the English Commonwealth and Protectorate.
Scotland's first incorporating union was not a treaty between nations, but an annexation imposed by an occupying military power under threat of economic ruin and martial violence.
At Dunbar some 5,000 Scottish prisoners were force-marched south under lethal conditions and held at Durham Cathedral, where around 1,700 died of disease, exposure and starvation; Worcester the following year yielded thousands more. The survivors were systematically transported as indentured forced labour to English sugar plantations in Barbados and ironworks in Massachusetts.
The identical military apparatus, under the identical English general, executed the simultaneous invasion, mass dispossession, and plantation pacification of Ireland (1649-1653). The same army and the same structural violence were deployed across both nations; yet orthodox colonial historiography designates one as conquest while sanitizing the other as a constitutional prelude.
This forced Cromwellian incorporation collapsed with the 1660 Restoration of the Monarchy, when the restored Charles II repealed all Commonwealth ordinances, re-established Scotland's separate constitutional status, and reconvened the independent Parliament of Scotland. However, it indelibly imprinted three realities upon the Scottish political consciousness:
Ø The English colonial state could and would invade and garrison Scotland at will;
Ø Its national parliament could be dissolved by an English occupying army;
Ø Its sovereign people could be commodified and transported into the English colonial plantation complex.
This was the documented coercive reality of 1706; not a diplomatic negotiation between equal partners, but a compulsory incorporation demanded by an aggressive English colonial state that had invaded, occupied, destroyed and dissolved its northern neighbour two generations prior; whose naval warships were once again anchored within cannon shot of the Scottish capital.
The Coercive Triad of 1705-1707: Economic Strangulation, Military Deployment, and Covert Subversion
Decolonial state theory and historical jurisprudence identify a consistent apparatus deployed by colonial powers to force sovereign annexations without a formal declaration of war: economic asymmetric warfare, forward military coercion, and institutional bribery/intelligence penetration. Between 1705 and 1707, the English colonial state deployed this exact coercive triad against Scotland in coordinated sequence.
The Economic Weapon: The English Alien Act (1705)
To understand the passage of the 1706-1707 Treaty and Acts of Union, one must examine the legislative ultimatum that preceded it. The English statute known as the Alien Act 1705 (3 & 4 Ann. c. 6) was not a conventional piece of commercial regulation. It constituted a calibrated instrument of economic warfare designed to force the unconditional capitulation of a sovereign neighbour.
In 1703-1704, the Scottish Parliament asserted its constitutional independence. Scotland was still recovering from the collapse of the Darien Scheme; a national commercial venture deliberately crippled by English diplomatic blockades, Spanish naval hostility, and King William III’s royal proclamations strictly forbidding English colonies in Jamaica, Barbados, and the Americas from supplying food, water, or provisions to starving Scottish settlers.
Yet, contrary to an enduring colonial myth, Darien did not bankrupt the Scottish state. Scotland carried zero national debt. The fiscal crisis lay entirely in London. The English colonial state was buckling under a catastrophic £18 million sovereign debt run up to fund its continental and imperial campaigns. London desperately needed to incorporate Scotland for urgent fiscal-military expansion; first, to absorb Scottish tax revenues into its own indebted Treasury to expand English borrowing power; second, to secure Scottish manpower as frontline cannon fodder to drive the expansion of the English colonial empire.
Refusing to surrender its sovereignty to bail out English militarism, the Scottish Estates passed three landmark constitutional statutes:
Ø The Act of Security 1704: Declared that upon the death of Queen Anne without issue, the Scottish Estates would independently select a Protestant successor from the royal line of Scotland, who would not be the successor to the English throne (the House of Hanover) unless Scotland received binding, structural guarantees for its national sovereignty, parliamentary independence, religious freedom, and unfettered global trade.
Ø The Act Anent Peace and War 1703: Stripped the London-based monarch of the unilateral prerogative to drag Scotland into foreign conflicts without the explicit consent of the Scottish Parliament.
Ø The Wine Act 1703: Legalised trade with France, Scotland’s traditional ally under the Auld Alliance, in direct defiance of English wartime embargoes during the War of the Spanish Succession.
These statutes represented an intolerable threat to the English geopolitical architecture. Scotland was preparing to decouple the shared monarchy and exercise an independent foreign policy; breaking London’s mercantilist trade hegemony.
The English colonial state’s retaliation was instantaneous. Passed by the English Parliament in February 1705, the Alien Act (An Act for the Effectual Securing the Kingdom of England from the Apparent Dangers that may arise from Several Acts lately passed in the Parliament of Scotland) delivered an explicit economic and civil ultimatum. It decreed that unless Scotland accepted the Hanoverian succession or appointed commissioners to negotiate an incorporating union by 25 December 1705, every Scottish national living outside England would be classified as an alien in English law. This measure stripped Scots of fundamental civil protections and placed their property and landholdings across English territory under immediate threat of confiscation. It summarily nullified their legal rights established a century earlier in Calvin's Case (1608); the landmark English court ruling that had granted Scots born after the 1603 Union of the Crowns the status of natural-born English subjects with the right to hold and inherit land in England. Simultaneously, the statute imposed a total embargo across England and its colonial possessions on the importation of Scotland’s three primary economic arteries, which were cattle, linen, and coal.
The precision of this embargo was devastating. Cattle droving was Scotland’s primary source of foreign coin (specie) needed to settle balance-of-payments deficits. Linen was the nation’s foundational domestic manufacture, employing tens of thousands of rural weavers. Coal was the rising export of the Forth and Fife basins. The Alien Act targeted the core arteries of a Scottish economy already exhausted by the "Seven Ill Years" of famine in the 1690s and the loss of roughly a fifth of the nation's liquid capital in Darien; although once again the Scottish state had no debt.
Once the Scottish Parliament bowed to this duress in the autumn of 1705 and authorised the appointment of treaty commissioners, the English Parliament repealed the punitive clauses in November 1705 (4 & 5 Ann. c. 3).
In colonial jurisprudence, this represents the classical dynamic of blackmail diplomacy. A lethal weapon is brandished; the target capitulates; the weapon is lowered; but the existential threat remains permanently understood by every actor at the negotiating table. The repeal of the Alien Act was not an act of English magnanimity but concrete historical proof that the coercion had achieved its political objective.
The Military Weapon: Forward Strategic Deployment
The economic strangulation of Scotland was paired with a synchronized display of naval and land force. Coercion does not require the firing of artillery if the gun is visibly leveled at the chest of the legislature.
Throughout the parliamentary debates in Edinburgh, English naval warships, including fifth- and sixth-rate frigates, were stationed in the Firth of Forth within direct line-of-sight of the capital, severing Scottish maritime communications and patrolling the eastern seaboard under the pretext of coastal defence. On land, English army regiments under commanders including John Campbell, 2nd Duke of Argyll; Queen Anne's Commissioner to the 1705 session and simultaneously a serving major-general in the English army, the fusion of civil and military office being itself a colonial signature; and the Earl of Leven, commander-in-chief in Scotland, were ordered to concentrate along the Anglo-Scottish frontier at Berwick-upon-Tweed and Carlisle. Across the North Channel, English military forces under the Duke of Ormond were placed on high readiness in the ports of Ulster, positioning an invasion fleet at Carrickfergus capable of landing on the Ayrshire coast within twenty-four hours; a strategic invasion corridor etched into Scottish collective memory from the Cromwellian campaigns.
This deployment was deliberate (military) intimidation. The Scottish political class debated with the occupation of the 1650s in living memory, the English navy anchored off Leith, and regular regiments mobilised along the border. Under the foundational law of nations, an agreement signed under the imminent shadow of foreign military occupation cannot constitute free and lawful consent.
