05/09/2026
Not a 'union of the crowns'.👑❌️
That term is reserved for what is known as a 'personal union', a common enough occurrence of the day, where the same monarch takes lifetime possession of two entirely different Crowns, those Crowns remaining unchanged.
That occurred in 1603, and was repeated a further five times prior to the 1707 Treaty of Union. What the latter stipulated, purporting to give what followed constitutional authority, was a full-blown *merger*, or melding, of those Crowns into one single Crown, the Crown of Great Britain. It is this which never occurred
No Crown merger = separate Crown territories (i.e. Kingdoms).
Further question: what today, therefore, IS united about those Kingdoms, the existence of their territorial boundaries witnessed by the very act of their shifting? No more, and arguably even less than the unity of the personal unions that arose between 1603 and 1707, since, after 1714, no monarch has ever held the Scottish Crown. There has since that day been no King or Queen of Scots. Of course, the two un-united Kingdoms (note the supreme irony) have a unity of political control, the self-awarded absolute power of a London parliament. But what does that amount to? Complete subjugation of one people by another: annexation, colonisation, unilateral boundary-shifting at will, and the relentless resource extraction which is the ultimate purpose of not just the English, but all the world's past and present imperial endeavours.
-Liberation Scotland Committee🏴💙
