Jump to content

Independence for Shetland!


Jonners
 Share

Where do you stand?  

128 members have voted

  1. 1. Where do you stand?

    • Full independence
      55
    • Crown dependency
      30
    • Keep the status quo
      47


Recommended Posts

Will there be tea and biscuits? :D

 

If the weather's good enough may well walk over.

 

Quite interested in this since I was a bairn and had a Norwegian historian explain that it was all Sweden's fault. Something about various islands being left out of a treaty between Sweden and Denmark, but being included in a treaty between Sweden and Norway and how that meant that Shetland had never legally left the ownership of Denmark.

Don't have a good enough memory to join in the conversations about it here. I was only 8 and the whole interrelations of the triple crowns is beyond me.

Also everything is usually Sweden's fault if you ask my older relatives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will there be tea and biscuits? :D

 

If the weather's good enough may well walk over.

 

Quite interested in this since I was a bairn and had a Norwegian historian explain that it was all Sweden's fault. Something about various islands being left out of a treaty between Sweden and Denmark, but being included in a treaty between Sweden and Norway and how that meant that Shetland had never legally left the ownership of Denmark.

Don't have a good enough memory to join in the conversations about it here. I was only 8 and the whole interrelations of the triple crowns is beyond me.

Also everything is usually Sweden's fault if you ask my older relatives.

 

Sorry, no tea & biscuits - only me.

 

Although the talk is much about the legal issues, at the end of the day none of it means anything if folk don't want to do anything. We have to realise that nothing stands still - we either do nothing and get sucked into the mire, or decide to take some action. I keep hearing that folk want to take action, so am providing the means. Taking action does not involve anything drastic - just ask the question 'When did the Crown get ownership?' and demand an answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't help thinking that you are simplifying matters too much here, Stuart. I think that this question you are choosing to ask, "When did the Crown get ownership?" is deliberately misleading, because you know fine well it can't be answered definitively. But I suggest that this doesn't prove your point; rather, it just means you are asking the wrong question.

 

As you have shown, it is not really possible to pinpoint a specific date on which Shetland became part of Scotland. But that doesn't mean that it is not. Shetland has been gradually subsumed into Scotland over the centuries, legally and culturally. Trying to argue otherwise just seems shortsighted. I'll give you an example...

 

In the centuries after Shetland was pawned (or whatever you want to call it) to Scotland, Denmark requested a number of times that it be returned to them. Scotland's response (to put it in simple terms) was "What are you going to do about it?" To which Denmark said, "Nothing". The more powerful country simply bullied the smaller into backing down. But....

 

If Denmark had stood its ground and decided to fight over Shetland, they would, we can assume, have lost. In which case, your claim would no longer stand. Scotland would have won Shetland by force.

 

It seems to me that Denmark's acknowledgment of its inability to fight for Shetland is really not so different from an actual loss by force. Scotland flexed its muscles and Denmark surrendered. It is a battle without bloodshed (for which we can be grateful). Clearly the legal position on this is ambiguous, but I suggest that there are many other parts of the world where the question of ownership is far more ambiguous than here. Muscle-flexing goes a long way in terms of land ownership.

 

I admit I am playing devil's advocate here to a certain extent, but I do think that your case is weakened massively by the fact that your all-important question is actually not that important at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But since muscle flexing days we have gotten a more set system of international law. International law did exist back then as well and current international courts do consider incredibly old documents to be more valid than muscle flexing.

 

In a different point I think it is interesting, but not realistic to bring in whether or not Denmark or Norway should or could redeem the islands. By the way: as of 1814 Denmark does not have that "right", only Norway. The only issue is what relationship Shetland should have with Scotland or UK. Towards that point old documents might carry weight, but of course it's the will of the people that counts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way: as of 1814 Denmark does not have that "right", only Norway. The only issue is what relationship Shetland should have with Scotland or UK. Towards that point old documents might carry weight, but of course it's the will of the people that counts.

 

Of course, that is what I have said before. The only important thing is what people want for Shetland, and I really don't see any grassroots movement towards independence (which, lest we forget, there certainly was in years past) just a few individuals rattling sabres.