The Human Weapon: Intelligence Infiltration and Institutional Corruption
Operating beneath the economic embargo and the forward military deployment was a sophisticated English covert influence operation and institutional buyout. In 1706, Robert Harley, English Secretary of State and architect of the Crown’s intelligence network, dispatched Daniel Defoe to Edinburgh. Posing as an independent merchant and pamphleteer, Defoe was an English intelligence agent on the Crown’s payroll whose mission was to surveil anti-union factions, infiltrate the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, manipulate public sentiment through anonymous pro-union propaganda, and provide Harley with regular clandestine assessments of parliamentary resistance; functioning as an embedded asset of state-directed psychological warfare engineered to facilitate the constitutional elimination of a sovereign kingdom.
Alongside espionage ran direct fiscal co-optation. Under the institutional cover of the "Equivalent", a fund of £398,085 10s sterling nominally allocated to compensate Scotland for assuming a share of England’s national debt and to reimburse Darien Scheme investors, massive payouts were disbursed, while secret English Treasury funds totaling £20,540 17s 7d were transferred directly to Scottish peers and parliamentarians, most notably James Douglas, 2nd Duke of Queensberry, and James Ogilvy, 1st Earl of Seafield, to secure decisive ratification votes.
This was not a diplomatic negotiation between sovereign equals. It represented a tripartite colonial extraction operation; the economic threat of total ruin via the Alien Act; the direct threat of military conquest via the army on the Border and the fleet in the Forth; the systematic subversion of the Scottish political estate through English state espionage and direct financial corruption.
Scotland Refused, In Writing, Twenty Thousand Times
Orthodox Anglo-British historiography has long sustained a comforting metanarrative that the colonial Union of 1707 was a pragmatic, elite-negotiated transaction quietly acquiesced to by a passive populace. The archival record decisively dismantles this revisionism. The primary record demonstrates that the so-called Treaty of Union was enacted in the teeth of an unprecedented, nation-wide democratic mobilization against incorporation; constituting one of the earliest documented mass rejections of colonial annexation in modern constitutional history.
The Physical Evidence of National Rejection
Between October 1706 and January 1707, while the Scottish Parliament debated the draft articles in Edinburgh, it was inundated with 85 formal addresses submitted by 123 national, regional, and municipal bodies.
These were not synthetic or factional petitions. They represented the constitutional constituent bodies of the realm: shires, royal burghs, baronial burghs, presbyteries, parishes, and trade incorporations. They mobilized through the established, lawful channels of Scottish civic life; a sophisticated participatory culture rooted in the National Covenant of 1638 and explicitly protected by the Claim of Right Act 1689, which enacted the fundamental constitutional right of subjects to petition the Estates.
These addresses were subscribed by over 20,000 named individuals; a figure of immense political magnitude when placed in the material and demographic context of 18th century Scotland.
In 1706, Scotland’s total population stood at roughly one million, of whom only adult men were legally eligible to subscribe public political instruments. Furthermore, in an era before mass literacy, signing a parchment was not a casual act. For thousands of rural tenant farmers, weavers, and tradesmen, writing their own name was a rare, laborious, publicly binding commitment that risked direct economic reprisal from pro-incorporation landlords and masters.
Most critically, this mass mobilization dwarfed the sitting Scottish political establishment. The entire parliamentary electorate of Scotland; the exclusive landed and burgess oligarchy entitled to vote for the commissioners sitting in Parliament House; numbered fewer than 4,000 men. The 20,000 named citizens who formally recorded their refusal of national liquidation outnumbered the entire electorate of the Parliament that betrayed them by more than five to one, representing an unprecedented popular repudiation of an unelected political elite.
In her definitive scholarly edition, Addresses against Incorporating Union, 1706-1707 (Scottish History Society, 2018), Professor Karin Bowie of the University of Glasgow documented the profound social breadth preserved in the paper and parchment.
The manuscripts reveal deep, cross-class mobilization across Scotland’s diverse localities. Subscriptions span the entire social spectrum, from the fluid, ornate hands of landed lairds, advocates, and ministers to the shaky, unpracticed, elementary signatures of tenant farmers, weavers, smiths, and shoemakers.
Those unpracticed signatures are the core of the democratic record; representing ordinary working Scots for whom writing their own name was a rare, arduous physical labor, executed deliberately to place their formal, written refusal of national liquidation on the public record.
The addresses did not quibble over trade duties, salt taxes, or malt excises. Virtually every address explicitly rejected colonial incorporation and annexation in principle, demanding that the treaty be abandoned in its entirety. They raised constitutional, religious, economic, and sovereign objections, sparking an urgent national discourse on whether a sitting parliament possessed the lawful authority to alienate the sovereignty of the realm without the direct, explicit consent of the political nation.
This pre-union constitutional demand, articulated across Scotland in 1706, is the direct historical ancestor of the contemporary right of self-determination codified under Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). In modern international law this documented absence of popular consent carries decisive weight; though the legal ground on which it does so is set out below.
The Manifesto in the Manse: The Wylie Declaration
The theoretical coherence of this popular resistance found its sharpest constitutional expression in an archival document discovered among the Wodrow Papers in the National Library of Scotland; a draft manifesto for a national rising penned in late 1706 by Robert Wylie, minister of Hamilton parish (published by Bowie in The Scottish Historical Review, 2015).
Writing in the name of "the free people of Scotland", Wylie denied the legal competence of the Estates to extinguish the state. He demanded immediate general elections to return a parliament mandated to reflect national opinion on colonial incorporation. He also formulated the core Scottish constitutional thesis; that parliamentary commissioners held strictly delegated, fiduciary powers and utterly lacked the legal authority to alienate or transfer Scotland’s sovereignty without the direct consent of the Community of the Realm.
To anchor this assertion, Wylie explicitly quoted the foundational text of Scottish popular sovereignty, the Declaration of Arbroath (1320).
The conceptual architecture of modern Scottish constitutional assertion was fully synthesized in a Lanarkshire manse in the winter of 1706:
Ø Sovereignty is vested inherently in the people, not the Crown-in-Parliament;
Ø A representative body cannot surrender what it does not own;
Ø The constitutional lineage runs unbroken from Arbroath (1320) to the Claim of Right (1689), through Wylie’s Manifesto (1706), to the Claim of Right (1989), and to the United Nations Special Committee on Decolonization (C-24), the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and the international human rights treaty bodies today.
The Internal Confession: Sir John Clerk of Penicuik
A devastating indictment of the treaty's illegitimacy came from one of its principal architects. Sir John Clerk of Penicuik, an appointed Scottish Union Commissioner and an active participant in managing the legislation through the house, admitted in his private journals (Memoirs of the Life of Sir John Clerk of Penicuik, 1892) the total popular alienation of the project.
He observed that the Scottish public was consumed by fury, inflamed by anti-union tracts and pulpit sermons, and recorded the stark chasm separating the political class from the nation. Not even one per cent of the Scottish people approved of what Parliament was doing.
This is not a retroactive nationalist estimate. It shows the unvarnished contemporary confession of an English-backed commissioner acknowledging that 99% of the country he was helping to “legally” dissolve stood implacably opposed to the transaction.
Popular Insurrection and the Secret Ratification
The street reality confirmed Clerk’s private panic. Mass urban riots erupted across Edinburgh and Glasgow throughout late 1706, targeting the residences of pro-court peers. The Articles of Union were burned in public squares by armed assemblies at Dumfries and Stirling. Pro-treaty parliamentarians were assaulted, spat upon, and forced into hiding behind armed guards.
James Douglas, 2nd Duke of Queensberry, the Queen’s High Commissioner, could move through the streets of Edinburgh only inside a fortified, closed carriage surrounded by mounted dragoons.
