The account quote tweets rather than answering directly here. Note: it refuses to answer questions or provide evidence, simply confusing assertion with evidence. Nobody disputes that Darien was a serious financial disaster. But the frequently quoted quarter refers to Scotland's estimated liquid capital, not its total national wealth. Nor does financial distress establish sovereign bankruptcy. Where is the accounts evidence that Scotland's public finances were insolvent? It still misrepresents the Equivalent. Read Article XV. The £398,085 10s was calculated to compensate Scotland for assuming a share of England's existing national debt through taxation. Much was subsequently allocated to Company of Scotland shareholders. Those are two different things. Nobody is suggesting Scotland and Ireland underwent identical histories. Ireland's military conquest and penal laws are well documented. The comparison concerns parliamentary incorporation: Ireland's Parliament also voted for Union in 1800. Does that vote establish the free consent of the Irish people? If not, why does the Scottish parliamentary vote conclusively establish Scottish consent? Then it dismisses the Community of the Realm as a "fake constitutional trope" which merely demonstrates it hasn't, probably cannot, engage with the constitutional evidence. The concept appears in Scotland's medieval constitutional record, including the Declaration of Arbroath, while the Claim of Right of 1689 expressly recognised fundamental constitutional limitations on royal authority. It acknowledges Scotland was a sovereign, independent kingdom before 1707. Which is precisely the point. The question is therefore how, and by whose authority, that sovereignty could lawfully be alienated. It can't answer that question. I've asked what authority the Scottish Parliament possessed to do so. It hasn't answered.