Independence for Shetland!

[MuckleJoannie]

It would appear that not everyone wants to be free of Scotland; in fact the English town of Berwick is considering asking to be handed back to Scotland.

'Return to fold' call for Berwick

 

A television debate and vote is being held for the ITV Tonight show to gauge local views on becoming part of Scotland again.

 

SNP MSP Christine Grahame said the progress of the SNP Government north of the border was making the prospect "very appealing" to residents in the town.

 

 

A news item from 2002 Scots offer Berwick 'ransom' has this nugget

 

Riddell Graham, chief executive of SBTB, said: "If you look back in history you'll find that Berwick has never actually legally belonged to the English.

 

"The Scots were forced to hand Berwick over to the English as part of a ransom in 1174 to buy the freedom of King William the Lion, whom they were holding to ransom for 10,000 merks.

 

"Berwick was made over to the English in lieu of payment of the ransom, which was duly paid in full in 1189 - but the English refused to hand it back.

 

"We contest that Scotland was blackmailed into handing over Berwick, blackmail is illegal and therefore Berwick should be handed back."

[Malachy]

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.

No, just that I'm not sure exactly whose toes are going to be trodden on. It seems to me that it would be within national politics that your arguments would find most opposition, so I'm not sure why you, being new to Shetland, would be any less aware of the owners' toes (if you see what I mean). Unless you actually think that it is our local archivist and a terrible band of similar local evildoers who are behind the entire conspiracy? To be honest I don't see why anyone's toes would be trodden on at all. You present an argument, if it's convincing people will believe you, if not they won't. I don't see how local ignorance would help.

 

Are you saying that we must not question the status quo? Is it not allowed?

I think you are well aware that I don't believe that. What I'm saying is that you go about your business in a strange and unnerving way.

 

The Shetland Movement was once an important part of Shetland's politics. It was a grassroots movement, which was essentially after the same aims as I think you are. The people involved with the Shetland Movement were not worried about any imaginary toes to avoid. They said what they thought, and they gained some popularity. They were Shetlanders who believed in increased autonomy, and had some very sensible arguments behind them. They did not spout conspiracy theories. But the movement died away as support of its aims waned. I don't think you are going to win back any of that support by preaching and ranting as if you are talking to a bunch of timid, stupid natives.

[derick]

I'd always been told that when Shetland became under Scottish ownership that officials from Scotland had come up, gone around the crofts and gotten those who lived in the crofts to sign a form that would let them keep their land. As the people were mostly illiterate they signed the form not realising that this would hand their land over to the crown, disbanding the Yudal law. People signed X's where the names were meant to go as they didn't know how to write.

 

Not sure if that's real or not, just what I've been told. I won't be able to attend any of the meetings, will there be any chance to see a presentation of it, or summary on the website?

 

I tink dat kind o 'history' wis med up, fabricated an generally invented bi Shetlan Lairds ida 19th Century, as pairt o a British backlash against Hom rule fur Scotland an Ireland. 'Rough Island Story'? You bet!!

 

No cheenge nou as your local laird is your MSP!

 

It's no dat long ago at a fair bit o Shetlan wis Rig a Rendall - ivry tounship med up o a whole lok a peerie bits a grunnd - an dat wis directly descended fae da Udal inheritance spleet among da faimly. History is a lok mair interstin whin you look inta it. Weill I tink so.

 

Cheers

[Ghostrider]

@Westmoother,

 

The thing that bothers me about the material put out by your campaign, is that it wholly (as far as I am aware at least) concentrates on what moves occured post 1468/69, and that's fair enough, but isn't that only half the argument?

 

Is there not a need, to at base your arguments on soild foundations at least, to establish what exactly the Danish crown had "ownership" of, and could legally "give" in 1468? I have no particular knowledge of history, but I think it's reasonably well known that land rights and land ownership had fundamental differences in 1468 to what they do today, in addition it's also reasonably well known that Norway and Denmark, although they had a joint monarch, were not one nation, in the way we understand the term "nation" today at least.

 

Surely your starting point should be to establish exactly what the Danish crown actually held ownership of, and was in a position to legally pawn/hand over as security/lend/whatever. Without doing so are you not running a high risk that you may be basing your argument of Scottish jiggery pokery, on erronous assumptions. Maybe it wasn't so much the Scots holding on to something they were never given, but of the Danes having given the Scots something they did not have to give? If your campaign has addressed this aspect of the issue, I have been entirely unaware of it, and stand corrected.

[sheepshagger]

Go to his talk GR an you'll have most if not all your questions answered.

[Westmoother]

@Westmoother,

 

The thing that bothers me about the material put out by your campaign, is that it wholly (as far as I am aware at least) concentrates on what moves occured post 1468/69, and that's fair enough, but isn't that only half the argument?

