Stuart Hill (Captain Calamity) Forvik

[Ghostrider]

^^ It's a fair point. On the face of it he is ignoring the possibility that the majority of Shetland prefers the status quo to that of Crown Dependency, after all Shetland has never been asked, and *if* he had his day in court, and won, that is exactly where we'd find ourselves by default, whether it was the will of the majority that cared to express a preference, or not....

 

I would hope, that his intent with "Forvik" is to "inform by illustration", to show in minature what Shetland could become if it made the challenge to the status quo, and won, and if after he's demonstrated the "benefits" on the scale model that "Forvik" is, it is up to Shetland to decide if they wish to make that challenge. Reading, to a certain degree between the lines, the statements he's made and the interview's he's given since he embarked on the "Forvik" project, I tend to form the opinion that that is his intent, but even with that said, he has not come out and explicitly said so, and he appears to be wholly overlooking the consequences for Shetland that he finds himself in court, on someone else's terms and choice of timing, and ends up winning.

 

Looking back over Hill's CV, one would be tempted to say he is not someone who plans much further ahead than the next obstacle, and tends to "make it up as he goes along", IMHO that trait is alive and well in the "Forvik" project. I'm all for questioning and debating the status quo, for as devolved government as is practically possible, and the regular rattling of old skeletons in sundry cupboards, but while "Forvik" can only be good in that it stimulates debate and interest, I am not quite convinced yet that it is the best route to be on. Needless to say, I will neither be parting with my £120 for my square metre, or declaring my few Ness acres a Crown Dependency anytime soon.

[Malachy]

I would hope, that his intent with "Forvik" is to "inform by illustration", to show in minature what Shetland could become if it made the challenge to the status quo, and won, and if after he's demonstrated the "benefits" on the scale model that "Forvik" is, it is up to Shetland to decide if they wish to make that challenge.

 

But I can't really see how the 'model' of Forvik is going to show anything because it's a tiny holm with nothing on it. It's not going to benefit in any way from being a crown dependency. Nobody's going to benefit except him, from selling a few plots of land to some nutters. What Shetland needs to know (if it's even interested) is how increased autonomy will affect our society, culture and economy. The example of Forvik can tell us none of that.

[Ghostrider]

^^ Hence my putting "benefits" inside quotation marks.

 

*If* he can attract all these company registrations, establish all these "other financial services" etc etc, of which he talks , and/or *if* marketable oil/minerals were found in "Forvik" waters, and/or *if* immense shoals of valuable fish suddenly decided to congregate in them, then, the "benefits" would be very apparent. But, until such time as those materialise, and I won't be holding my breath, Hill's model is, exactly as you say, far too small and underequipped to serve any real practical purpose....Now, had he bought Papa Stour instead of just buying a rock at Papa Stour, he might just have been able to make a point and some little progress. I'm sure he could have sent an immediate bill to BP or whoever are operating the fields to the NW on what would hae been "his" seabed, where "Forvik" is, there's isn't much to the west he can lay claim to, and in every other direction the median isn't far distant.

[crofter]

The crown dependency...

 

http://i268.photobucket.com/albums/jj4/crofterpics/papastourjuly2008117.jpg

[north]

Looking closely at that picture of the Kingdom, I noticed a small but discernable object in the sky in the middle of the shot.

 

I ran it through an extremely high-tech (classified) imaging programme that I downloaded from the Internet and found: -

 

http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/roswell-ufo-crash-1.jpg

 

Now I know this stuff is serious! Obviously some very high level surveillance is being carried out by ALIENS! It is pretty obvious that word of Forvik has spread around the Universe and it is far beyond the hands of the UK or EU Government!

[merryholm]

I tink it's een a yun ald roosty dustbin lids. Nae doot Calamity had plans fur it as such items ir afful useful. Maybe he wis in his closet 'n hit shot i da air as some oh his excess gas wis released. A body oot waakin' fen it in Cuncher next tae his abondonnned yacht dat's tied we aboot a hunder rops tae da bank. A man oh mony talents I doot (no).

[Vixim]

All the debate on Shetlink and the worldwide media just fuels this man's hedonist plan to rule a Kingdom!! What is his Kingdom? A barren rock in the North Atlantic smaller than a postage stamp on a Shetland map!! And he has a cheek to ask people for money to join him £60 for a plot and Citizenship!!

He dwells at this time in the comfort of two tents!! What is he planning to live in once the storms of Winter start? His Palace or Castle better be built quick!! Maybe he will build a nuclear bunker... Who knows.. Once he is being bombarded on all sides by gales and waves maybe he may think better as he calls for Air Rescue..

Ps.. Does he use his currency when he shops at the Co?

[tlady]

I do agree with you. it is just fueling his cause.

 

But at least we're not throwing money at him .. he's already made £4000

 

There's plenty more "like minded" folk out there

[Brian]

Adam Grydehoj is quite wrong to imagine that 'the history behind Stuart [Hill]'s position isn't really in question'. Hill's stuff about 'crown dependencies' is based on an error about the annexations that kings enacted about Orkney and Shetland between 1472 and 1669.