The final act of this colonial transaction revealed its complete lack of legitimacy. The colonial Treaty of Union was not signed in open session before the nation.
Fearing physical assault from the enraged Edinburgh populace surrounding Parliament House, the commissioners retreated under armed escort to a cellar in Parliament Square, and ultimately to a summerhouse in the secluded gardens of Moray House in the Canongate, to secretly affix their signatures to the extinction of their own parliament under the cover of night.
No defender of the incorporating union has ever answered the plain fact. A supposedly enlightened, voluntary partnership between two sovereign nations was signed in hiding, in a cellar, by political managers who dared not face the sovereign people they purported to represent.
The Moment That Was Not Allowed to Happen: Constitutional Foreclosure and Procedural Nullification
Decolonial legal theory and comparative constitutional history demonstrate that imperial annexations do not rely solely on overt coercion. They depend equally upon procedural foreclosure, the deliberate suppression of domestic legal safeguards and representative mechanisms that would otherwise permit judicial review, constitutional challenge, or popular ratification.
In 1707, the English executive and its court managers executed this procedural shutdown through two calculated omissions; the suppression of the ancient constitutional firewall of the Act of Salvo, and the peremptory dissolution of the Estates to prevent the assembly of a sovereign Convention.
The Suppression of the Constitutional Firewall: Salvo Jure Cujuslibet
A foundational doctrine of Scots constitutional jurisprudence was the legislative mechanism known as the Act of Salvo (Actum Salvo Jure Cujuslibet, "an Act saving the right of everyone").
Historically appended to the conclusion of major parliamentary sessions (dating back to the 15th century and codified systematically throughout the 16th and 17th centuries, e.g., APS II, 40; APS VII, 206), the Act of Salvo functioned as a vital constitutional reservation. It stipulated that statutes enacted by the Estates could not silently extinguish, prejudice, or alienate the pre-existing private rights, jurisdictional liberties, or fundamental constitutional prerogatives of the constituent bodies and subjects of the realm without due process and express consent.
Under Scots law, the Salvo served as an indispensable substantive review mechanism. It ensured that parliamentary enactments remained justiciable and challengeable before the Court of Session against the unwritten and written constitutional bedrock of the kingdom, most notably the Claim of Right Act 1689. It established that a sitting parliament, operating as a delegated legislative body, could not unilaterally dismantle the constitutional rights of the Communitas Regni (the Community of the Realm).
In the passage of the Act of Ratification of the Treaty of Union on 16 January 1707 (APS XI, 406), the Crown managers deliberately omitted the traditional Act of Salvo.
This omission was a conscious act of legal neutralization. By suppressing the Salvo, the executive intentionally dismantled the domestic constitutional firewall through which the legality of the colonial, incorporating treaty could subsequently be challenged and tested under Scots private and public law.
The Aborted Sitting and the Extinction of the Convention of Estates
The second procedural suppression targeted the ultimate repository of Scottish national sovereignty; the assembly of the Three Estates itself.
As well exposed in Angry Pict’s blog on Substack, following the formal ratification of the treaty articles in early 1707, the Scottish Parliament was adjourned to 22 April 1707, scheduled for a final sitting prior to the designated commencement date of the Union on 1 May 1707. That scheduled sitting was never permitted to convene.
Instead, on 28 April 1707, Queen Anne issued a royal proclamation from Whitehall summarily dissolving the Parliament of Scotland.
This executive pre-emption was designed to eliminate a lethal constitutional risk to the incorporating union:
Ø The Distinction Between Parliament and Convention: In Scots constitutional law, most decisively exercised in 1560 and 1689, the Three Estates possessed the inherent power to assemble not merely as a Crown-summoned legislative parliament, but as a Convention of Estates (Conventus Ordinum).
Ø The Fiduciary Mandate: While a regular parliament was convoked by royal writ to conduct routine legislation and taxation, a Convention of Estates represented the sovereign Community of the Realm itself. It was the only constitutional organ competent to alter the fundamental law, declare the throne vacant, or determine the sovereign succession (as it had in the Claim of Right 1689).
Ø Foreclosing the People's Assembly: A freely assembled Convention in late April 1707, confronted by nationwide popular insurrections, the Wylie Manifesto, and over twenty thousand formal subscriber addresses rejecting annexation, retained the lawful power to declare that the Union commissioners had acted ultra vires, revoke their commissions, and rescind the articles of colonial incorporation prior to 1 May.
By unilaterally dissolving the Estates before they could reconstitute or debate their own extinction, the London executive systematically dismantled the sole constitutional body capable of authoritatively giving or withholding the sovereign consent of the Scottish nation.
The Anatomy of Legal Foreclosure
When these two deliberate omissions are synthesized, the imperial strategy becomes transparent. First, the internal legal remedy was blocked since the traditional Salvo Jure Cujuslibet was withheld, denying Scots law its constitutional instrument of judicial challenge. Second, the sovereign assembly was dispersed. The Three Estates were dissolved by royal decree before they could assemble to assert the sovereign will of the Community of the Realm.
These were not the measured actions of a constitutional order confident in the voluntary legitimacy of an international compact. They formed the calculated actions of a colonial, incorporating state systematically closing every lawful constitutional exit to impose an annexation under the cover of executive fiat.
Void by the Law of Its Own Century: The Tripartite Ground of Historical Nullity
In legal jurisprudence, the case against the colonial Treaty of Union must be formulated with precision. A common error among contemporary commentators is to ground the claim of nullity exclusively in modern instruments such as the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969). While Articles 51 (coercion of a state representative) and 52 (procurement of a treaty by the threat or use of force) accurately classify the mechanics of 1707, unionist jurists routinely invoke Article 4’s principle of non-retroactivity (lex retro non agit) to dismiss the challenge out of hand.
That dismissal fails because the case does not require modern instruments. Under the first branch of intertemporal law, which measures the validity of a juridical act by the legal standards of the era in which it was executed, the 1707 transaction was null and void ab initio under the European law of nations, domestic Scots constitutional law, and the established principles of contractual execution in force in the 18th century.
The Law of Nations (Jus Gentium) in 1707
By the opening of the 18th century, European international jurisprudence had established a codified doctrine governing the validity of treaties between sovereign states. In De Jure Belli ac Pacis (1625), Hugo Grotius established the foundational rule that promises extracted through unjust coercion or unlawful intimidation (metus injustus) create no binding moral or legal obligation on the compelled party. Samuel von Pufendorf reinforced this in De Jure Naturae et Gentium (1672), demonstrating that uncompelled consent is the substantive essence of any international treaty. An instrument procured through economic duress, bribery, or implied military violence is legally inert.
Codified across natural-law treatises and later synthesized by Emer de Vattel in Le Droit des Gens (1758), the doctrine of alienatio regni (the alienation, transfer, or surrender of the kingdom's sovereignty) held that national sovereignty is not the private patrimony of magistrates to alienate. Rulers and parliaments hold only delegated usufructuary administration. They possess no lawful authority to extinguish the state itself without the explicit, unanimous mandate of the constituent people. These principles formed the working jurisprudence of European chancelleries and guided international arbitration. They were central to Scots legal education through the foundational Institutions of the Law of Scotland (1681) by James Dalrymple, 1st Viscount Stair. In a devastating historical irony, given that the Dalrymple dynasty were arch-collaborators of the London Crown and architects of state violence, Stair’s own institutional text codified the civilian principle that obligations extracted through vis ac metus (force and fear), extortion, or duress are inherently null, effectively condemning the legal validity of the 1707 transaction under the regime's own foremost domestic authority.