 

The fundamental question is 'When did the Crown get ownership?' since that is what most affects us today. From a legal standpoint 1469 is the date that matters as I explain in my talk, but in a very real sense non of the history or legal issues makes any difference if the people of Shetland want to do nothing about it.

Shetland is like the frog in a pan of cold water: heat it slowly enough and you'll cook it, but too quickly and it will jump out. As long as people believe the official story they will do nothing and get cooked. I'm just trying to turn up the heat a bit by presenting a different picture. So far, nobody has told me that what I'm saying is inaccurate, so I'll keep saying it until they do.

[Malachy]

I think you very much overestimate how revolutionary what you're saying actually is, Westmoother. Nothing you have written so far has in any way surprised me or made me want to run away from Scotland or the UK, which is obviously the aim.

I, along with just about everybody else in Shetland, am fully aware that the legal issues surrounding Shetland's transfer to Scotland are very cloudy, and could quite easily be challenged. But what people would be far more interested to hear would be convincing arguments as to why we should challenge it.

Almost everything you say is met with, "Er, yes, I knew that." But you are not providing a reason to move from that position to one of directly challenging our position within the UK.

[Westmoother]

Unless you actually think that it is our local archivist and a terrible band of similar local evildoers who are behind the entire conspiracy? To be honest I don't see why anyone's toes would be trodden on at all. You present an argument, if it's convincing people will believe you, if not they won't. I don't see how local ignorance would help.

 

I first presented my argument to an audience of 77 at the museum last year and it was the reception to that talk that encouraged me to take it wider.

I do think that there is a good number of people here with a vested interest in keeping the status quo and that may very well extend to most of the population - I don't know. What I do know is that very few people know the facts that I have uncovered and if they did they may change their minds.

I have been unable to find a cohesive argument in what the archivist is saying - but that may just be a failing on my part. Whichever way folk decide to go, it must be a decision made in possession of the full facts and at present a very one-sided story is being generally propagated.

 

 

What I'm saying is that you go about your business in a strange and unnerving way.

 

I don't think you are going to win back any of that support by preaching and ranting as if you are talking to a bunch of timid, stupid natives.

 

I simply do what I feel is right. It might be strange and unnerving to some people that I'm embarking on this series of talks for instance, but I think it demonstrates my commitment to what I'm doing. Similarly, questioning the museum on the wording of the 1468/69 display case might seem strange and unnerving, but it got some changes made - that nobody else was challenging. If people are timid, I hope that what I'm saying will give them the confidence to say or do something. I certainly don't think the 'natives', as you put it, are stupid. Many folk here are aware that something is wrong, but are unable to put their finger on it because the available information is so confusing. It's taken me five years to get to grips with it.

In short, I do think that there is a conspiracy. I think it's at the highest level in the country and I think it ceases to be a 'theory' when I provide the proof that I have. I think it is so big and has become so accepted that it is now a part of the fabric of this society that nobody is willing to question.

[Westmoother]

I think you very much overestimate how revolutionary what you're saying actually is, Westmoother. Nothing you have written so far has in any way surprised me or made me want to run away from Scotland or the UK, which is obviously the aim.

I think I am well aware of how revolutionary what I'm saying is.

I, along with just about everybody else in Shetland, am fully aware that the legal issues surrounding Shetland's transfer to Scotland are very cloudy, and could quite easily be challenged.

The problem is they've become so clouded that it's actually quite difficult to find any basis on which to challenge them, based on the information currently available.

But what people would be far more interested to hear would be convincing arguments as to why we should challenge it.

Almost everything you say is met with, "Er, yes, I knew that." But you are not providing a reason to move from that position to one of directly challenging our position within the UK.

 

As for reasons:

Do you think the Crown Estates should be entitled to charge rents to anyone wanting to use the seabed?

Do you think it was right for the UK government to appropriate Shetland's seabed when it had no right to do so? Irrespective of where the revenue goes, acknowledgement of ownership would put Shetland on a different footing with both the government and the oil companies.

Do you like what the EU is doing to our agriculture and fisheries?

Do you like the fact that our politicians took us into the EEC by deception and kept Shetland in against its will?

Do you think membership of the EU works for Shetland?

 

I don't think that any of this is in Shetland's interest, but rather than just accept it as a done deal that we can do nothing about, I'm showing that there is a way we can do something about it - if we want to. Just keep asking: 'When did the Crown get ownership?'. When somebody gives me an answer maybe I'll shut up. (Maybe)

[Trønder]

Is there not a need, to at base your arguments on soild foundations at least, to establish what exactly the Danish crown had "ownership" of, and could legally "give" in 1468? I have no particular knowledge of history, but I think it's reasonably well known that land rights and land ownership had fundamental differences in 1468 to what they do today, in addition it's also reasonably well known that Norway and Denmark, although they had a joint monarch, were not one nation, in the way we understand the term "nation" today at least.

