Jump to content

Stuart Hill (Captain Calamity) Forvik


Do you support Stuart Hill  

222 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you support Stuart Hill

    • Yes!
      58
    • No!
      164
    • Don't know?
      8


Recommended Posts

^ Its more complex than that, is it not?

 

If you want to go back and establish all the 'wrongs', surely the base line you need to establish first is just what exactly the Danish/Norwegian Crown 'owned' of Orkney/Shetland at the time the pawning occurred. - Scotland surely couldn't take over 'ownership; of something the Danish/Norwegian Monarchy didn't 'own' without establishing who did 'own' it and legitimately obtaining it from them.

 

Its my understanding that the 'ownership' a Monarchy had over a territory in the 15th C. was unrecognisable compared to what we perceive a Monarchy 'owns' in the present day. Its not a subject I have any real knowledge of, nor have I ever found much material which explained it in any detail, but it seems from what I have come across that all the Danish/Norwegian Monarchy had to pawn were the bits of Orkney & Shetland they were the owner of, in the same way as other people owned bits of Orkney & Shetland, The rest of it, which did belong to other people, they had no 'ownership' of any kind over, so could not have legally pawned to to anyone. I'm sure it was a lot more complicated than that, but that seemed to be the gist.

 

I'm not familiar with the Orkney swan case, but it would seem in a similar vein to the Sinclair's Beach own here, which established that landowners in Orkney & Shetland owned to the lowest low water mark of the foreshore, whereas elsewhere in Scotland landowners own to the highest high water mark - Essentially little scraps of Udal Law still remain on the statute books corncerning Orkney & Shetland.

 

It would be interesting to establish the process/evolution that took us from our 1469 constitutional status to present, but it would take a massive amount of investment in research, historic/legal arument/debate, which would be more 'opinion' than provable 'fact', and time - Stuart Hill cclaiming one thing, and Brian Smith telling him he's wrong, and whatever research/advice both are basing those opinions on doesn't even begin to scratch the surface, But at the end of it all would it be wotrh it, would it really achieve anything? As I said above, I don't believe so, or not while we have the option to hold a self-determination referendum.

 

If in any such referendum we chose to remain as we are, as part of Scotland, by default we are accepting everything exactly as it is right now, so knowing exactly how we got to where we are is purely academic, as the people have voted to remain in the current position, and if the vote was for whatever flavour of constitutional change was on the table, we would be about to remould ourselves in to what we want to be going forward, so where we are right now and how we got there is again academic only.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

^ He very probably is right, up to a point at least. However, standing against that is "use and wint", in that we've "accepted" their jurisdiction for over 500 years "without resistance", which in its

I find it interesting that all the courts so far have not been prepared to "test" his assertion that Shetland is not part of the UK and therefore their courts do not have jurisdiction here.

His boat, and his 'erection,, were by all accounts located on land that belonged to someone else. Unless he had a signed and sealed agreement, which there's no word of, to have it there the owners are

^As I understand it, Christian I pawned Shetland to James III to raise money to fund his daughters marriage, and it was Christians land that was pawned. At that time though, there was a large percentage of Nordic people living here and suspect that is why some of Udal law remained.

 
Having said that, I do believe that there is more to what Suart Hill has come out with that is correct, as opposed to what Government has tried to make us believe, by both Holyrood and Westminster. 
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

^As I understand it, Christian I pawned Shetland to James III to raise money to fund his daughters marriage, and it was Christians land that was pawned. At that time though, there was a large percentage of Nordic people living here and suspect that is why some of Udal law remained.

 
Having said that, I do believe that there is more to what Suart Hill has come out with that is correct, as opposed to what Government has tried to make us believe, by both Holyrood and Westminster. 

 

Christian pawned whatever it was he 'owned' in Shetland. The land/property he owned outright as his/his monarchy's personal property there's little leeway to quibble over. Everything else though is a wholly different matter. As Monarch he had some sort of something over the whole place, and its what that something was that's either being ignored or proving elusive to interpret. There's a good possibility he pawned it, whatever it was too, but until/unless what that 'it' was and the differences between the present constitutional situation and what that 'it' was are defined, we have no accurate way of knowing just how many liberties have (or haven't) been taken with us over the years by whom and when.

 

Undoubtedly all Governments involved would be delighted if everybody just accepted things as they are it all went away and didn't bother them. Calamity on the other hand has done a little work, but its only the beginning, there's no middle or end to it, its not the whole story (more or less) he seems to try and punt it as. The information he's put forth has never really be a secret, he's not revealed anything a lot of folk havn't known all their lives, yes, he's dug out and publicised the names/places/dates and such of it, all of which has firmed it up as far as it goes, which is fine, but the actual events have always been part of local oral history.

 

His interpretation of some of the 'facts' are open to debate, but otherwise he's framed the overall story reasonably well, but that's only the first stage if pursuing the historic route is seen as the way to move forward. He's dragged an ancient dust and cobweb encrusted skeleton with several knives buried deep in its back, out of the closet, and hung it up for public view. It needs the flesh put back on its bones now, so that it can tell its full story - A comprehensive detailed timeline from the 1460's to present establishing in modern day terms what existed to begin with, and recording every change, however big or small that has occurred since that is perceived to have impacted on Shetland's constitutional position, along with supporting argument from experts on the subject where differences of opinion occur. This is not a subject for amateur historians or local authority archivists, While their contributions are desirable to the bigger picture, its experts in historic constitutional/international matters that are needed/. Calamity has shown no sign of put anything more on the bones he's already hung up for at least 10 years now, and until he or someone else does, it can only remain what its been for a decade, a cheap sideshow for a Chamber of Horrors.

Link to post
Share on other sites

^A "Chamber of Horrors" makes me think of James VI Stuart, and Westminster from the very moment it kicked off as the British control mechanism.

Mentions of Westminster and our 'illustrious' national Monarchy in one sentence and all I hear is this playing.....

 

 

 

"Monkey House".......is a jab at censorship and institutional control. It was inspired by Frances Farmer, a famous American actress who was institutionalized and rumored to have undergone a forced lobotomy.

Edited by Ghostrider
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...

^But the cable also exports blackouts,

now THAT'S authenticity!

https://www.shetnews.co.uk/2020/07/21/company-warns-of-possible-subsea-cable-outages/

 

Meanwhile less people want electronic ovens and heaters because they are too expensive and the systems of electrical storage are terrible.

 

Investing in what would reduce fossil fuel use would be to reconfigure infrastructure to make it more efficient.

 

Public money to build

Private entities to reap gains.

 

So it is a power BANK heance privatsation of profit's and socialisation of losses just like a bank

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...