Domestic Scots Constitutional Law: Ultra Vires and Nemo Dat
Beneath the European law of nations lay an independent domestic constitutional bar. Under the Claim of Right Act 1689, the fundamental constitutional settlement that served as an unalterable condition precedent to the legal authority of the Crown and any subsequent international compact, including the Treaty of Union, Scottish constitutional law established that sovereignty resided not in the Crown-in-Parliament, but in the Community of the Realm (Communitas Regni). The Three Estates formed a delegated, fiduciary legislature with the competence to enact statutes within the constitutional order of the kingdom, but with zero legal authority to abolish that constitutional order or extinguish the state itself.
Two foundational legal maxims govern this limitation. First, the doctrine of ultra vires dictates that a representative body acting outside its constitutional competence produces acts that are nullities in law, meaning that a procedural vote taken on a matter beyond the body's jurisdictional mandate (defectus potestatis) is legally void. Second, the ancient principle of nemo dat quod non habet means and dictates that no party can convey a title or right it does not own. The Scottish Estates did not own Scotland’s sovereignty. They were mere trustees exercising a delegated constitutional function. Just as a board of trustees cannot dissolve a trust for personal enrichment, the commissioners could not lawfully alienate the sovereignty of the Scottish people.
Fraud in Execution (Aliud Pro Alio): The Structural Breach
The third ground of invalidity rests on material breach and structural fraud. The Treaty and Articles of Union purported to establish a new, egalitarian successor state, the United Kingdom of Great Britain, dissolving the separate parliaments of both Scotland and England into a newly constituted sovereign assembly.
What was actually executed was an incorporating annexation. The English Parliament did not dissolve but continued sitting in Westminster, in its own chamber, governed by its existing standing orders, absorbing 45 Scottish MPs and 16 representative peers into a permanent, structurally outvoted minority of roughly one in twelve. English institutional law, English parliamentary procedure, the English line of Hanoverian succession, and the English coronation oath, which contained no recognition of Scottish popular sovereignty, continued unaltered.
The fundamental statutory conditions guaranteed to Scotland were breached almost immediately. The Treason Act 1708 (7 Ann. c. 21) unilaterally imposed English treason law upon Scotland, extinguishing Scots criminal procedure in direct violation of Article XIX’s protections for the Scottish legal system. The Church Patronage Act 1712 (10 Ann. c. 12) re-imposed lay patronage on the Church of Scotland, violating the Act for Securing the Protestant Religion and Presbyterian Church Government (1706), which the Treaty had incorporated as a fundamental and unalterable condition. Simultaneously, the Westminster House of Lords assumed appellate jurisdiction over the Court of Session, breaching Article XIX’s explicit statutory guarantee that Scottish causes would never be cognizable in English courts.
In civilian contract law and the law of nations, delivering a completely different instrument from what was negotiated (aliud pro alio) and systematically violating fundamental conditions constitutes fraud in execution (fraus in executione).
The constitutional verdict is clear. The 1707 incorporation fails across three independent, self-sufficient legal grounds with the total absence of lawful consent (vis ac metus) under economic embargo and military deployment; the absolute constitutional incompetence of the Estates (ultra vires and nemo dat) under Scots public law; and the structural fraud in execution (aliud pro alio) marked by immediate statutory breaches of its fundamental articles. Under the law of Scotland and the European Law of Nations as they stood in 1707, the transaction was void ab initio, a legal nullity from its inception.
It Is Still Void: The Peremptory Rule of Non-Prescription and the Doctrine of State Continuity
The standard defense mounted by metropolitan and colonial legalists is that three centuries of administrative consolidation have cured any historical defects in the 1707 colonial incorporation. International jurisprudence categorically rejects this presumption under the foundational peremptory maxim ex injuria jus non oritur (no legal right arises from an unlawful act). Time may normalize political asymmetry, but the mere passage of centuries cannot convert an illegal annexation into lawful sovereign title.
Under the second limb of intertemporal law formulated by Arbitrator Max Huber in the Island of Palmas case (1928), the continued manifestation of any right must conform to the contemporary evolution of international law. In modern international jurisprudence, the right of self-determination is recognized by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) as an inalienable, non-derogable peremptory norm (jus cogens) generating obligations erga omnes (owed to the international community as a whole). Under Article 64 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, any historical arrangement conflicting with an emerging peremptory norm becomes void and terminates. Sovereign title over a nation cannot be acquired through acquisitive prescription where popular consent was withheld at inception and denied thereafter.
20th century state practice and international adjudication provide unassailable precedents for this legal continuity.
The restoration of the illegally annexed Baltic Republics in 1991 is the decisive precedent of modern public international law. For over five decades, despite uninterrupted Soviet administrative, fiscal, and demographic control, the United States, the “United Kingdom”, and the wider international community maintained a strict policy of non-recognition under the Stimson Doctrine (the international law principle of non-recognition, obliging states to refuse diplomatic or legal recognition to any territorial acquisition, annexation, or treaty obtained through aggression, military threat, or coercion). When independence was recovered in 1991, the Baltic states did not emerge as new post-Soviet successor states. They resumed their pre-1940 legal personalities on the express foundation of state continuity (identical states), holding that their original de jure sovereignty had never been extinguished.
This principle of non-recognition has been consistently reinforced by the International Court of Justice. In the Namibia Advisory Opinion (1971), the ICJ ruled that South Africa’s prolonged, decades-long administrative occupation was unlawful and that all states were under a legal duty to refrain from any acts implying recognition of Pretoria's authority; confirming that continuous de facto administrative control cannot generate de jure sovereign title. In the East Timor Case (Portugal v. Australia, 1995), the ICJ affirmed that the right of self-determination has an erga omnes character that survived Indonesia's 1975 invasion and unilateral constitutional incorporation as its 27th province, paving the way for the full restoration of Timorese statehood in 2002. More recently, in the Chagos Archipelago Advisory Opinion (2019), the ICJ confirmed that historical arrangements executed by a colonial, administering power without the free and genuine expression of the will of the people fail to satisfy international legal standards of self-determination.
The doctrine synthesized across these authorities is clear. A void international act remains a legal nullity until the sovereign people freely and genuinely ratify the alienation of their sovereignty.
That lawful ratification has never occurred in Scotland. The 2014 referendum cannot be cited as a modern democratic validation of the 1707 colonial incorporation. The process was authorized via a section 30 order, framed, timed, and legally bounded by the Westminster Crown-in-Parliament, the exact constitutional authority whose territorial jurisdiction is the subject of legal challenge. In international law and international decolonial jurisprudence, a non-binding consultative ballot conducted entirely under the domestic license, franchise rules, and institutional veto of the administering power does not constitute the free exercise of external self-determination by a sovereign people. It represents an internal administrative procedure engineered by the occupying authority whose title is fundamentally contested.
Until the sovereign people of Scotland determine their constitutional status under their own domestic constitutional authority, rooted in the Claim of Right and the Communitas Regni, rather than by the permission of a foreign parliament, Scotland’s original, historic sovereignty remains legally unextinguished. This is not romantic rhetoric. It constitutes the precise legal mechanism by which Tallinn, Riga, and Vilnius sit today as the sovereign capitals of restored and continuous states.
Why None of This Was Really Known: Epistemic Erasure, the Colonial Archive, and the Emerging Counter-Narrative
The critical question is why this documented mass refusal on a nationwide scale, executed in a literate nation with a functioning press and deep civic institutions, remained largely unknown, buried, and unexposed for three centuries, to the point where generations of Scots first encounter it as an obscure (academic) footnote. Today, this archival reality is finally beginning to be exposed, yet dismantling centuries of deeply entrenched English colonial propaganda remains a monumental intellectual and political task.
In her scholarly edition, Karin Bowie articulates the institutional mechanics in a single sentence of devastating economy; because only a handful of these addresses has ever been printed, their significance has not been obvious to historians.