 

What concerns me most about this campaign is the tactics being employed. The aim seems to be to make us feel hard-done-by by highlighting the ways that we are being 'exploited' by Scotland and the UK, and the shaky legal grounds on which that exploitation is taking place. The campaign is trying to stir up these feelings in order to push an independence agenda. This tactic is the same used by nationalists the world over: pinpoint people's underlying concerns and then make them feel that they are the victims of some sort of conspiracy or campaign (this is certainly the feeling I get from reading Stuart Hill's arguments). It is exactly the same tactic that, say, the Nazis used, or the BNP use today against immigrants. And it will turn a lot of otherwise sympathetic people off.

 

I am relieved therefore, that despite getting a huge amount of publicity, the campaign does not seem to be gaining any real ground. It is not a 'Shetland Conversation', it is a 'Shetland Monologue'. I would be interested to know how many people turn up to these public lectures / rants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, on a slightly different note, this argument about 'our' wealth being taken away from us, is pretty dodgy ground. It is the nature of a diverse state that different regions contribute different resources, levels of wealth, workforce etc. It is also the basis for the modern welfare state.

 

The alternative is extreme regionalism and anarchy. London, for instance, could start saying that none of the wealth created in the City should leave the City. Which would sound ludicrous, but it's not much different from this argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well come on has anyone actually attended these events?

I am very curious, I mean malachy seeing as he's making the effort to come down your way are you not contemplating to go check it out? More interested what others are going to say. Intrigued also as to what angle a soothmoother has.

Still remember having a shetlander give me a bit of a hard time in a young Scots for independence conference. I suggested that Shetland would be worse off under devolution, and that a lot of that oil money salmond went on about came in through Shetland, and we'd be even less likely to see any of it in an independent Scotland. Said it all off mic but still had the press phoning my mother up for quotes.

Still think I was right, the scotish bleep party are proving my point and I'd love to know if that shetlander still thinks I was wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It all takes time to get a political movement going when there is no real crisis, but give it time.

 

Although I can't see anything happening in the near future, what I do believe is that if Scotland had a referendum on independence, Shetland would surely say no and you could then see a change in Shetland's status. Perhaps movement towards independence under Crown protection similar to the Faroes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I agree the situation would change hugely in that case. It would be interesting to see what happened, and I think it would depend greatly on the kind of leadership that existed in Shetland at the time. Right now, I think people would be reluctant to follow our leaders into the nearest pub, let alone towards independence, but perhaps things will change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't help thinking that you are simplifying matters too much here, Stuart. I think that this question you are choosing to ask, "When did the Crown get ownership?" is deliberately misleading, because you know fine well it can't be answered definitively. But I suggest that this doesn't prove your point; rather, it just means you are asking the wrong question.

 

As you have shown, it is not really possible to pinpoint a specific date on which Shetland became part of Scotland. But that doesn't mean that it is not. Shetland has been gradually subsumed into Scotland over the centuries, legally and culturally. Trying to argue otherwise just seems shortsighted.

 

If it's not possible to answer it, it didn't happen. Even the Crown has to abide by the law and if some action is not legal, anything built upon it cannot make that act legal and it becomes illegal itself. At any point in history you have to be able to say either Shetland was owned by the Crown or it wasn't - or do you say at some particular date it was 60% owned and 40% not? It's a simple enough question and the fact that it can't be answered is the reason it must be asked.

 

In the centuries after Shetland was pawned (or whatever you want to call it) to Scotland, Denmark requested a number of times that it be returned to them. Scotland's response (to put it in simple terms) was "What are you going to do about it?" To which Denmark said, "Nothing". The more powerful country simply bullied the smaller into backing down. But....

 

If Denmark had stood its ground and decided to fight over Shetland, they would, we can assume, have lost. In which case, your claim would no longer stand. Scotland would have won Shetland by force.

 

Precisely. And because of the way it happened, the Crown never got legal title. I do want to call it pawned, because that's what it was. James III was entrusted with the islands until the money was paid to redeem them. He himself later acknowledged that they weren't his and even 200 years later it was internationally agreed they did not belong to the Crown.