[frunco1]

Adam Grydehoj is quite wrong to imagine that 'the history behind Stuart [Hill]'s position isn't really in question'. Hill's stuff about 'crown dependencies' is based on an error about the annexations that kings enacted about Orkney and Shetland between 1472 and 1669.

 

I'll certianly bow to your expertise on these matters.

[Brian]

No bowing required! but it would be unfortunate if the idea got round that that stuff is reputable.

[frunco1]

No bowing required! but it would be unfortunate if the idea got round that that stuff is reputable.

 

I think that the significant point is, practically speaking, it wouldn't matter whether history were reputable. No major government -- regardless of political orientation, anywhere in the world -- would accept the principal that 500 year old transactions hold any weight vis-a-vis the legitimacy granted by custom. If this were an accepted argument in international law, all hell would break loose as people scoured the law books for competing claims to territory.

 

What have succeeded in gaining additional powers for sub-state jurisdictions have been pleas of cultural distinctiveness. And the fact is, as long as you already have to argue for greater autonomy on non-legal grounds, there's no reason to bring legal grounds into the discussion at all since it should be clear that attempting to do so will, regardless of the correctness of your historical interpretation, provide opponents with an extra grounds on which to debate you.

 

By making this about law, Stuart has essentially ensured that the cultural aspects won't be looked into at all. Whether or not there are good reasons to press for greater autonomy, this is not the way to go about it.

 

I'll also make a brief reply to Ghostrider's idea that somehow the democratic illegitimacy of a law-making authority in any way retrospectively deligitimizes the laws it creates:

It's not as though Shetland was the only place suffering under all-powerful landowners. Should we suggest that legislation from throughout Europe in the Early Modern period should be disregarded on these same grounds? Denmark had an absolute monarchy until 1849. What if the people of Denmark today felt that King Frederik the VI was unjustified in granting Norway independence in 1814 because he was not under parliamentary contol? Would the Danes have any right whatsoever to attempt to reclaim Norway? The whole debate is absurd. And this is only 1814, not 1469!

[Brian]

Spot on.

[merryholm]

Da cost tae da taxpayer fur dis man's antics (he dusna evn work fur goodness saikes - he's only aboot 20 as he claims tae hae anidder 50 years in him) including his various rescues (apparrantly uninvited?? Da Mind boggles) is nithin' short oh disgrisful as is his clamour for notoriety. He's mibbee pittin' Shetland on da map but in a bad wiy does doo no tink? He's fa'an on his feet fur sure (as Violet aye said he wid - dat wis his wife wha geed ta bide n France wi...?) - bidin' in a hoose in Cuncher wi an alderly spinster wife wha seems tae kane nae better. Some say he's a clevr idiot but I dunna agree we da first bit. Mabe da best wid be fur him tae continue his UK shoreline run wi his punt n'sail in da dead oh nite? Maan im joost haed anof oh his antics and da liks oh Tesco's wid never a come if dis hid been a few monts earlier. Mi point is if u want turdland ti hae a future including mibee evin Markies, C n' A's, Liptons (again) or Harvords den we need ti tink aboot wha we alloo in tae da isllands an mibbee hae sum kind o vettin sistim. Mabee dis cood be done be een a da vets fae lerrik wha ir used we workin' we animals durin' da dae or mabee customs ur da police even or mabee da flea or somebody lik dat wha's no realy needin tae tink too much afore comin tae a swift n' deesicive desission fur wir communall benefit. I kane dit dis is mibee a "saftly safly" wie oh daelin' wi dis but we hae ti start somewhar. Whit doe you ah tink?

[MuckleJoannie]

den we need ti tink aboot wha we alloo in tae da isllands an mibbee hae sum kind o vettin sistim. Mabee dis cood be done be een a da vets fae lerrik wha ir used we workin' we animals durin' da dae or mabee customs ur da police even or mabee da flea or somebody lik dat wha's no realy needin tae tink too much afore comin tae a swift n' deesicive desission fur wir communall benefit. I kane dit dis is mibee a "saftly safly" wie oh daelin' wi dis but we hae ti start somewhar. Whit doe you ah tink?

 

I have a feeling this has been suggested elsewhere on Shetlink and rejected as being incompatible with legislation currently applicable in the UK. However ironically Jersey's (for example) status as Crown Dependency gives it a lot more control over who is allowed to stay there, as this article from Wikipedia shows.

 

For immigration and nationality purposes the United Kingdom generally treats Jersey as though it were part of the UK. Jersey is constitutionally entitled to restrict immigration by non-Jersey residents, but control of immigration at the point of entry cannot, at present, be introduced for British, certain Commonwealth and EEA nationals without change to existing international law. Immigration is therefore controlled by a mixture of restrictions on those without residential status purchasing or renting property in the Island and restrictions on employment.