That single finding unlocks the wider machinery of imperial/colonial historiography.
As seen previously on this blog, in The Prose of Counter-Insurgency (1983), the Subaltern Studies theorist Ranajit Guha demonstrated that an imperial archive never records the authentic political agency of a subject population as legitimate politics. Instead, the metropolitan record recasts popular resistance as mere disorder, mob violence, religious fanaticism, or the fringe agitation of extremists. The colonized subject is systematically stripped of rational political intent within the state archive. Acknowledging genuine constitutional grievance would concede the illegitimacy of the imperial settlement itself. Guha’s critical insight is that subsequent generations of professional historians, reading those curated records through standard methods, reproduce the colonizer’s ideological framing as objective fact, operating entirely in good faith within orthodox academic institutions.
The Scottish case illustrates an even more efficient manifestation of this archival suppression. The popular refusal of 1706-1707 was not merely mischaracterized but systematically excluded from print culture altogether.
This erasure required no elaborate conspiracy. 18th and 19th century printing was heavily capitalized and controlled by a unionized establishment that had made its peace with the Anglo-British colonial apparatus. The physical addresses, bearing the authentic ink of over 20,000 living Scots, were entombed in unprinted manuscript bundles across parliamentary archives and private estate papers. Because academic historians predominantly work from indexed, accessible, printed materials, the orthodox narrative of 1707 was canonized across centuries as a polite, elite transaction; an enlightened parliamentary debate, an unfortunate element of political patronage, a pragmatic economic calculus, and a passively resigned populace. The mass mobilization of 20,000 named signatories vanished from public awareness simply because it was absent from the printed books from which national history was written and taught.
This documentary suppression directly mirrors the linguistic subjection of Scotland. Scots Gaelic was not merely proscribed through post-Culloden penal statutes. Gaelic was ideologically reframed as foreign and uncivilized long before those statutes were drafted. The Scots language was never formally banned. It was demoted within the schoolroom to provincial error and vulgar English. In the exact same manner, the nationwide constitutional refusal of 1706-1707 was never explicitly banned. It was simply left in manuscript, achieving absolute amnesia at zero political cost to the English colonial state. Another epistemicide as we have documented many times, suppressing a nation's knowledge systems and historical memory to prevent them from functioning as usable evidence of sovereign rights. Fanon diagnosed this exact psychological objective in The Wretched of the Earth. Colonialism is never satisfied merely with holding a people in its grip. By a perverse logic, it turns upon the past of the oppressed nation to distort, disfigure, and obscure it.
The strategic value of this manufactured amnesia is measured by the foundational colonial/imperial myths it enabled metropolitan propaganda to sustain across 300 years:
Ø That the Union was a voluntary, egalitarian partnership freely concluded between two consenting nations;
Ø That resistance to incorporation was confined to a seditious Jacobite fringe;
Ø That the Scottish populace was politically indifferent, illiterate, or devoid of mechanisms to articulate its sovereign will;
Ø That the corrupted Three Estates legitimately represented the democratic consensus of the nation.
Every pillar of that metropolitan mythology collapses upon direct contact with the archival record. A nation that mobilises on the scale set out above in four months; that erupts in urban insurrections across Edinburgh, Glasgow, Dumfries, and Stirling; whose clergy draft manifestos for national risings grounded explicitly in the Declaration of Arbroath; and whose parliamentarians are forced to sign their own dissolution in secret cellars and walled gardens under fear of popular retribution, was not a nation that consented.
It was a nation whose sovereign will was actively suppressed, coerced by forward military deployments, economic embargo, and covert intelligence warfare, and surrendered by a bought parliamentary oligarchy by a margin of just one hundred and ten votes to sixty-nine. As these long-suppressed primary sources finally emerge into the light, bringing this suppressed history from archival obscurity into public consciousness is the vital first step in breaking the enduring grip of imperial propaganda.
The Empire That Became British: Nomenclature Subversion and the Mechanics of Subaltern Co-optation
One structural consequence demands separate treatment, for it’s precisely where the Scottish condition converges with the broader global history of imperialism and colonialism, revealing the ideological architecture of the colonial project in a single institutional manoeuvre.
Prior to 1 May 1707, the overseas territories were explicitly, legally, and administratively English possessions. Ireland was an English dependency and colony under Poynings' Law (the 1494 statute that placed the Parliament of Ireland under the direct legislative control of the English Privy Council, barring it from passing any laws without prior approval from London). Virginia, Massachusetts, Barbados, and Jamaica were English crown dominions governed by the English Board of Trade. The Honourable East India Company was an exclusively English corporate monopoly operating under an English royal charter, governed by the Navigation Acts that barred Scottish ships, Scottish capital, and Scottish merchants under penalty of seizure and forfeiture.
After 1 May 1707, without a single acre of territory changing legal title, a single colonial administration restructuring its executive governance, or a single metropolitan policy altering its imperial trajectory, the entire apparatus was re-branded overnight as "British".
Nothing was pooled into a genuine egalitarian condominium. No English plantation or territorial holding was ceded to joint constitutional ownership. No autonomous Scottish national institution acquired an organic share in the sovereign administration of the colonies. What took place was a total semantic substitution; a change of nomenclature applied to the unilateral property and chartered corporations of the dominant, colonial metropole, executed immediately after that metropole had politically absorbed its northern neighbor.
The strategic efficacy of this renaming has been profound and durable. It enabled a subducted, annexed nation to be retrospectively enrolled, in global historiography and contemporary political discourse, entirely on the side of the colonial masters.
Following 1707, a small minority of Scots participated across the global imperial enterprise, like all colonised people, serving as frontline shock troops, district collectors, plantation managers, doctors, military engineers, surveyors, and mercantile factors. Yet, orthodox Anglo-British historiography routinely cites this participation as positive proof of a voluntary, egalitarian partnership, arguing that a people who administered an empire could not themselves have been colonized.
Comparative decolonial theory dismantles this false dichotomy completely. Colonial, metropolitan hegemony relies fundamentally on co-opting segments of the dominated population into the auxiliary administrative, military, and mercantile arms of the imperial machine.
This is the universal structural logic of indirect rule and sub-imperial recruitment. The imperial metropole extracts martial labour and managerial talent from impoverished peripheries by foreclosing domestic economic development and tying individual socio-economic survival to overseas service. Highland regiments, formed in the immediate wake of state-sanctioned cultural suppression and demographic clearances i.e. ethnic cleansing and genocide, were weaponized across the frontiers of North America, India, and Africa, functioning as imperial shock troops precisely because the domestic clan economy had been militaristically eradicated.
Sikh and Punjabi regiments formed the core military backbone that garrisoned British India; the King's African Rifles enforced colonial extraction across East Africa; while the Indian Civil Service was overwhelmingly staffed at operational levels by subaltern Indian administrators.
No serious political theorist or international jurist has ever argued that the extensive recruitment of Gurkhas, Sikhs, or African askaris proves that South Asia or Kenya were equal partners in the British Crown, or that their native territories were not colonized. We’ll come back to this topic in the future.
In classical colonial sociology, the provision of military manpower and sub-imperial bureaucrats by a dominated nation is the defining diagnostic marker of subaltern integration, evidence of the absolute completeness of its political subjection, not of its exemption.
The semantic transformation of the English Empire into the "British Empire" in 1707 was the masterstroke of colonial statecraft. It inverted the physical evidence of subjection into a moral alibi, binding the Scottish elite and professional classes to the London metropole through imperial careers, while ensuring that the English imperial apparatus externalized its administrative burdens and absorbed a historic kingdom into the machinery of global conquest.
