Recovering Scotland's suppressed history. Tracking the Line of Struggle.
Fortriu
Joined March 2019
- Tweets8.4K
- Following2.1K
- Followers2.8K
- Likes11.1K
Pinned Tweet
Now live: George Buchanan and the Constitution Scotland Lost
Scotland didn't simply lose a Parliament in 1707.
It lost the sovereign institutions through which a distinct constitutional tradition — rooted in popular authority, fundamental law and conditional government — could continue developing independently.
This article traces that tradition through Buchanan, the wider European constitutional world, the Claim of Right, and the constitutional schism of 1707.
What Scottish popular sovereignty actually meant — and what was interrupted in 1707.
angrypict.substack.com/p/geo…
Angry Pict retweeted
A must read for Scots looking to understand our history and constitutional laws. 👍
In 1707 Scotland didn't just lose a Parliament. It lost the sovereign institutions through which a very different constitutional tradition had developed - one in which rulers were created for the community, bound by law, and could lose their authority if they broke its fundamental conditions.
That tradition didn't disappear.
It was cut off from its independent institutional development, and much of its history was subsequently buried beneath a very different story of parliamentary sovereignty.
Tomorrow (28 October) on Substack:
George Buchanan and the Constitution Scotland Lost
What Scottish popular sovereignty actually meant - and what was interrupted in 1707.
Angry Pict retweeted
Now live: George Buchanan and the Constitution Scotland Lost
Scotland didn't simply lose a Parliament in 1707.
It lost the sovereign institutions through which a distinct constitutional tradition — rooted in popular authority, fundamental law and conditional government — could continue developing independently.
This article traces that tradition through Buchanan, the wider European constitutional world, the Claim of Right, and the constitutional schism of 1707.
What Scottish popular sovereignty actually meant — and what was interrupted in 1707.
angrypict.substack.com/p/geo…
Angry Pict retweeted
In 1707 Scotland didn't just lose a Parliament. It lost the sovereign institutions through which a very different constitutional tradition had developed - one in which rulers were created for the community, bound by law, and could lose their authority if they broke its fundamental conditions.
That tradition didn't disappear.
It was cut off from its independent institutional development, and much of its history was subsequently buried beneath a very different story of parliamentary sovereignty.
Tomorrow (28 October) on Substack:
George Buchanan and the Constitution Scotland Lost
What Scottish popular sovereignty actually meant - and what was interrupted in 1707.
Angry Pict retweeted
Fascinating
Cc everyone who ever wrote an essay on Thomas Hobbes
Now live: George Buchanan and the Constitution Scotland Lost
Scotland didn't simply lose a Parliament in 1707.
It lost the sovereign institutions through which a distinct constitutional tradition — rooted in popular authority, fundamental law and conditional government — could continue developing independently.
This article traces that tradition through Buchanan, the wider European constitutional world, the Claim of Right, and the constitutional schism of 1707.
What Scottish popular sovereignty actually meant — and what was interrupted in 1707.
angrypict.substack.com/p/geo…
Angry Pict retweeted
Please retweet.
In 1707 Scotland didn't just lose a Parliament. It lost the sovereign institutions through which a very different constitutional tradition had developed - one in which rulers were created for the community, bound by law, and could lose their authority if they broke its fundamental conditions.
That tradition didn't disappear.
It was cut off from its independent institutional development, and much of its history was subsequently buried beneath a very different story of parliamentary sovereignty.
Tomorrow (28 October) on Substack:
George Buchanan and the Constitution Scotland Lost
What Scottish popular sovereignty actually meant - and what was interrupted in 1707.
Angry Pict retweeted
Please retweet.
"The monarch existed for the benefit of the political community. The community did not exist for the benefit of the monarch."
"If the monarch derived authority from law, and law derived its authority from the political community, the monarch could not be the ultimate source of that power."
"A ruler who became a tyrant through fundamental breach could be treated as a public enemy."
"Scotland didn’t simply lose a Parliament in 1707. It lost the autonomous sovereign institutions through which a distinct constitutional tradition, with deep medieval roots, a long pre-1707 development and close connections to European political thought, could continue developing as the constitution of an independent state."
angrypict.substack.com/p/geo…
Angry Pict retweeted
Now live: George Buchanan and the Constitution Scotland Lost
Scotland didn't simply lose a Parliament in 1707.
It lost the sovereign institutions through which a distinct constitutional tradition — rooted in popular authority, fundamental law and conditional government — could continue developing independently.
This article traces that tradition through Buchanan, the wider European constitutional world, the Claim of Right, and the constitutional schism of 1707.
What Scottish popular sovereignty actually meant — and what was interrupted in 1707.
angrypict.substack.com/p/geo…
Angry Pict retweeted
Please retweet.
Now live: George Buchanan and the Constitution Scotland Lost
Scotland didn't simply lose a Parliament in 1707.
It lost the sovereign institutions through which a distinct constitutional tradition — rooted in popular authority, fundamental law and conditional government — could continue developing independently.
This article traces that tradition through Buchanan, the wider European constitutional world, the Claim of Right, and the constitutional schism of 1707.
What Scottish popular sovereignty actually meant — and what was interrupted in 1707.
angrypict.substack.com/p/geo…
In 1707 Scotland didn't just lose a Parliament. It lost the sovereign institutions through which a very different constitutional tradition had developed - one in which rulers were created for the community, bound by law, and could lose their authority if they broke its fundamental conditions.
That tradition didn't disappear.
It was cut off from its independent institutional development, and much of its history was subsequently buried beneath a very different story of parliamentary sovereignty.
