Independence for Shetland!

[Freyr]

On the udal law argument, Shetland never owned herself before the 15th century dowry to Scotland. The islands belonged to the Danish Kingdom, as did Norway under a relationship of serfdom. If you want udal law you must also want a reversal of Imperial productive progress. i.e feudalism then capitalism for the system to work. Without a time machine the chances are slim.

 

Shetland was part of Noregsveldet (Realm of Norway) and was ruled by the King of Norway through the King/Lord of the Isles. Christian I who pawned the islands was King of Norway. He was also King of Denmark and Duke of Slesvig and Holstein. The four of these were all separate entities with their own laws and ruling systems. (Much like Hanover and the UK 1801 to 1837. Was the UK ruled by Hanover since it had a hanoverian king?) Norway had its own laws and council of the realm over which the Danish nobles and council of the realm had no power. Christian I ruled over Shetland. He did not however own all land in Shetland. This is the most tricky bit for those with a UK frame of mind. The King owned some land which were run by caretakers to generate more personal revenue for him. The rest were owned by a number of different people. Some Norwegian nobles, but mostly local farmers. If one reads the wording of the pawn letter taking this into account it might seem that Christian I only meant the land he owned. How could he pawn things he didn't own? But this was unknown or ignored later by the King of Scotland.

 

Shetland land was for the most part owned by the people who worked it as with the rest of Noregsveldet (Realm of Norway). Some people had larger farms than others and the king also owned large parts of the land. In these cases caretakers would farm the lands for a salary. Noone were serfs or lawbound to live in one place as under feudalism. The consept that the king somehow "owns" all land sounds very strange to a Scandinavian. It is not an inherent trait of monarchy as you seem to imply in a different statement. The king received taxes from all property owners for the services he provided as protector of the peace and laws. The farmers on the ting swore allegiance to him but he also swore allegiance to them and the laws. The King employed governors and tax collectors to aid in the ruling of the country. These were paid from the taxes. He was not a god given ruler to which all others had to be slaves.

 

Fast forward to modern times and it is widely recognised that the egalitarian structure of the Norwegian farming society is one of the foremost reasons behind the structure of Norwegian society today. People don't think in terms of lords and serfs, but as a team of equals. This in turn breeds trust. Team work, equality and trust have been named as core reasons behind the economic and social successes in Scandinavia.

 

And no you don't need feudalism to get capitalism. Norway has never had feudalism and is a successfull capitalist country. Russia was the most purely feudal country of Europe and bread communism.

 

I am sorry for my long replies, but when someone puts forward wrong and incomplete information in a debate as important as this I feel the need to rectify.

[sheepshagger]

 

During the war with Germany, Britain lined up its own people and marched them into no-man's-land to be mown down by machine gun fire, so we can hardly take the moral high ground.

 

I have never claimed to be British, and I think that the behavior of the generals in the 1st world war was nothing short of insanity.

 

but back on topic

thank you Dagfinn and Freyr for bringing such valuable information to the discussion.

maybe if the doubters actually took time to read up on their history and not the pish we've been fed by the Uk/Scots they might actually realise the truth

[humptygrumpty]

 

Fast forward to modern times and it is widely recognised that the egalitarian structure of the Norwegian farming society is one of the foremost reasons behind the structure of Norwegian society today. People don't think in terms of lords and serfs, but as a team of equals. This in turn breeds trust. Team work, equality and trust have been named as core reasons behind the economic and social successes in Scandinavia.

.

 

Agreed , and its a structure that is sorely lacking in this bloody country.

[humptygrumpty]

Better had we still been under Norwegian ownership / rule , see the petroleum reserve fund set up for post oil era , currently standing at 210 billion. What do we have ? yep you guessed it................

[Freyr]

Back in the 1910´s, 1920´s when Faroe was still a Danish county and Greenland still a Danish colony, the Danish decision makers in Copenhagen gathered to discuss the future roadbuilding for the newly invented automobiles that had made their appearence in Denmark.

The decision makers soon reached the conclusion, that building roads in the mountainous northernmost Danish province Faroe, was impossible. So on went 20-30 years, where road building “exploded†in “Southern Denmark†as it was also called, while Faroe in this respect was totally neglected, except for some few primitive roads that the British built during WWII . Not until the Faroese took over their own internal affairs, with the home-rule agreement back in 1948, road building really started in Faroe. Today not only have all villages in Faroe been connected by roads and tunnels, but the main islands, where 85% of all Faroe islanders live, are also connected by bridges and sub-sea tunnels.

You think all this would have happened if decisions were still to be taken in Copenhagen? Keep on dreaming.