What Was Done Elsewhere and What Was Undone: Comparative Decolonisation and the Global Jurisprudence of Rectification
The Scottish condition is neither unique nor legally isolated. When viewed through the lens of comparative international law and decolonial history, the 1707 colonial incorporation ceases to be an intractable domestic dilemma and takes its rightful place on the global docket of imperial annexations, unequal treaties, and suborned statehoods that the modern world has systematically exposed, confronted, litigated, and dismantled.
Ireland (1800): The Replicated Blueprint
The Act of Union 1800 with Ireland, with its first phrase stating the “Parliament of England”, was the direct operational sequel to 1707, deployed 93 years later by the exact same colonial apparatus. Following the brutal suppression of the 1798 United Irishmen rebellion, with the island under martial occupation, the Dublin Parliament was liquidated through the systematic disbursement of over £1.26 million in Treasury funds to purchase parliamentary borough owners, alongside the lavish distribution of peerages, civil offices, and pensions.
In contemporary historiography and international law, the Irish transaction is universally recognized for what it was; an imperial annexation engineered through financial corruption and military coercion. That the 1707 Scottish transaction, procured via the exact same combination of the Equivalent fund, covert Treasury bribery, border troop positioning, and naval blockades, is still romanticized in orthodox discourse as a "voluntary union" reflects nothing about historical fact, but everything about the persistence of colonial narrative control. More critically, Ireland proved that a manufactured parliamentary incorporation possesses no legal permanence. The Irish nation repudiated the transaction, declared its independence in 1919, and systematically dismantled the union.
India (1765-1947): The Jurisprudence of Suborned Sovereignty
Across South Asia, the English East India Company and the English Crown constructed an extensive architecture of quasi-legal instruments designed to extract indigenous sovereignty under the polite fiction of bilateral consent. From the Treaty of Allahabad (1765), which extracted the Diwani (the sovereign right to collect fiscal revenues and administer civil justice) under military duress, to the “Subsidiary Alliance System” (the English East India Company policy formulated by Lord Wellesley where Indian princely rulers were forced to disband their own standing armies, pay for a permanently stationed English military garrison, accept an English Resident at court, and surrender all control over their foreign relations in exchange for nominal internal protection) and Lord Dalhousie’s Doctrine of Lapse (the unilateral imperial policy declaring that any princely state whose ruler died without a direct natural heir automatically escheated to the English Crown), sovereign prerogatives were alienated through manipulated legalism rather than outright declarations of war.
Modern international law and global historiography now teach the repudiation of these instruments as the foundational paradigm of decolonization, proving that sovereignty extracted through unequal legal mechanics remains a nullity that time cannot legitimize.
Aotearoa New Zealand (1840): The Non-Prescription of Discrepant Treaties
The constitutional settlement of Aotearoa New Zealand provides a direct Common Law and Commonwealth precedent for resolving historical treaty defects. The Treaty of Waitangi (1840) was executed across two linguistic texts. The English text purported to transfer absolute sovereignty, whereas the Māori text in te reo Māori conveyed only kāwanatanga (governance), explicitly reserving to the indigenous chiefs their tino rangatiratanga (unqualified, hereditary chieftainship and self-determination over their lands and people).
Crucially, modern jurisprudence has established that historical imperial assertions cannot extinguish underlying indigenous sovereignty. Through the Waitangi Tribunal, a permanent statutory commission of inquiry established by the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, the state judicially determined in its landmark 2014 report (Wai 1040) that the northern rangatira (chiefs) who signed the treaty in February 1840 did not cede their sovereignty. The contemporary principle is now firmly embedded in Commonwealth jurisprudence. An unequal foundational compact whose terms violated the genuine understanding and consent of the signatories is never settled by the mere passage of centuries, but remains open to binding legal rectification.
Hawaiʻi (1893-1898): The Parallel of the Twenty Thousand Signatures
The historical and material parallel that must command immediate Scottish attention is the illegal overthrow and annexation of the Kingdom of Hawaiʻi. In 1893, Queen Liliʻuokalani was deposed through a coup engineered by American sugar oligarchs backed by the unauthorized armed landing of United States Marines from the USS Boston. When the annexationists failed to secure the necessary two-thirds treaty ratification in the United States Senate due to profound domestic and international opposition, President William McKinley annexed the sovereign island kingdom via a simple domestic joint resolution of Congress (The Newlands Resolution of 1898), an internal municipal act lacking any lawful international jurisdiction over a foreign sovereign nation.
The decisive historical evidence of Hawaiian national resistance mirrors the Scottish archival record with breathtaking numerical precision. In 1897, Native Hawaiians organized the Hui Aloha ʻĀina (the Hawaiian Patriotic League, a nationwide political civic movement founded in 1893 to preserve Hawaiian sovereignty and restore the monarchy) and mobilized the Kūʻē Petitions (Palapala Hoopii Kue Hoohuiaina, the formal petitions of protest against annexation submitted to the United States government).
The Kūʻē Petitions contained over 21,000 verified signatures of Native Hawaiian men and women; representing more than half of the total indigenous population then surviving. Over a century later, these physical petitions were recovered from the US National Archives in 1997 by Hawaiian scholar Noenoe Silva, sparking a profound constitutional awakening. This archival unearthing directly informed the United States Public Law 103-150 (The Apology Resolution of 1993), in which the United States Congress formally acknowledged that the indigenous people of Hawaiʻi never directly relinquished their inherent sovereignty, and that the overthrow occurred in direct violation of international law.
The comparative symmetry is absolute:
Ø Hawaiʻi (1897): 21,000 registered signatures opposing annexation out of a population of forty thousand.
Ø Scotland (1706-1707): Over 20,000 registered signatures on 85 addresses opposing incorporating union out of an electorate of fewer than 4,000.
In Hawaiʻi, those 21,000 signatures are displayed in national exhibitions, taught across university curricula, and cited in international petitions to the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. In Scotland, the 20,000 signatures remained buried in unprinted manuscripts for over 300 years, emerging only in a scholarly edition in 2018 that orthodox political discourse has desperately tried to ignore.
Every argument deployed to legitimize the incorporation of Scotland; that the treaty is ancient, that administrative practice creates sovereign title, that elite signatures bind a nation in perpetuity, that historical injustices cannot be challenged in modern law; has been thoroughly repudiated across the international arena. From Dublin to Delhi, and from Wellington to Honolulu, the modern international legal order recognizes that an imperial acquisition engineered through fraud, force, and the suppression of popular consent is not a permanent constitutional settlement. It’s an open, unrectified violation of the universal right of self-determination awaiting its formal international resolution.
What Follows: Empirical Evidence, Unbroken Lineage, and the Coercive Continuum
From this decolonial, postcolonial, archival, and legal excavation flow three structural conclusions; none of which are rhetorical, and all of which carry decisive force in international public law.
The Question of Consent Is Settled on the Primary Record
The sovereign legitimacy of the “British” constitutional settlement has always rested upon a singular foundational proposition, that the ancient Kingdom of Scotland entered into an incorporating union through free and voluntary consent.
The primary archival record permanently dismantles that myth. The historical evidence proves that the Treaty of Union was enacted by a bought legislative oligarchy operating under immediate naval interdiction in the Firth of Forth, border troop concentrations at Berwick and Carlisle, and an invasion armada assembled in Ulster; coerced by the trade embargo and alien-status ultimatum of 1705; subverted from within by an embedded English intelligence asset managing psychological warfare; enacted in direct defiance of the documented refusal of the constituted communities of the realm; met by urban insurrection in four major burghs and an armed national rising drafted in the pulpit; stripped of the ancient Act of Salvo firewall; finalized through the summary dissolution of the Three Estates to prevent a sovereign Convention from assembling; and secretly signed in a hidden cellar by political managers who dared not face the people they claimed to represent; while an appointed Scottish treaty commissioner privately admitted that less than 1% of the nation approved.