Tomorrow (28 October) on Substack:
George Buchanan and the Constitution Scotland Lost
What Scottish popular sovereignty actually meant - and what was interrupted in 1707.
Now live. 👇
Now live: George Buchanan and the Constitution Scotland Lost
Scotland didn't simply lose a Parliament in 1707.
It lost the sovereign institutions through which a distinct constitutional tradition — rooted in popular authority, fundamental law and conditional government — could continue developing independently.
This article traces that tradition through Buchanan, the wider European constitutional world, the Claim of Right, and the constitutional schism of 1707.
What Scottish popular sovereignty actually meant — and what was interrupted in 1707.
angrypict.substack.com/p/geo…
"The monarch existed for the benefit of the political community. The community did not exist for the benefit of the monarch."
"If the monarch derived authority from law, and law derived its authority from the political community, the monarch could not be the ultimate source of that power."
"A ruler who became a tyrant through fundamental breach could be treated as a public enemy."
"Scotland didn’t simply lose a Parliament in 1707. It lost the autonomous sovereign institutions through which a distinct constitutional tradition, with deep medieval roots, a long pre-1707 development and close connections to European political thought, could continue developing as the constitution of an independent state."
angrypict.substack.com/p/geo…
Angry Pict retweeted
The Judicial Murders of the Scottish Radicals, hung & beheaded under English Treason Laws via English Courts & process but held in Scotland to make an example of our people & all illegal, unlawful, exemplary of colonial process & all a massive breach of the Treaty & Acts of Union
Angry Pict retweeted
The (English-as-British) Crown utilized a special commission of Oyer and Terminer, an extraordinary English administrative device used to fast track indictments. It is entirely foreign to the Scots legal system, prioritising its own self imposed English procedure over Scottish law. Replacing local legal experts with an imported unqualified political prosecutor reduced the courtroom to a colonial tribunal.
Angry Pict retweeted
👇👇👇👇👇👇👇
In 1309 Scotland's clergy said Robert Bruce was made king "by their authority."
In 1320, Arbroath declared that a king who betrayed the realm's freedom could be removed.
In Scotland the monarch didn't stand above the realm.
New on Substack: By Their Authority
angrypict.substack.com/p/by-…
Angry Pict retweeted
Look forward to a real history lesson for us Scots.
If your interested in learning about our true history, constitution and culture then the Angry pict is a good place to start.
In 1707 Scotland didn't just lose a Parliament. It lost the sovereign institutions through which a very different constitutional tradition had developed - one in which rulers were created for the community, bound by law, and could lose their authority if they broke its fundamental conditions.
That tradition didn't disappear.
It was cut off from its independent institutional development, and much of its history was subsequently buried beneath a very different story of parliamentary sovereignty.
Tomorrow (28 October) on Substack:
George Buchanan and the Constitution Scotland Lost
What Scottish popular sovereignty actually meant - and what was interrupted in 1707.
Angry Pict retweeted
👀👇🏴✊
In 1707 Scotland didn't just lose a Parliament. It lost the sovereign institutions through which a very different constitutional tradition had developed - one in which rulers were created for the community, bound by law, and could lose their authority if they broke its fundamental conditions.
That tradition didn't disappear.
It was cut off from its independent institutional development, and much of its history was subsequently buried beneath a very different story of parliamentary sovereignty.
Tomorrow (28 October) on Substack:
George Buchanan and the Constitution Scotland Lost
What Scottish popular sovereignty actually meant - and what was interrupted in 1707.
Angry Pict retweeted
I remember being told the same, whilst under occupation by a foreign nation and being taught to accept that I was British. 50 years later, the same claim is being advanced to new generations.
The colonisation of the mind at a young age is the extraction classes most powerful weapon.
#SovereignScots #BhonBhunait
Angry Pict retweeted
Links would be appreciated.
It’s really not good enough to gloss over everything that @LiberationScot @decolonise_Scot @SymbolStones @EoinJMartainn and Professor Alf Baird have done to make the case (proved as far as I’m concerned, for what it is worth) and spout invective. Either seriously engage in the dialectic (rigorous means of investigating/discovering the truth of something) or remain silent. It reflects ill on Robin McAlpine that he dismisses Liberation Scotland et al so easily without justifying himself. He is influential within the Scots sovereignty movement. For now, his opinion matters, but without a robust defence of his position or an acknowledgment of our colonisation his credibility should and ultimately will wane on this foundational issue.
Angry Pict retweeted
A discussion with a ‘Unionist’, the lesser spotted colonised mind. He thinks that over half the Scots in Scotland are fenian sympathisers when less than one in 7 Scots is catholic. He can’t see that most independence supporters are of a Protestant tradition and that they can see what he is blind to: we are a colonised people. Scotlands struggle isn’t sectarian, but colonial.
No ‘separatist’ is your term.
I could easily call you an apologist for annexation, not a Unionist. They’re just epithets used to get a point across. But what is the truth? Have you looked properly?
I dislike the British State as it has robbed Scotland blind for 319 years. Has killed or transported large numbers of our people, about 4,000,000 in total. Imposed English law over Scotland and the English Crown over The Scottish Crown. It has never implemented the terms of the Treaty of Union. I know these are facts because I have the evidence. You think it’s a sectarian struggle because that’s what you’ve been told and believe without looking at the contrary information.
You think you are a Unionist and part of the British Empire but the English treat us like second-class (Protestants and catholics alike) citizens and laugh up their sleeves that they’ve convinced some of us we’re part of the club.
Look properly and don’t come back to me until you do. It’s all there. Go ask an AI the right questions and it’ll give you the right answers.
Or you can carry on as you are. Just go ‘bbbaaaahhhh’ and follow the arse in front of you.