One of the most curious independence campaigns of recent years is the initiative to have Scotland classified as a colony and placed under a UN-supervised process of decolonisation. Led by the group Liberation Scotland, the campaign argues that Scotland meets all the criteria of a colony and, armed with petitions and research into the early days of the Union with England, they have taken their case to the United Nations.
In an exercise of dogged determination, Liberation have gathered thousands of signatures without the support of any significant political party. Some of their work on the history of the Union is actually quite fascinating, and the input from Professor Robert Black in particular underlines how Scotland was effectively subsumed into an ongoing English state. Whether any of this matters to the UN, and whether it is relevant to a contemporary understanding of colonisation, is another question entirely.
So what are their objectives — and do they have any chance of success? The first thing to note is that the event in Geneva wasn’t a UN hearing or an appearance at any UN committee. It was a meeting organised by Liberation at the UN building to coincide with the 2025 UN Human Rights Congress. It was not part of any official agenda or endorsed by the UN.
Liberation’s real goal is to have Scotland recognised by the UN Special Committee on Decolonisation (the C24) and included on the list of ‘Non-Self-Governing Territories’. That list, however, is dominated by overseas territories such as the Falklands, New Caledonia and Western Sahara. To add Scotland would require support from UN member states and a positive General Assembly vote — a task of Everest proportions.
The biggest obstacle is obvious: it would be unprecedented for a modern, advanced part of Western Europe to be treated as a colony. The C24 almost always deals with overseas dependencies, and adding Scotland would be fiercely resisted. Then there is the UK. For any of this to proceed, the UK’s cooperation would be essential — and London insists Scotland is an integral part of the Union within its own constitutional arrangements. It is hard to see the UK ever being a willing partner in this exercise.
Even if Scotland were somehow added to the list, independence would not be guaranteed. Instead, there would be years of UN monitoring, visits, negotiations and assessments. And at every stage, progress would depend on the goodwill of the UK. Liberation’s attempt to bypass Westminster’s veto would, ironically, create multiple new veto opportunities for the UK. This process could well take longer than securing any Section 30.
Then there is the very idea of Scotland as a colony. This is at best a highly contested assertion, and one that sits uneasily with many, if not most Scots. It would certainly come as a surprise to nations with genuine colonial histories, not least because many Scots were enthusiastic participants in empire and colonial plunder. The street names in the Merchant City in Glasgow or the many statues in our institutions testify to that.
Most people associate colonisation with military rule, racial oppression and brutal economic extraction. However much Westminster might appear to behave as a colonial power towards us, Scotland’s situation is a world away from that reality. For many Scots, the suggestion that we are colonised is fanciful and unrelated to their everyday experience. Liberation’s response to this is to assert that we are trapped in a “colonial mindset”, unable to see our true condition and in need of Liberation Scotland to open our eyes through decolonising re-education. In their view, even the SNP and Scottish Government are hapless collaborators in colonisation. It is at this point we begin to stray into uncomfortable territory and risk alienating the very people we hope to persuade.
In truth, Scotland’s independence will only ever come by the civic route: through the belief that we are best governed by the people who live and work here. That means the hard work of persuasion, not shortcuts and dead ends through Geneva. After losing the 2014 referendum, the road was always going to be ten times harder. There are no quick fixes, and no substitute for building a majority at home.
New ideas to break the constitutional logjam should always be considered, but they must be scrutinised and assessed for their value to our cause. While this is an interesting exercise, it falls short on many counts and could severely damage our case. At the end of the day, Scotland’s future will only ever be decided when a clear majority of Scots vote for independence.