Whatever that transaction was, in Scots constitutional law, European civilian jurisprudence, and modern public international law, it was not consent but a non-consensual colonial incorporation, void ab initio for want of lawful authority (ultra vires), absence of consent (vis ac metus), and fraud in execution (aliud pro alio).
The Constitutional Lineage Is Indigenous, Continuous, and Unanswered
The decolonial case against colonial incorporation and annexation is neither a modern theoretical invention nor a borrowed framework. It was fully formulated in 1706 by Robert Wylie, who grounded the doctrine of popular sovereignty directly in the Declaration of Arbroath (1320), establishing that parliamentary commissioners possessed no lawful authority to alienate the sovereignty of the Community of the Realm (alienatio regni).
The lineage set out above (Arbroath to the Claim of Right of 1689, to Wylie, to the Claim of Right of 1989) remains the bedrock of Scotland's contemporary submissions before the C-24, the International Court of Justice, and the human rights treaty bodies. It has never been lawfully answered, superseded, or extinguished.
The Violence Did Not End at Ratification. It Began There
The signature on the parchment in 1707 was not the conclusion of a conflict. It was the institutional inception of a comprehensive military, fiscal, cultural, socio-economic and political apparatus engineered to enforce by violence what the law could not legitimize.
The subsequent three centuries constitute an uninterrupted continuum of colonial pacification and structural extraction with:
Ø The immediate imposition of the Treason Act 1708 to criminalize constitutional resistance under foreign English statute;
Ø The militarization of the Gàidhealtachd through the Disarming Acts (1716, 1725, 1746) and the Heritable Jurisdictions (Scotland) Act 1746, stripping the indigenous polity of its ancient legal autonomy;
Ø The construction of four regional mega-garrisons and over 400 military fortifications connected by more than 2,000 kilometers of Hanoverian military roads designed specifically for rapid counter-insurgency deployment;
Ø The state-directed terror orchestrated by Prince William Augustus, Duke of Cumberland, across three documented phases: battlefield slaughter, indiscriminate civilian pacification, and total socio-economic destruction;
Ø The statutory cultural destruction enacted under the Act of Proscription 1746, which criminalized Highland dress, possession of weapons, the teaching of Gaelic, and the gathering of communities, coupled with the systematic anglicization of ancestral family names;
Ø The state repression of the 1820 Radical War, executing and transporting weavers and workers demanding a Scottish national assembly and economic justice;
Ø The domestic military deployment of English troops, artillery, and six Mark VIII tanks into George Square and the Gallowgate Cattle Market in Glasgow on 31 January 1919 to crush working-class industrial self-determination;
Ø The permanent imposition of the colonial United Kingdom's continuous-at-sea nuclear strike apparatus (Trident) on the Firth of Clyde; stationing weapons of mass destruction within 25 miles of Scotland's largest population center in direct defiance of the Scottish electorate and its democratic institutions.
The colonial Treaty of Union was never an instrument that settled a peace. It was an instrument forged in imperial intimidation, imposed through corruption, sustained across three centuries by systemic military, legal, political and economic enforcement. Under the peremptory norms of modern international law, that coercive continuum remains what it was in 1707: legally void, politically contested, and awaiting its complete decolonial rectification.
Coda: The Hands. Material Agency and the Unbroken Record
Let’s return, in the final analysis, to the physical objects themselves.
85 surviving manuscripts. 123 legally constituted civic, baronial, and ecclesiastical communities. Over 20,000 individual human beings who affixed their signatures and marks to paper and parchment in the final, fraught months of their kingdom's independent constitutional existence. They signed knowing the full weight of the colonial machinery advancing upon them and they recorded their absolute refusal nonetheless; convening in burgh chambers in Dumfries, parish kirks throughout Lanarkshire, craft guilds in Stirling, and trade incorporations across Perth.
Some wrote with the fluid, practiced hand of town clerks, merchants, and jurists accustomed to the daily commerce of the law. Others shaped their names slowly, laboriously letter by letter, or guided the quill to make their mark upon documents that were carried across winter roads to Parliament House in Edinburgh, formally tabled into the parliamentary register, and then deliberately locked away from the printing presses for three hundred and eleven years.
They were overruled. The compromised parliamentary oligarchy ratified the treaty. The sovereign kingdom was liquidated on paper, the English fleet anchored in the Forth, and the Crown managers affixed their signatures to the instruments of dissolution in secret cellars and private enclosures to evade the fury of the streets.
Yet, the signatories remain on the parchment. Every single name, every parish affiliation, every trade guild, and every mark survived the physical decay of the centuries. The archival manuscript has broken through into typographic permanence. It’s fully published, cross-referenced, verified, and accessible to the world.
A dominated nation is told, above every other myth of colonial historiography, that it was a willing partner; that it consented to its own political erasure. It represents the central, load-bearing falsehood of every colonial incorporation in modern history. The myth endures only so long as the resistance of the people remains buried in manuscript while the self-serving ratification of the conqueror is stamped in gold.
Scotland’s constitutional refusal is no longer buried in manuscript. The primary record stands exposed. The material evidence is entered into the international register and the living claim of the Community of the Realm remains sovereign, uncompromised, and unextinguished.
Read Liberation Scotland's Colonial Markers documentation.
References
Act Anent Peace and War 1703 (Scotland). APS XI, 107; c. 5.
Act for Securing the Protestant Religion and Presbyterian Church Government 1706 (Scotland). APS XI, 402-403; c. 6.
Act of Security 1704 (Scotland). Act for the Security of the Kingdom. APS XI, 136-137; c. 3.
Acts of the Parliaments of Scotland (APS). Actum Salvo Jure Cujuslibet, 1424-1707; see especially APS VII, 206 and APS XI, 406.
Aitchison, C. U. (ed.) (1909). A Collection of Treaties, Engagements and Sanads Relating to India and Neighbouring Countries, vol. I. Calcutta: Superintendent of Government Printing. Contains the English and Persian texts of the Imperial Farman of the Dewanny, 12 August 1765, pp. 225-227.
Alexandrowicz, C. H. (1967). An Introduction to the History of the Law of Nations in the East Indies. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Alien Act 1705 (England). An Act for the Effectual Securing the Kingdom of England from the Apparent Dangers that may arise from Several Acts lately passed in the Parliament of Scotland, 3 & 4 Ann. c. 6.
Aliens Act (Repeal) 1705 (England). 4 & 5 Ann. c. 3.
Anghie, Antony (2005). Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Angry Pict. The Line of Struggle (Substack), especially Annexation I–IV, 2025.
Armitage, David (2000). The Ideological Origins of the British Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Black, Robert, KC (2025). Presentation at the Liberation Scotland/IPLSA Conference, Palais des Nations, Geneva, 18 September 2025.
Bowes, R. (1842). The Correspondence of Robert Bowes of Aske, Ambassador of Queen Elizabeth in the Court of Scotland, ed. J. Stevenson. Surtees Society, vol. 14.
Bowie, Karin (2007). Scottish Public Opinion and the Anglo-Scottish Union, 1699–1707. Woodbridge: Boydell Press for the Royal Historical Society.
Bowie, Karin (2015). "A 1706 Manifesto for an Armed Rising Against Incorporating Union." Scottish Historical Review, 94(2), pp. 237-267.
Bowie, Karin (ed.) (2018). Addresses Against Incorporating Union, 1706-1707. Woodbridge: Boydell Press for the Scottish History Society, fifth series vol. 16. ISBN 9780906245439.
Bowie, Karin (2018). "From Customary to Constitutional Right: The Right to Petition in Scotland Before the 1707 Act of Union." Parliaments, Estates and Representation, 38(3), pp. 279-292.