There is a lot of confusion over this issue with regards to Norway and Denmark, probably due to confusing the construct at the time (Kalmar Union 1397-1524) with the later Denmark-Norway (1536-1814). At the time Shetland was pawned (1468/69) Norway and Denmark had the same person as monarch, but they had separate councils of the realm (riksråd) and separate coronations as the King of Norway and King of Denmark. That is, they were separate states in a personal union. Later (after 1536) the two countries would become more closely integrated without a Norwegian council of the realm and with a single coronation. During these centuries it would not be uncommon to simply refer to the Kingdom of Denmark and the King of Denmark, even if still nominally separate kingdoms in a political union. This is where I think the confusion comes from.

 

The question is, and always has been, what the Norwegian crown "had "ownership" of". The relevant treaties are very clear on this. It was Christian I, the King of Norway, that pawned Shetland, and it was Christian I, the King of Norway, or future Kings of Norway, that had the right to redeem Shetland. Forget Denmark! It is not relevant to the issue.

[Westmoother]

Is there not a need, to at base your arguments on soild foundations at least, to establish what exactly the Danish crown had "ownership" of, and could legally "give" in 1468?

The question is, and always has been, what the Norwegian crown "had "ownership" of". The relevant treaties are very clear on this. It was Christian I, the King of Norway, that pawned Shetland, and it was Christian I, the King of Norway, or future Kings of Norway, that had the right to redeem Shetland. Forget Denmark! It is not relevant to the issue.

 

Another demonstration of how confused this whole question has become. The truth is that neither Norway or Denmark had ownership. I address the question of sovereignty in my talk, but the sovereignty that Christian exercised was simply that of head of state. He could not transfer ownership because he didn't have it.

James III, on the other hand, understood sovereignty as including ultimate ownership of everything in the realm - and here is the fundamental difference between the udal and feudal systems. James III and his successors unjustifiably applied the feudal version of sovereignty here when they did not have the ownership to back it up.

The scary bit for the Crown is that in order to get ownership, they have to take it from the original owners - the people of Shetland.

[Trønder]

Yes, "ownership" was perhaps a poorly chosen word, but I don't think Ghostrider used it to mean specifically ownership of Shetland as whole, simply what Christian rightly could transfer. My point was just that whatever that was he had it to transfer as the King of Norway, not King of Denmark or Denmark-Norway.

[Westmoother]

Yes, "ownership" was perhaps a poorly chosen word, but I don't think Ghostrider used it to mean specifically ownership of Shetland as whole, simply what Christian rightly could transfer. My point was just that whatever that was he had it to transfer as the King of Norway, not King of Denmark or Denmark-Norway.

 

Actually ownership was the right word. It's the one that gets to the core of the problem here. As soon as you start talking about sovereignty and other such issues, the whole thing becomes clouded in different definitions. Ownership is the right on which everything else in the feudal system (in which Shetland has been attempted to be accommodated), is based.

I understand what you're saying, but my argument is based on what James III received, rather than the rights of whoever gave it. It is the absence of ownership received by James, and the fact that at no time has there been the opportunity for the Crown to get ownership, that is at the nub of this issue.

 

I'm about to leave on a tour of far away lands in the north for the next few days, so won't be able to engage in any more discussion till I get back.

[Freyr]

I think I have written this somewhere in here before, but I think the differences in "ownership" between Norway and Scotland/UK are striking. I still remember how strange I thought the UK system was when I first red about it. I mean, if you own a property you should OWN it... In Norway there is no consept of the King owning everything and there never has been. Also the idea that a lord or king could do whatever he wanted with his subjects has never held any weight in Norway. He alway had to rule according to custom and law. (There was a period of absolute monarchy, but the old ethics or whatever you want to call it seems to have persisted even during that time.)

 

The precise wording of the pawning letter (as I remember it) seems to back that up. The King of Norway pawned his holdings ie his personal property and the head of state fuction in Shetland. It was even specified that the old laws were to remain while under Scottish rule. And the document of 1509 and 1609 seems to show that that happened for a long time. http://www.shetlink.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4511&highlight=

 

So it seems to me that there has been a gradual shift from Norwegian to Scottish principle of ownership. That was of course in the interests of the rulers not the people. Even today I personally would be a bit uncomfortable with knowing that my house or farm is formally owned by the Queen.

[Trønder]

Even today I personally would be a bit uncomfortable with knowing that my house or farm is formally owned by the Queen.

Today?!