Gus Maclean

Now classified as an extremist, by that little dipsh-t in Westminster. Alba gu bràth! Dipsh-t gone and another one in, still an extremist.

[Ron Wilson 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 🇺🇦 @TartanSeer]

Of course 'Scottish Labour' is not a party but a regional adjunct, utterly dependent upon the English/UK party for funding and political reach.

[Angry Pict @SymbolStones]

Burnham may have opened a much larger constitutional can of worms than he realises.

The immediate question raised by The National is obvious enough: if the UK is genuinely a "voluntary union", any written constitution must explain how one of its constituent nations can leave.

But that's only the first problem.

Before Burnham can write a constitution, he must establish who has the authority to write it, who the constituent parties are, where sovereignty lies, and whose consent is required to bind Scotland.

A constitution can't simply be handed down by Westminster as though Scotland were merely another devolved administrative region. That would not create a voluntary union. It would simply codify Westminster's existing claim to supremacy.

Nor can Burnham escape the problem by putting the constitution to a single UK-wide vote. That would allow England's numerical majority to impose a constitutional settlement upon Scotland and Wales, abandoning any meaningful claim that the UK is a union of nations.

If, on the other hand, Scotland must consent separately as Scotland, then Scotland is being recognised as a constituent constitutional people. Once that's admitted, the right to withhold consent - and ultimately to withdraw it - becomes very difficult to deny.

Liberation Scotland has therefore correctly identified the question lying behind the exit clause:

By what authority could Burnham bind Scotland into a new written constitution at all?

Is he proposing merely to codify the existing UK? If so, he must explain the legal basis upon which Westminster claims unlimited authority over Scotland, the continuity of the English Crown-in-Parliament, and how an arrangement in which Scotland's Parliament was extinguished while England's continued can honestly be described as an equal and voluntary union.

Is he proposing to replace the existing settlement with a genuinely new British unitary state? If so, that requires fresh constituent consent from the Scottish people. Westminster can't manufacture that consent for them.

Or is he proposing a new multinational constitutional compact? If so, Scotland and Wales must be treated as constituent nations rather than regions, with protected constitutional status, powers of consent and a defined route of withdrawal.

There is no harmless option.

Codification would also force the British state to explain why Northern Ireland already possesses a defined constitutional route out of the UK, while Scotland and Wales remain dependent upon Westminster’s permission. A "voluntary union" cannot coherently mean treaty-backed consent in one territory and indefinite central discretion in another.

The deeper danger is that a written constitution would convert the UK’s carefully maintained ambiguities into legally examinable propositions. Words such as "voluntary", 'union", "nation", "consent" and "sovereignty" could no longer remain empty political rhetoric. They would have to be defined.

And once defined, they could be tested.

Burnham would therefore have to choose between parliamentary supremacy, a single British popular sovereign, or the constituent sovereignty of the nations. He can't have all three.

That is why this is potentially far more dangerous to the Anglo-British state than a debate about devolution or an exit clause.

The exit clause is downstream.

The foundational question is whether the British state can demonstrate any lawful constituent authority to bind Scotland into a new constitution without Scotland first consenting as a sovereign people.

Burnham cannot write a constitution for the existing UK without deciding whether he is codifying an annexation, replacing it with a new unitary state, or negotiating a new multinational compact.

The first exposes the defect.

The second requires Scottish consent.

The third recognises Scotland’s constituent sovereignty.

Bring it on.

[Harry Eccles @Heccles94]

Can we please pick a health secretary that isn’t bought and owned by private lobbyists?

[MSM Monitor @msm_monitor]

BBC BritNat had an item on party accounts tonight. Andrew Kerr mentioned Peter Murrell SIX times and gave an update on SNP membership & finances. A cursory mention of the *English* Greens, Tories & Reform followed. Scottish Labour? Ignored. Members? No idea. Finances? Same.

[Mikey @MikeyTheBuddie]

How old were National five pupils when the Scottish referendum took place, @JoaniReid?

When will they get a chance to vote on their future?

Or you so complacent and arrogant thay you think their opinions don’t matter?

[wullieforindy(extremist)🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🤝🇪🇺🤝🇺🇦 @iammockatory]

Sizewell B in Suffolk uses approx 800,000 litres of fresh water per day.

You would think that would be an incentive for the UK government to force the privatised water companies to fix their leaking water nextworks,

But no..they want to siphon 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿,s

https://t.co/i0kHlVVNEe

[Rab @RabfaeKillie1]

No Buckingham Palace , No Tower of London , No Windsor etc etc.
Scotland is a major attraction .
Time to make us the Republic of Scotland a reality.

