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

He has a website which contains this already and, as a web site owner, probably values the traffic; so let's just link there instead, eh?

 

http://www.shetlandconversation.com/

Thank you! I had been looking for that.

 

I have just read the lecture and I must say if I were a shetlander and was informed of this I would be "quite angry" (I would use stronger language).

It is an interesting overview, but could be clearer on the difference between the King/Kingdom of Norway and the King/Kingdom of Denmark.

 

Would any of you out there be willing to stand for an independent Shetland next Scottish election in four years?

I don't think I would be eligible. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I the only one who finds it faintly ironic that whereas the former Soviet Union(s) went to great lengths to become de-centralised from Moscow, we seem to be heading the other way - ie, central government from Brussels.

I don't think that is necessarily true. It is a principle of the EU that decisions should be made at the lowest level practical. In some areas it makes sense for the EU to cooperate on the highest level and in some areas it makes sense to transfer power to the regions (devolution), and we have seen examples of both in the last decades. It is the national capitals, especially in very centralised countries, that are bleeding power in both directions. Now, all devolution, or most perhaps, has not happened on the inititive of the EU institutions, but it is very much in the spirit of the EU. Sheltand's problem is that you are not recognised as a highest-level sub-national entity in the UK and your off-shore resources are simply viewed as British. I have even heard Englishmen suggest that the waters and continental shelf of the UK should remain under the control of London if Scotland became independent.

 

I doubt the EU will ever become as centralised as the USSR was at its most de-centralised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest posiedon

Having just read Stuart Hill's lecture, I find myself in complete agreement with him.

"Independence for Shetland" I say, you've only got to look at the other "independent" islands around these shores, Isle of Man, Guernsey, Jersey, to see that it's no bad thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I attended his talk and found it very informative, a lot of it was pretty much what I was told by local teachers before the education system was overun by (for want of a better word) soothmoothers.

"Overrun" is a bit harsh surely. Unless you consider them vermin?

From the mid 70s on we were taught a lot of "Scotish" history but none or blatantly wrong Shetland history.

So the entire education system was taken over by soothmoothers in the mid 70s was it? I would've thought they'd have drummed in to you how to spell "Scottish" then :wink:. Spelling never was one of my strong points either.

I would like to thank Stuart for his efforts and only hope that the people of Shetland start to take a grip of their own affairs

Maybe Stuart will lead the way :wink:

Indeed, some interesting points are raised in this lecture. The question is, "What do the people of Shetland want to do with this information?"

Hopefully get a balanced view of things would be top of the list and not just take what Stuart says without question because it fits with their personal desires. I'm not saying Stuart is all wrong by any means but I'd doubt Brian Smith has it all wrong either. I'd certainly like to hear his thoughts on the article.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shetlan is pairt o Scotland, whitiver 'Stuart Hill' whaiver he is says.

 

Da fok at focuses on da brief period (six hunder year ago!!!) at Shetlan wisna pairt o Scotland, is joost Brit Unionist agitators, nautheen more.

 

Dat is directly analagous ta whit Carson an his laek did in Ireland a hunder year ago an more. 'Ulster is not part of Ireland'. Brilliiant success dat ploy wis. Not.

 

Aa der sort is interested in Sheltan fur is is fur da Oil. Whin dat's geen, you will join Deigo Garcia an Gibralter on da scrapheap. I refer tae da frequent letters ida London press afore elections - da half o dem canna even spell The Shettlands right! bah. A lok a fake Norskis aboot too.

 

Shetlan chose ida 1970s ta be 'divided and ruled' - ta hae nautheen ta do wi Scottish Nationalism - do you REALLY tink da ZCC act is passed becis London genuinely cared aboot Shetlan?? hah!

 

Dat wis dan an dis is nou. Da rest o Scotlan will do fine wi-oot Shetlan. Will Shetlan do fine ida lang run as pairt o England (bicis dat is whit dis 'Crown Dependency' twaddle is aa aboot)????

 

Hou muckle does da 'Shetland Independent' cost?

Wha's peyin fur it? an whit's der agenda?

