Stuart Hill (Captain Calamity) Forvik

[JAStewart]

I'm off to T in the Park in a few days, anyone got a Forvik flag I can fly?

[JustMe]

Ghostrider wrote

"Forvik" is part of Shetland, as far as I'm aware Hill has never suggested it shouldn't be, but you have to think of "Forvik" being part of Shetland in the same light as you think of North Korea and South Korea being part of Korea, and the former East Germany and West Germany being part of Germany. It is still part of the whole that is the British Isles, he has just removed it from within the EU, the UK, and Scotland.

No comparison!. The two Korean states were viable separate nations as were the two Germanys. Forvik can never be more than a rock inhabited by a character with a long history of doing interesting things.

 

Could well be some sense in an independent Shetland either as a Crown Dependency or an independent state within or without the E.U. but Forvik is almost certainly not the way to achieve that.

[Ghostrider]

Could well be some sense in an independent Shetland either as a Crown Dependency or an independent state within or without the E.U. but Forvik is almost certainly not the way to achieve that.

 

That is the whole point of Hill's exercise, I think.... "Forvik" isn't intended to stand alone permanently, in Hill's world it is a first foothold in which he hopes the rest of Shetland should either bit by bit or en masse join with in with him. It's his way of "leading by example", I think, a sort of "this can be done, why don't you do it too". Whether any of the rest of Shetland chooses to follow him, remains to be seen, and whether his approach to the issue with the establishment of "Forvik" is any way to achieve a greater degree of autonomy, I daresay is down to individual opinion. Personally I'd tend to agree with you that "Forvik" is unlikely to achieve anything of much substance on it's own, it might be a significant contributory factor if it proves to be a catalyst for others to take the same route, but overall I suspect it is an over-simplistic approach to an extremely complex issue.

[Infiltrator]

What is there to stop anyone invading Forvik and overthrowing the monarchy ?

If the weather is half decent this weekend a spot of invading another country might be fun - unless I need to cut the grass in the garden, that being the case I may have to postpone the invasion to the following weekend.

 

I'll maybe see if I can find Mrs Thatchers email address for some tips. Is there anyone I need to contact before invading Forvik - NATO perhaps?

 

I might need someone to take the tiller as I'll struggle to row and keep a lookout at the same time. Any volunteers will be decorated and will have a beach or hill (small one) named after them.

 

Serious question though - what is there to stop anyone overthrowing Calamity - can't be breaking any UK laws if it's on Forvik. Isn't this how real wars start?

[Carlos]

Isn't it trying to force some hands?

You can't stop him "being independent" without taking it to the courts and you can't leave it without challenge as soon as he starts down the tax haven route..... win or loose..... a day in court?

[derick]

Isn't it trying to force some hands?

You can't stop him "being independent" without taking it to the courts and you can't leave it without challenge as soon as he starts down the tax haven route..... win or loose..... a day in court?

 

could joost ignore him as a glorious Eenglish eccentric. ??

 

Jun tjent wjill no stjaund dja wjinter gjeles dju keens

[merryholm]

Recent postings have queried Mr Hill's claim that he actually owns the island. The Scottish land registry (tel. 0131 659 6111) will easily clarify this. If he doesn't then I'm sure the Lerwick police (tel. 01595 69 2110) would happily investigate any criminal activity (fraud included). Now that's a serious point!

[Ghostrider]

^^ Not quite so straightforward in a case like this I wouldn't think. As Hill disputes the rights of Scotland to impose any legislation on Shetland, there is no reason to suppose, and indeed it would be counterproductive to his campaign, that he would acknowledge the Scottish Land Registry in any way.

 

In which case the only really practical way of establishing if Hill has ownership is to obtain a signed statement from the last known owner prior to Hill, confirming that they transferred ownership to Hill on a certain date, or not.... Regardless of whether Hill appears on any registry of land ownership anywhere, if the last known owner on any applicable registry is willing to stand up and deny it is any longer their property, and swear that they had transferred ownership to Hill, proving any kind of fraud would be extremely difficult.

[Malachy]

I don't see any reason to think that he hasn't bought the island. The guy obviously has plenty of money. He claims he's bought it and the previous owner hasn't denied it. That seems reasonable enough. He doesn't want to be done for theft I don't imagine.

 

What seems very interesting to me, and which the national media certainly haven't highlighted, is the fact that he hasn't declared independence at all; he's declared Forvik a 'crown dependency' - presumably because that's what he thinks Shetland should be. But surely you can't just declare yourself a dependency. I would think a status like that would have to be the result of negotiation and agreement - it's not just a title you can apply to your island without consulting, say, the Queen. And why would the Queen want Forvik to be a dependency? It just means the British government have a responsibility to protect it without getting any of the benefits of taxation etc.