#scotland #indyref #indyref2 #snp #republic #endtheunion

[Talking-up Scotland @ProfJWR]

Bias by the omission of really good news for Scotland - Record university places for Scots students and acceptances for most deprived young people at new high which also understates the true numbers https://t.co/iCZ9iG41YT

[MSM Monitor @msm_monitor]

Two very positive stories this week about Scotland. The Glasgow Commonwealth Games and the exam results. BBC Scotland tried to rubbish the first and couldn't wait to drop the second, after keeping the positive aspects to a bare minimum.

[MSM Monitor @msm_monitor]

This is far more serious than folk realise. Scots pay for the BBC. It's meant to be our national broadcaster. But there's growing evidence the BBC tried to implicitly sabotage the Glasgow Commonwealth Games by ensuring no free live coverage and a negative pre-Games narrative.

This goes beyond political bias. It hits at the heart of the role of the BBC in Scotland and the justification for the TV licence. The Glasgow Games, like any similar national event, reflected Scottish national pride in itself and how we engage with the international community. The vast majority of Scots, many children from low income households, were denied a lifetime memory experience.

The BBC found money to broadcast the Bundesliga live. It's found money to pay for the Birmingham European Athletics Championship. Yet its bid for the Glasgow Games was so low it's been described as derisory and one Games' organisers could not seriously entertain.

This was a slap in the face for all Scots. Not just those who support independence.

The BBC has never been Scottish. It's a London controlled broadcaster. However, it's also never been considered anti-Scottish. That changed with the 2026 Glasgow Games.

[Ross Colquhoun @rosscolquhoun]

A wee film we prepared earlier about how Westminster squandered Scotland’s energy wealth. And it’ll happen again if we let them.

[Sovereign 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿👑 @SovereignBain]

After more than thirty years of war, blood, and betrayal, Scotland finally won the one thing it had bled for: to be recognised as free.
The wars of independence had begun in the 1290s with Edward I of England trying to swallow Scotland whole. Through the long dark years that followed came Wallace and his betrayal, the rise of Robert the Bruce, the triumph at Bannockburn in 1314, and years more of grinding conflict. Bruce won victory after victory, yet England still would not formally admit what everyone could see, that Scotland was its own kingdom under its own king.
Then, in 1328, it came. In the Treaty of Edinburgh and Northampton, the English crown at last recognised Scotland as a fully independent and sovereign nation, and Robert the Bruce as its rightful king. The old claim of overlordship was renounced. On paper, and in law, the thing that Wallace had died for and Bruce had fought his whole life to secure was finally real.
For Bruce, it was the crowning achievement of a lifetime. He was ageing and ill by then, worn down by decades of war, and he would live only a year more. But he died a king recognised, ruling a country acknowledged as free, something that had seemed impossible in the desperate days when he was a hunted fugitive with a price on his head.
The peace did not last forever. War would return in later generations. But the principle had been won and could never be fully unmade. Scotland had shown that a small nation, against a far greater power, could endure, resist, and prevail if it refused to give in.
That is the inheritance in the blood. Not that we never suffered, but that we never surrendered our right to be ourselves. Freedom, hard won, and never freely given,
🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿👑⚔️🗡️🩸🔥🧬

[Wokerati Marty @WokeratiMarty]

Andy Burnham says he wants to release low-risk female prisoners early.

I suggest he starts with these three women from Palestine Action who were jailed as “terrorists” for trying to stop the mass murder of children in Gaza.

[🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿DavoM🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 @Davo_Mack]

The only job created has been Anas Sarwar got into the Lords tells you everything

[Talking-up Scotland @ProfJWR]

Contrary to Jackie Baillie's lies, Scottish Government will deliver a new Monklands hospital but at a fair price for taxpayers https://t.co/wvFDh4PLo3

[Parody Nigel Farage @Parody_PM]

"I said it's a bold move by Reform to use the Navy to return migrants. What did I say Roy?"
"You said it's an unworkable load of bollocks designed to win back some racist numbskulls from Rupert Lowe and distract attention from Farage's £5m bung"

[Rex Kwon Do @RexKwonDo_]

Labour in Scotland tearing itself apart because Sarwar ran away to the lords.

Did the BBC Scotland Sunday show cover it?

Nope.

Labour are still being protected.

[Dischord @Prae54Rae]

I recommend yoons listen to these EngNats discuss our North Sea resources. They want to keep drilling and tax the revenue. What’s new, they’ve been doing it for decades. The thieves are stealing your children’s legacy!!!!

PS What ever happened to the useless ‘GB Energy’ Shanks?