 

An whin did Shetlan cease ta be pairt oda Pictish Kingdoms o Scotland, and bi whit right?? Unionist Propaganda - a pox on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is flitein and fighting over the historical shenanigans all that important in the present? The Scotties took possession of us 500 odd years ago, by fair means or foul, and have done their damndest to keep us and use/abuse/mould us in their own image ever since. The Norski took possession of us, by some means unknown, somewhere around 1200 year ago and spent 600 odd year working us their way, before them there were some kind of, for want of a better term, "primitive" people here, who may have been Scots, or they may not, and who may or may not have been affiliated to Scotland, but so little is known about them no-one can really make so much as a caluclated guess. Fine, that's where we came from, but it's spilt milk, where we're going is the pressing business, the past will lie in peace regardless of what happens.

 

*If* Independence means exclusive control of the seas and seabed out to 200 miles or half way to Norawa/Faera/Skotlin/whaurivver, including a total renegotiation of the agriculture and fisheries legislation out of Brussels that's killing/killed both industries, or an opt out failing that, then I could see the numbers *possibly* coming together to make sense. Without those , we have no chance of balancing the books.

 

Personally I don't think Shetland should go it alone, I'd much rather it was a joint effort with Orkney. Twice the size, twice the resources etc it stands a much better chance of long term viability. Shetland can produce things Orkney can't and vice versa, the maximisation of internal trade to the detriment of imports could only be a good thing.

 

*If* Independence were to come about, there would be a massive upheaval at the time, numerous local businessess are branches of UK companies, will they want to remain and trade in a "foreign" country? Until now all links have been with Scotland, transport, mail, communciations etc, all will need renegotiation and/or replacing. The list goes on and on......

 

I could no doubt type all night and then some, but the point I'm trying to make is. History is already written, we have what we have here and now in 2007, might the smart way ahead not just be to let history lie and put the energy in to what we could realistically expect to secure control of with "Independence", and is it going to be enough to make us viable as a stand alone? Attempt to predict what business/transport/communcication links would need to be reworked/replaced etc, and then go forth with that information and gauge public reaction. Nothing is worth tuppence unless it has majority public support, and if the public cannot be convinced we could ever be a viable stand alone entity, and/or the majority of the public considers the upheaval etc of business/transport etc not worth the final outcome, any idea of Independence is dead in the water regardless how fair/unfair, legally/illegally we've been handled throughout our history.

 

To go after Independence, IMHO, using the "illegal" basis of the status quo based on 500+ year old documents is something that may or may not succeed eventually, but every one of us here will have been pushing up them dasies for a very long time before it does. Those old documents are so worded they could be argued over till the cows come home and there would still be no concensus as to their exact meaning. The best you could in the end hope for, IMHO, was a majority decision of what they "probably" meant, and the bills you'd have to pay to all the historical and legal "experts" who'd pored over and argued over them over many years would be a millstone for generations.

 

A clear majority of Shetland residents who believe in and want Independence is the only real mandate that's worth anything much at the end of the day, if in time historical/legal opinion backs it up that it always should have been that way, that's fine, an added support, but a bonus, not the lynch pin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Shetland was independent, it would be entitled to take over the tax from the oil companies for the oil that comes through Shetland. That is worth billions of pounds and would make the current charitable trust oil fund look like pocket money. VAT would be scrapped (so long as pulled out EU) and there would be no need for income tax).

 

Crown dependency simply means that we would have control of our own affairs but would have the protection of the crown such as the Isle of Man who, despite their size, have their own Prime Minister and have decided to stay out the EU. Their income tax, despite having no oil whatsoever, is around 10%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aa der sort is interested in Sheltan fur is is fur da Oil.

 

guess we could say that about the SNP :wink:

 

Dat wis dan an dis is nou. Da rest o Scotlan will do fine wi-oot Shetlan.

 

If that is really the case maybe you could persoude your pals to let us go our own way with our 200 mile limits intact :)

 

Will Shetlan do fine ida lang run as pairt o England (bicis dat is whit dis 'Crown Dependency' twaddle is aa aboot)????

 

The Isle of Man, Guernsey, Jersey, Alderney, Gibraltar none of them are English yet they are crown dependancies :D

 

An whin did Shetlan cease ta be pairt oda Pictish Kingdoms o Scotland, and bi whit right??