Also, does it not seem a bit strange and hypocritical to talk about a state-sponsored conspiracy to cheat Shetland out of its rightful status, but then try and tie yourself to the head of that same state? Surely he should be seeking full independence rather than cheekily wangling for state protection as a 'dependency'. It seems to me he's just somebody who doesn't like paying taxes.

(Edit: And therein lies another irony. All his talk about how Shetland is really Scandinavian, and yet his principle desire seems to be to avoid paying taxes, which is about as un-Scandinavian a mentality as I can imagine. Surely we should be demanding much higher taxes if we want to emulate our neighbours in the east?)

[Carlos]

If he proves his case..... is he liable for 500 years of back taxes?

[nederlander]

I'm sure I read in the Times that he bought the island off the guy who owned it, who just so happened to be one of his friends, which may go some way to explain why he chose that location.

 

After Calamity's ridiculous, condesending and childish response to the critism he has encountered on these boards, it has only gone to reinforce my opinion on the man himself, which is not favourable. How such a person can believe themselves to be so much better than the rest of us is beyond me.

[Ghostrider]

....But surely you can't just declare yourself a dependency. I would think a status like that would have to be the result of negotiation and agreement - it's not just a title you can apply to your island without consulting, say, the Queen.

 

If I'm understanding the guy correctly, it's not so much a case or declaring dependency, but rather a case of re-establishing and re-declaring the dependency status that he contends is the only legal status that can have ever existed.

 

The fact that we are treated as an integral part of the UK is, he contends, the result of successive UK Governments treating us as such, and being allowed to get away with it. According to him, we were granted Crown Dependency status at the time of pawning, and that status was reaffirmed on a number of occasions across a couple or so centuries thereafter, plus he contends there's legislation on the statute books which specifically prevents our status being changed from that of a Crown Dependency until repealed, if indeed it can be repealed. Additionally, according to him, at no time between the most recent known reaffirmation of our status as a Crown Dependency and the present, has any legally binding legislation been enacted transferring us from Crown Dependency status to being an integral portion of the UK, so the most recent known legally binding document, which specifies our status, has to be the one which still remains legally enforcable.

 

By sweeping aside any connection to the EU, the UK Government etc, he's simply removing those things which he believes have been illegally imposed upon us as a result of being treated as part of the UK, and his declaration of dependence is more a case of a declaration that "Forvik" has been returned to what he believes is it's rightful, and only legally binding status, rather than any sort of declaration of "new" status.

 

If, as Hill believes, we started out as a Crown dependency, and that has never legally changed, then the Crown can hardly object or refuse in any way, as it has always existed, the Crown has always held us, not the UK Government, they've just been borrowing us for a while. In Hill's version of the world, either the Crown did not appreciate this was the case, so could not object when the UK Government integrated us in to the UK, or did know, but chose to ignore that it was and continues to happen.

[frunco1]

I think the interesting point with the crown dependency argument that is the history behind Stuart's position isn't really in question. Stuart has expressed himself quite strongly against Brian Smith's reading of the historical events, but all that Brian is really saying is that Shetland de facto link with Scotland is sufficient: Eventually, and in the almost complete absence of opposition from any major party, it became de jure.

 

If we were to start looking through the history books for foolish, old laws that passed out of enforcement or use but have never been repealed, we'd find plenty of them. That doesn't mean that we'd necessarily want them all to be brought back into use. (This is how you end up with websites like the following: http://www.dumblaws.com/) As someone -- I believe it was Derick Herning -- has said at some point on one of these threads, if you're working on historical grounds, you might as well say that Shetland belongs to Scotland as it does to Norway: After all, the Vikings illegally stole Shetland from the Picts.

 

Because most people are aware of the unsuitability of these sorts of arguments to geopolitical issues today, we get into the realm of logical -- rather than legal -- arguments for indepence or greate autonomy. These are what I discuss in my July 'Shetland Life' article.

 

I'll mention, by the way, that I submitted this article a few days before Stuart made his move, which is why some of my arguments might appear slightly besides the point.

[Ghostrider]

I think the interesting point with the crown dependency argument that is the history behind Stuart's position isn't really in question. Stuart has expressed himself quite strongly against Brian Smith's reading of the historical events, but all that Brian is really saying is that Shetland de facto link with Scotland is sufficient: Eventually, and in the almost complete absence of opposition from any major party, it became de jure.