 

Clearly the legal position on this is ambiguous, but I suggest that there are many other parts of the world where the question of ownership is far more ambiguous than here. Muscle-flexing goes a long way in terms of land ownership.

 

On the contrary, I think the legal position is quite clear - once you get rid of such concepts as gradual ownership, misuse of Royal Prerogative, application of feudal law where it should not be applied, 'feudalisation' and all the other devices that have been used to cloud the issue.

If other places in the world want to shut their eyes about their situation, that's up to them. What makes Shetland's case so special is the pawning. Although they can't admit it, the Crown finds itself in a very difficult position.

It's a simple question to ask: 'When did the Crown get ownership?'. If it can't be answered it has very serious consequences, but we should not shy away from asking it because it might be embarrassing to the party concerned.

 

I admit I am playing devil's advocate here to a certain extent, but I do think that your case is weakened massively by the fact that your all-important question is actually not that important at all.

 

The very simplicity of the question is what makes it so important. It cuts away all the historical flim-flam and gets right to the root of the matter. Nearly all the other unresolved questions in Shetland's past come down to this single question.

It is my belief that a massive fraud has been perpetrated on the people of Shetland. The fact that it has been done at such a high level makes it all the worse. So, until somebody can give me a good answer, I'll keep asking: 'When did the Crown get ownership?'.

Fair Isle 17th March - hope to see you there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The alternative is extreme regionalism and anarchy. London, for instance, could start saying that none of the wealth created in the City should leave the City. Which would sound ludicrous, but it's not much different from this argument.

 

Wakey wakey. Have you not noticed that extreme regionalism is what's already happening? The EU has already split England into nine regions. Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are all devolved to different degrees. So is London, although it's not well publicised. All are encouraged to deal direct with Brussels. All fight amongst themselves for crumbs of the cake we have given to the EU. Grants, subsidies and bribes ensure that we become dependent. The EU is the most corrosive force we have ever seen.

If you come to my talk you will learn that I'm not proposing that Shetland keeps all the oil revenue. What could we possibly do with it? What I'm seeking is a system where our elected leaders represent, rather than rule us and where folk can have pride and confidence in their administration. We won't get that by rolling over and asking for more of the same. If Shetlanders have the courage to stand up and demand it, we could be an example for the rest of the world. Shetland's history gives it the means to take action, but absolutely nothing can happen unless the people want it to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't help thinking that you are simplifying matters too much here, Stuart.

 

If it's not possible to answer it, it didn't happen. ..... At any point in history you have to be able to say either Shetland was owned by the Crown or it wasn't - or do you say at some particular date it was 60% owned and 40% not? It's a simple enough question and the fact that it can't be answered is the reason it must be asked.

 

As my post made clear, I don't accept this. Your argument is a simplification of the law, which is understandable because you are not trained in law. It's just not enough to pose your own question, then give your own answer. It is the law that defines the questions, not you.

 

I must say I am concerned about this campaign. I have spoken to many people about it, quite a few of whom would be otherwise sympathetic to its aims. This technique of trying to whip people up into a baying frenzy of victimhood is very worrying, because it recalls so many unpleasant nationalistic campaigns. But the tone that you adopt, a tone of arrogant, patronising, almost messianic self-belief, is even more worrying for people. I read your website www.shetlandconversation.com the other day, and when I came to this section I had to read it over three times just to make sure I was not mistaken (I will quote the whole paragraphs so I am not accused of taking you out of context):

 

I was instrumental in setting up SOUL (Shetland and Orkney Udal Law Association) and for some time struggled with the idea that, as an Englishman, it was not my business to be poking into Shetland's past and digging up its skeletons. However, I gradually realised that this was a job that had to be done by somebody with an outsider's perspective - it would be impossible for a Shetlander to do. If there are toes to be trodden on, it's best done by somebody who doesn't know whose toes they are!

 

Then later:

 

As the evidence accumulated, it became clear to me that I was uniquely placed to be able to do something about the situation. I have now reached a point in my life where I can devote my whole time to this issue. As I speak to more and more people, telling them details of their history they were completely unaware of, I hope that enough will have the courage to join with me in seeking a better deal for Shetland. Although they may not realise it, the power is in the hands of the people of Shetland.

