While Westminster continues to stall any new referendum, a Scottish campaign group is quietly working international channels to keep the dream of independence alive.
Operating outside party lines but with a clear nationalist purpose, Scotland-UN is building a case for self-determination — not just for Scots, but for the rest of the world to hear.
The pitch: Scotland, a nation without a voice
Scotland-UN doesn’t have an office in New York or Geneva. But make no mistake — they’re speaking to the world.
Through think pieces, legal arguments, and direct engagement with foreign officials and human rights lawyers, the group is targeting global institutions where self-determination is taken seriously. They’re not waiting for Downing Street’s blessing.
It’s a move born of frustration. Years of roadblocks to a second independence vote have left many in the movement wondering what else can be done. Scotland-UN’s answer? Take it global.
From dusty archives to global principles
You wouldn’t expect international advocacy to start in the National Library of Scotland. But that’s exactly where the groundwork was laid.
Researchers and legal advisors poured over treaties, decolonisation papers, and case law stretching back to the UN Charter of 1945. What they found gave them hope — and an angle.
They argue Scotland already meets the test of a people with a right to self-determination. And crucially, that the UK government is now acting as a block, not a facilitator, of democratic will.
One senior source from within the campaign told The Herald: “This isn’t about waving flags. It’s about applying the same international standards to Scotland as would be applied anywhere else in the world.”
Legal muscle and moral pressure
It’s not just about PR — there’s legal firepower behind it too.
Scotland-UN has been in contact with lawyers who’ve worked on international tribunals, UN special rapporteurs, and constitutional scholars from Europe, Africa, and Latin America. They’re drawing parallels between Scotland and former territories denied self-rule by central governments.
At the heart of the legal argument is this: the 2014 referendum was granted by mutual agreement. But that consent, campaigners say, has been withdrawn unilaterally by Westminster — despite successive mandates for a new vote in Holyrood.
That, they argue, isn’t just unfair. It may breach international law.
Quiet meetings, bold claims
You won’t find this campaign splashed across billboards or buses. Instead, they’re playing a quieter, more strategic game — one meeting, one paper, one forum at a time.
Among the international activities confirmed:
-
Confidential briefings with officials from several European countries
-
Submissions to UN human rights bodies
-
Talks with academics and legal experts from Canada, Spain, and South Africa
-
Collaboration with indigenous and stateless groups pressing similar claims
One key organiser said, “We’re not here to beg anyone to support us. We’re here to make people aware — Scotland is a democracy, being held back by another democracy.”
A tightrope for the SNP — and the wider Yes movement
For the SNP, the rise of Scotland-UN presents both an opportunity and a dilemma.
On one hand, it broadens the campaign. It brings independence into places Holyrood can’t always reach. But on the other hand, it risks straying off-message — especially when it comes to legal arguments that the UK government may see as hostile or even inflammatory.
First Minister Humza Yousaf has praised international engagement efforts before, especially during his time as justice secretary. But he’s also walking a fine line. Any mention of international courts or foreign pressure can be spun by opponents as unpatriotic or even reckless.
That tension matters. Because for all the moral weight the global community can offer, Scotland’s independence — if it happens — still has to be won at home.
Is anyone listening?
That’s the million-pound question.
The international community is full of polite nods and quiet sympathy. But will it ever mean more than that?
History suggests it could — under the right conditions. Cases like East Timor, Quebec, and even Kosovo show that international awareness can shift outcomes, particularly when domestic routes are blocked.
But Scotland isn’t a colony. It’s a devolved nation within a recognised democracy. That makes the case trickier — and the road far longer.
Still, there are glimmers.
In 2022, the UN Human Rights Committee acknowledged that the denial of a referendum, where a democratic mandate exists, may raise issues under Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It wasn’t a ruling. But it wasn’t nothing either.
Beyond independence — reframing the narrative
Scotland-UN doesn’t just want to convince the world that Scotland should be independent. They want to change how people talk about it.
Instead of focusing on currency, oil, or EU membership, they’re pushing a different lens: democracy, consent, and international fairness.
That’s resonated in some circles, especially post-Brexit. The idea that Scotland voted to stay in the EU but was taken out anyway still stings — and it plays well in Brussels.
One academic in Belgium told campaigners: “The irony is that the UK says it’s democratic and respects the rule of law, yet won’t allow a vote that the Scottish Parliament keeps demanding.”
The quiet campaign may get louder
For now, Scotland-UN is working quietly. But that may change.
A report is due later this year summarising the group’s findings and outlining the legal case in detail. There’s talk of presenting it in Geneva or New York — and possibly even pushing for a formal hearing or submission at a UN body.
Whether that breaks through remains to be seen. But one thing’s certain: as long as Westminster keeps saying no, voices like Scotland-UN’s will only get louder.