 

Which Hill counters with the claim that the party most likely to oppose such a move, was effectively prevented from doing so, and in a relatively short period of time fed censored and biased information to make them believe they could not change or object to it. Which, I would contend is true enough, it took only a very short period for Shetland to be under the control of Scots Lairds, who held all of the influence and power, and anyone who valued their life and wished to remain resident on Shetland quickly learned the only way to do it was by only doing the Laird's bidding and not upsetting him in any way.

 

There is, IMHO moral justification for revisiting and re-examining a constitutional arrangement which was born out of such an oppressed regime. I'm seeing certain parallels with recent headlines featuring a Mr Mugabe.

 

If we were to start looking through the history books for foolish, old laws that passed out of enforcement or use but have never been repealed, we'd find plenty of them. That doesn't mean that we'd necessarily want them all to be brought back into use. (This is how you end up with websites like the following: http://www.dumblaws.com/)

 

Broady I agree with you, laws do become obsolete but still remain, however it could very well be argued that that does not apply in this case. It's a matter of opinion whether the law in question is obsolete, clearly Mr Hill is of the opinion it isn't, and on the other hand this is not a law that the very people who might have pushed to have had enforced, were either allowed to use, or indeed probably knew existed in the first place.

 

If the people were denied the knowledge or the use of a law by powerful and influential people with a vested interest to maintain the status quo (the Scots Lairds), that surely cannot in and of itself make the law obsolete or null and void, regardless of how long has elapsed.

 

It's more a case of the people who were the most likely to attempt to have the law enforced being denied full knowledge of it's existence and the ways and means to attempt to have it enforced, than a law which was known, but no-one chose to use.

 

I would liken it to someone being attacked and seriously injured which left them in a coma for decades, during which it was presumed their injuries had been received by accidental means. Then they finally regained consciousness and accused someone of attacking them, that accused person would most likely be charged and tried for the offence.

 

From 1468 until the late 1880's few if any native Shetlanders knew the small print on the original pawning agreement, yes, certainly most knew of the fact that the old Dane King had had to loan us to the old Scots King as security for a debt he couldn't settle, and that's how and why we were attached to the Scots, but that was it.

 

It has only been through a slow process of various amateurs digging around in old documents during the past 100 years, aided in part in the more recent past by having the local Museum and Archives, that information has bit by bit slowly come to light. Previous initatives towards greater autonomy in the incarnation of the Shetland Group/Movement chose, for reasons best known to themselves to focus on what you suggest, logical arguments for autonomy, and while there was nothing wrong with that in and of itself, it did nothing to inform the public as to how Shetland arrived at the position it finds itself at today.

 

If Hill has succeeded in doing anything, he, by taking an entirely different viewpoint and route, has exposed to public knowledge just how shaky the foundations are on which Shetland's inclusion within the UK are built. There is no known legal grounds upon which it happened, only what gets termed round here as "use and wint", ie. what has been allowed to be the status quo for a considerable period of time.

 

Of course both legal documentation and "use and wint" are recognised by some courts, sometimes one takes precedence, as in the case of my hypothetical example above, with the comatose victim, "use and wint" for decades did would not usually prevent the full letter of the law being applied there, other circumstances "use and wint" is ajudged as the most appropriate.

 

What is really on debate, and what places the likes of Hill and Smith in polarised opposing camps is not yet whether Shetland's status is that of a Crown Dependency or an integral part of the UK, but as to whether the letter of the law, or "use and wint" takes precedence in deciding the question.

[Malachy]

What is really on debate, and what places the likes of Hill and Smith in polarised opposing camps is not yet whether Shetland's status is that of a Crown Dependency or an integral part of the UK, but as to whether the letter of the law, or "use and wint" takes precedence in deciding the question.

 

I would say the main difference between Stuart's position and that of Brian, the Shetland Movement or just about anyone else, is that all of the latter mentioned would say that Shetland's position within or outside the UK should be up to Shetland people to decide, democratically. Stuart, on the other hand, believes that it should be up to him to decide. He think he has discovered some conspiracy, which he hasn't, and he believes that gives him the right to try and force Shetland's hand.

Consider the possibility that his current efforts succeed in getting somebody to take the bait and try and challenge him legally. If, by some miracle, he won the legal challenge, does that mean Shetland would suddenly find itself outside the UK whether the people wanted that or not? This is why I have always argued that Stuart has things the wrong way round. I am actually quite sympathetic to the idea of more autonomy for Shetland, but I think you have to start by convincing people that it is a good idea, you cannot just tell them they've been hoodwinked, then push them in a direction they don't necessarily want to go in. Stuart is not a democrat, that is his problem.