 

Shetland was never part of the pictish kingdom of scotland because it only exists in your head, the first king of Scotland was kenneth the first (a celt/frenchy) and he never came on the scene until after our ancestors settled Shetland :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed, some interesting points are raised in this lecture. The question is, "What do the people of Shetland want to do with this information?"

Hopefully get a balanced view of things would be top of the list and not just take what Stuart says without question because it fits with their personal desires. I'm not saying Stuart is all wrong by any means but I'd doubt Brian Smith has it all wrong either. I'd certainly like to hear his thoughts on the article.

 

Have to agree. I am yet undecided, and didn’t mean to come across as otherwise. It would be interesting to see this go to the vote with fair representation from all interested parties. Getting a clear indication of the general consensus surely must be the second task (as has been mentioned before, getting interested parties motivated to organise such a poll would be the first task). Until we know this the rest is pie in the sky.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but I'd doubt Brian Smith has it all wrong either.

 

Brian smith accused Stuart Hill of having a political agenda for his talk and yes he probably does an independant Shetland,

but I would counter this with saying BS (apt initials) also has a political agenda, he is a paid up card carrying member of the SSP and their policies are dependant on getting their hands on Shetlands oil, so if accusations of twisting the facts to suit ones own agenda are the order of the day then right back at ya Brian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shetland was never part of the pictish kingdom of scotland because it only exists in your head

There never was a Pictish kingdom of Scotland SS. Scotland came into being when it (Pictland as it was called by some) was taken over by (suprise surprise) the Scots. The Pictish kingdoms certainly do not exist purely in derick's head. There's books out there if you want to learn.

the first king of Scotland was kenneth the first (a celt/frenchy) and he never came on the scene until after our ancestors settled Shetland :lol:

Kenneth McAlpin (a Scot / Scotti / whatever) was indeed the first king of Scotland. One of the reasons for him being the first was the country known as Scotland had only just been formed after his invading peoples stiffing the Picts. He was crowned in the early 9th century. So the mainland Picts and the Shetland Picts were getting it right up 'em at roughly the same time.

As for your ancestors... as I understand it the Picts in Shetland weren't wiped out by the Vikings. They were assimilated and the Pictish gene, supposedly, lives on: the high numbers of short stocky folk wi round heads in the North East can certainly be seen in Shetland too.

 

Have to agree. I am yet undecided, and didn’t mean to come across as otherwise.

I wasn't having a go Medziotojas. I was just using the question you posed to try and counter some of the folk seemingly accepting everything Stuart wrote as gospel.

 

but I'd doubt Brian Smith has it all wrong either.

Brian smith accused Stuart Hill of having a political agenda for his talk and yes he probably does an independant Shetland,

but I would counter this with saying BS (apt initials) also has a political agenda, he is a paid up card carrying member of the SSP and their policies are dependant on getting their hands on Shetlands oil, so if accusations of twisting the facts to suit ones own agenda are the order of the day then right back at ya Brian.

You may well be right SS ( :wink:) but if you're going to blindly accept one persons POV purely because it fits with your own beliefs then heaven help us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kenneth McAlpin (a Scot / Scotti / whatever) was indeed the first king of Scotland. One of the reasons for him being the first was the country known as Scotland had only just been formed after his invading peoples stiffing the Picts. He was crowned in the early 9th century.

 

as I said there was no pictish Kingdom of SCOTLAND, there were several pictish kingdoms but they were not united.

 

As for your ancestors... as I understand it the Picts in Shetland weren't wiped out by the Vikings. They were assimilated and the Pictish gene, supposedly, lives on:

 

then what you are saying is that the norse and the picts interbred or coexisted therefor we have to be the rightful inheritors of this land

 

but if you're going to blindly accept one persons POV purely because it fits with your own beliefs then heaven help us.

 

I'm not blindly accepting his word it is what I was told by my grandfather, certain teachers who did so outside of the curiculum and from papers that were available for all to read at the museum prior to BS getting his job.

 

You may well be right SS ( )

 

beat you to it SS Obergrupenfuhrer Sheepshagger at your service

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...