Bowie, Karin (2020). Public Opinion in Early Modern Scotland, c.1560-1707. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Church Patronage (Scotland) Act 1712. 10 Ann. c. 12.
Claim of Right Act 1689 (Scotland). Act Declaring the Rights and Liberties of the Subject. APS IX, 38–40; c. 28.
Claim of Right for Scotland (1989). Scottish Constitutional Convention.
Clerk of Penicuik, Sir John (1892). Memoirs of the Life of Sir John Clerk of Penicuik, 1676-1755, ed. J. M. Gray. Edinburgh: Scottish History Society, vol. 13.
Crawford, James (2006). The Creation of States in International Law, 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Crown of Ireland Act 1541 (Ireland). 33 Hen. VIII c. 1.
Declaration of Arbroath (1320). National Records of Scotland, SP13/7.
Defoe, Daniel (1709). The History of the Union of Great Britain. Edinburgh: Heirs of Andrew Anderson.
Defoe, Daniel (1955). The Letters of Daniel Defoe, ed. G. H. Healey. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Intelligence despatches to Robert Harley from Edinburgh, 1706–07.
Devine, T. M. (1999). The Scottish Nation: A Modern History. London: Allen Lane; rev. edn London: Penguin, 2012.
Dow, F. D. (1979). Cromwellian Scotland 1651-1660. Edinburgh: John Donald.
East Timor (Portugal v. Australia), ICJ Judgment, 30 June 1995. ICJ Reports 1995, p. 90.
Erskine, John (1773). An Institute of the Law of Scotland. Edinburgh: John Bell. Book I, title I, §16 on the Act of Salvo.
Fanon, Frantz (1952). Peau noire, masques blancs. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.
Fanon, Frantz (1961). Les Damnés de la Terre. Paris: François Maspero. Ch. 4, "Sur la culture nationale."
Ferguson, William (1964). "The Making of the Treaty of Union of 1707." Scottish Historical Review, 43(136), pp. 89-110.
Ferguson, William (1977). Scotland's Relations with England: A Survey to 1707. Edinburgh: John Donald.
Geoghegan, Patrick M. (1999). The Irish Act of Union: A Study in High Politics, 1798-1801. Dublin: Gill & Macmillan.
Great Britain, House of Commons (1772-73). Reports from the Committee of Secrecy Appointed to Enquire into the State of the East India Company. Reproduces the articles of the Treaty of Allahabad, 1765.
Grotius, Hugo (1625). De Jure Belli ac Pacis Libri Tres. Paris: Nicolas Buon. Book II, ch. XI.
Guha, Ranajit (1983). "The Prose of Counter-Insurgency." In R. Guha (ed.), Subaltern Studies II. Delhi: Oxford University Press, pp. 1-42.
Guha, Ranajit (1997). Dominance without Hegemony: History and Power in Colonial India. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Insh, George Pratt (1932). The Company of Scotland Trading to Africa and the Indies. London: Charles Scribner's Sons.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966). Article 1.
Island of Palmas (Netherlands v. USA), Permanent Court of Arbitration, Award of Max Huber, 4 April 1928. RIAA II, p. 829.
Lauterpacht, Hersch (1947). Recognition in International Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Laws in Wales Acts 1535 and 1542. 27 Hen. VIII c. 26; 34 & 35 Hen. VIII c. 26.
Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia, ICJ Advisory Opinion, 21 June 1971. ICJ Reports 1971, p. 16.
Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965, ICJ Advisory Opinion, 25 February 2019. ICJ Reports 2019, p. 95.
Levack, Brian P. (1987). The Formation of the British State: England, Scotland, and the Union 1603-1707. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Liberation Scotland Committee (2025). The Markers of a Colonized Nation: Scotland's Colonial Markers.
Lockhart of Carnwath, George (1714). Memoirs Concerning the Affairs of Scotland. London: J. Baker.
Macinnes, Allan I. (1996). Clanship, Commerce and the House of Stuart, 1603-1788. East Linton: Tuckwell Press.
Macinnes, Allan I. (2007). Union and Empire: The Making of the United Kingdom in 1707. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mälksoo, Lauri (2003). Illegal Annexation and State Continuity: The Case of the Incorporation of the Baltic States by the USSR. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff.
Memmi, Albert (1957). Portrait du colonisé, précédé du Portrait du colonisateur. Paris: Buchet-Chastel.
National Library of Scotland. Wodrow Papers, Quarto LXXV, no. 59; manuscript of the Wylie manifesto, 1706.
National Records of Scotland. Parliamentary Records of Scotland, PA7/20; original addresses, petitions and subscriber rolls presented to the Estates, October 1706 - January 1707.
Navigation Acts 1651, 1660 (12 Cha. II c. 18) and 1663 (15 Cha. II c. 7).
Ordinance of Union 1654. An Ordinance for uniting Scotland into one Commonwealth with England, 12 April 1654. Acts and Ordinances of the Interregnum, 1642-1660.
Pittock, Murray (2016). Culloden. Great Battles series. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Poynings' Law 1494 (Ireland). 10 Hen. VII c. 4.
Pufendorf, Samuel von (1672). De Jure Naturae et Gentium Libri Octo. Lund: Adam Junghans. Book III, ch. VI.
Rait, Robert S. (1924). The Parliaments of Scotland. Glasgow: Maclehose, Jackson & Co.
Riley, P. W. J. (1978). The Union of England and Scotland: A Study in Anglo-Scottish Politics of the Eighteenth Century. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Rymer, Thomas (ed.) (1713). Foedera, Conventiones, Literae, et Cujuscunque Generis Acta Publica, vol. XV. London: A. & J. Churchill. Treaty of Berwick (1586), pp. 803-809.
Said, Edward W. (1993). Culture and Imperialism. London: Chatto & Windus.
Sai, David Keanu (2008). The American Occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom. PhD dissertation, University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa.
Salyers, Sara. Statement quoted in Angry Pict, Annexation IV, 2025.
Santos, Boaventura de Sousa (2014). Epistemologies of the South: Justice Against Epistemicide. Boulder: Paradigm.
Scott, James C. (1990). Domination and the Arts of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Silva, Noenoe K. (2004). Aloha Betrayed: Native Hawaiian Resistance to American Empire. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Spivak, Gayatri Chakravorty (1988). "Can the Subaltern Speak?" In C. Nelson and L. Grossberg (eds), Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, pp. 271-313.
Stair, James Dalrymple, 1st Viscount (1681). The Institutions of the Law of Scotland. Edinburgh: Heir of Andrew Anderson. Book I, title IX, on vis ac metus.
Statute of Rhuddlan 1284. 12 Edw. I.
Terry, Charles Sanford (1905). The Scottish Parliament: Its Constitution and Procedure, 1603–1707. Glasgow: James MacLehose and Sons.
Treason Act 1708. 7 Ann. c. 21.
Union with England Act 1707 (Scotland). APS XI, 406-414; c. 7.
Union with Scotland Act 1706 (England). 6 Ann. c. 11.
United States Congress (1993). Public Law 103-150, Apology Resolution, 107 Stat. 1510.
Vattel, Emer de (1758). Le Droit des Gens, ou Principes de la Loi Naturelle. Neuchâtel. Book I, ch. IV §34; Book II, ch. XII.
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969). Articles 4, 51, 52, 64.
Waitangi Tribunal (2014). He Whakaputanga me te Tiriti / The Declaration and the Treaty: Report on Stage 1 of the Te Paparahi o Te Raki Inquiry (Wai 1040). Lower Hutt: Legislation Direct.
Whatley, Christopher A., with Derek J. Patrick (2006). The Scots and the Union. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Wine Act 1703 (Scotland). APS XI, 112; c. 13.
Member discussion