 

I feel it is hardly necessary to highlight what is so shocking about these statements. But needless to say, your conclusion in the first paragraph, that a Shetlander couldn't lead a campaign like this, and that it requires someone who is ignorant of local politics and people (or perhaps national, I'm not sure) is, to put it mildly, wrong. And to say Shetlanders are not prepared to stand on toes when necessary is also wrong. The second paragraph is equally bizarre, and arrogant, and offensive. It is nice for you to think that you have come, uniquely equipped to enlighten the Shetland people of their situation, but don't be surprised that some people don't share your faith in yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't help thinking that you are simplifying matters too much here, Stuart.

 

If it's not possible to answer it, it didn't happen. ..... At any point in history you have to be able to say either Shetland was owned by the Crown or it wasn't - or do you say at some particular date it was 60% owned and 40% not? It's a simple enough question and the fact that it can't be answered is the reason it must be asked.

 

As my post made clear, I don't accept this. Your argument is a simplification of the law, which is understandable because you are not trained in law. It's just not enough to pose your own question, then give your own answer. It is the law that defines the questions, not you.

If you want to disagree with my argument, at least do so with a counter argument. Just saying you disagree is not good enough. I'm not a lawyer, but the law must be logical and that logic must me easy to follow.

I use the analogy in my talk about a mortgaged house. It's easy to understand that the mortgage company cannot keep your house if you offer them the full mortgage value. It doesn't take a legal genius to know that would be illegal. That's exactly what has happened in Shetland.

 

I must say I am concerned about this campaign. I have spoken to many people about it, quite a few of whom would be otherwise sympathetic to its aims. This technique of trying to whip people up into a baying frenzy of victimhood is very worrying, because it recalls so many unpleasant nationalistic campaigns. But the tone that you adopt, a tone of arrogant, patronising, almost messianic self-belief, is even more worrying for people.

 

I feel it is hardly necessary to highlight what is so shocking about these statements. But needless to say, your conclusion in the first paragraph, that a Shetlander couldn't lead a campaign like this, and that it requires someone who is ignorant of local politics and people (or perhaps national, I'm not sure) is, to put it mildly, wrong. And to say Shetlanders are not prepared to stand on toes when necessary is also wrong. The second paragraph is equally bizarre, and arrogant, and offensive. It is nice for you to think that you have come, uniquely equipped to enlighten the Shetland people of their situation, but don't be surprised that some people don't share your faith in yourself.

 

I don't understand what you're trying to say in brackets here. I suspect it's something I might be expected to be offended by.

I certainly don't claim to be uniquely equipped, but I have not seen anyone else come up with fresh documentation and a new approach that makes sense. All it needs is patience and an unwillingness to take things for granted.

I'm really sorry that my enthusiasm has been interpreted in this way. I do want to get people interested and excited about what I've found. Maybe I've been mixing with the wrong Shetlanders, but I have found many who agree with me that they themselves are very reticent to put their heads above the parapet.

I'm doing what I am because I think it's important for Shetland. If a Shetlander wants to take over from me I'll be only too delighted to take a back seat. Until that time I'll continue in my attempt to give people the confidence to take action if they wish and that confidence can only come from knowing the full picture. At the end of the day, if nobody is interested I'm wasting my time, but I think I would be doing folk a disservice if I did not make every attempt to show them what I've found during the past five years - and what I've found is not part of the official story.

Shetland has arrived where it is today, not by following a lawful progress, but by a process of 'do this because I say so'. It is my belief that the threats and intimidation that prevented folk speaking up for fear of losing their crofts in days past have engendered the reticence of which I spoke earlier. There must be few Shetlanders who have no toes they can't tread on.

You may not like what I'm saying, but if you disagree you must address my argument. Are you saying that we must not question the status quo? Is it not allowed? It seems to me that what I'm doing is part of a healthy democratic process.

If you come to my talk I will show exactly how and when the Crown has found it convenient to ignore the law. If those actions cannot be questioned, our democracy is in a poor state.

Link to comment
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...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...