 

Last year I came into a conversation with a Dane on a passenger ferry here in western Norway. He told me he was an engineer sent to study Norwegian road and tunnel building. I wondered why Danes needed to learn such things. After all, it's comparatively simple to build roads in a flat country. It turned out he was sent from Greenland with a delegation of about ten people. I looked at the delegation and there wasn't a single greenlander among them. If you want to build roads in Greenland why not teach Greenlanders to build roads? I suspect Shetland might suffer from some of the same central government mentality.

[islandhopper]

If one reads the wording of the pawn letter taking this into account it might seem that Christian I only meant the land he owned.

Well, actually Christian I handed over

"All and sundry our land ... with all and sundry our rights ... pertaining to us and our predecessors ... "

That is at least what the only surviving copy of the treaty (now in Copenhagn) says.

 

Christian I not only pawned Orkney/Shetland for the marriage but other possessions for different reasons as well (all of them being later redeemed like those part of Slesvig-Holsatia he had pawned before).

 

As we do know from these other cases the intention of the standard phrase of "all and sundry land and rights" possessed by the crown of Denmark (here as successor of the Kings of Norway) is quite clear: The Scots should enjoy exactly the same lands and rights as did the Danish crown.

 

That would include:

i) The temporary ownership of the royal estate.

ii) No land of an udaller - no Norwegian king had power over the LAND of an udaller ... but it included the right to collect skat from udallers.

iii) The feudal overlordship over the Earl of Orkney.

 

In other words, all exercise of the souvereingty was in a "state of suspension" until some uncertain future date.

 

It is also clear that on the other hand James III acted as if he had acquired full royal rights, calling the Bishop of Orkney to the Scottish parliament (and that chap took his seat and handed out collected taxes right from the spot), granting a royal charter for Kirkwall and later not forfeiting but buying out the earldom estate and annexing the earldom as he did with other properties of Scottish feudal nobility (Boyds in 1469 or later Ross (1476) and March (1487)).

 

It is also questionable whether Christian I acted as King of Denmark or as King of Norway. The tricky thing is that the contract itself was a typical "Danish document" (handled by Danish diplomats without information to the Norwegian parliament) but it has the phrase "pertaining to us and our predecessors, Kings of Norway" what was at some time interpreted as Christian I placing himself in the line of the Norwegian Kings ...

 

Well, the version handed out to the Scottish court somehow diasappeared (Why??? - might be an interesting question) but we do know that the Scottish crown ruled Orkney and Shetland in different ways over the following 150 years (roughly) and that fact alone might indicate, that the Scots of those days were well aware that they were acting along a highly disputable borderline ...

[Ghostrider]

<-snip->..... the version handed out to the Scottish court somehow diasappeared (Why??? - might be an interesting question) but we do know that the Scottish crown ruled Orkney and Shetland in different ways over the following 150 years (roughly) and that fact alone might indicate, that the Scots of those days were well aware that they were acting along a highly disputable borderline ...

 

An all too common happening, if local folklore is anything to go by. The number of alleged occasions it is said the unexplained sinking of a ship en route to Scotland, or the mysterious outbreak of fire in a storage area somewhere, just happened to lead to the loss/destruction of document(s) which would be very useful/valuable to access today stretches coincidence more than is healthy.

[sheepshagger]

Yeah as I'm alwis said niver trust a scoty

[JAStewart]

Yeah as I'm alwis said niver trust a scoty

 

correction: never trust a human

[tarotangel]

I think that it is possible and it can be done.

 

I used to work in Accountancy Recruitment and if we did become like Cayman Isles, Jerset etc. we would probably have KPMG, Ernst & Young the big accountancy firms wanting to put offices up which in itself would generate some form of money I think but not 100% sure.

 

As for letting the current council run Shetland no I don't think I would but then how many of them would want to run Shetland as opposed to the council. I'm not sure but if they were voting for that I think that the votes would be cast differently as folk would be thinking in different terms.

 

I'd like to say thanks to Freyr, Dagfinn and Islandhopper as it's brought more great info to me. Thanks guys.

[JAStewart]

Would it exempt us from tax? Cause then I'd support it

[sheepshagger]

It would probably not exempt us from tax completely but it would certainly reduce how much we pay.

If the council was to give a damn about Shetland they would be trying to find out just how much Shetland pays to the Exchequer through income tax, buisness/corporation tax etc it would be an eye opener I'm sure.

I was speaking to a very senior member of the bank of Scotland in Edinburgh and he reckoned we were getting screwed, and he based his opinion on the amount of money moving through the lerwick branch of the bank.

[Heimdal]

how much Shetland pays to the Exchequer through income tax, buisness/corporation tax etc

This figure was researched some 10/15 years ago, and far from being 'subsidy reliant', we were paying in a bloody sight more than we were getting out. Oil revenues to the Exchequer were excluded form the calculation.

[Guest Anonymous]

I'm aa for it wha du I see ta get me new passport

[humptygrumpty]

Not if it is going to be run by the S.I.C.

 

 

Thats for f***in sure !!!!!!