Independence for Shetland!

[Styles]

Sounded good, wish I had gone.

[Trønder]

Can anyone give me a short overview?

[sheepshagger]

pretty much what has been discussed on here before but if you PM stuarthill on here I am sure he will give you copies of the relevent documents.

basically the land belonged to the people of Shetland not to Christian I so he had no right to pawn or sell the land, what he did do was pawn his own land in Orkney and Shetland.

There have been 14 attempts to redeem the pawn and 14 times the scots have avoided the issue, never have they said sausage off it is our land they have just avoided the issue so they know the islands dont belong to them.

[Trønder]

Assuming that the situation was rectified, what would then be the reality in Shetland? What would change?

[islandhopper]

What makes you say that it is questionable? ... &c&c

@Trønder - sorry for delay - absolutely agreed with your answer. I just wanted to point out that it is wrong (although we can find it in many publications or sometimes in forums like this) to blame the Danish or the King of Danmark, Christian I, for pawning "the islands". In fact it was Kristian I of Norway who acted.

Calling himself "King of Norway" or refering to the "Norwegian realm" in that said document probably is of lesser interest. To me the relevant formular is "us and our predeccessors" thus putting himself in line with the Norwegian kings and their traditional rights and powers ... and with all the implications following from that, for example royal rights to deal with the land of the realm against the rights of the udallers ...

[Rasmie]

Where to next?

 

Is the status quo satisfactory? I don't think so.

I think that the matter should be resolved for once and for all.

 

Perhaps a referenda of the residents of Shetland should be taken.

1. Do you wish Shetland to become a legal and fully inclusive part of Scotland?

2. Do you wish Shetland to adopt a special status but still being affiliated to Scotland and/or Gt Britain and/or the U.K, but retaining a separate identity e.g Man, Channel isles?

3. Do you want Shetland to go for partial autonomy e.g. Faroe?

4. Do you want Shetland to go it alone - full Independence?

5. Do you want Shetland to return to its Norwegian ownership-if Norway would have it?

My opinion is that most people would prefer to remain British as basically that is what we are! 1 or 2

[Trønder]

sorry for delay - absolutely agreed with your answer. I just wanted to point out that it is wrong (although we can find it in many publications or sometimes in forums like this) to blame the Danish or the King of Danmark, Christian I, for pawning "the islands". In fact it was Kristian I of Norway who acted.

Ah, I'm sorry, then I misunderstood your post. Yes, it was Kristian I of Norway who acted. Whether he acted in Norwegian or Danish interest is another matter though.

 

Calling himself "King of Norway" or refering to the "Norwegian realm" in that said document probably is of lesser interest. To me the relevant formular is "us and our predeccessors" thus putting himself in line with the Norwegian kings and their traditional rights and powers ... and with all the implications following from that, for example royal rights to deal with the land of the realm against the rights of the udallers ...

Well, that is where it gets a little hazy for me. What exactly was pawned? It would seem by the comments in this thread that the Scottish chose to view it as something more than it was. If the Earls of Shetland ruled on behalf of the King of Norway was this feudal relationship pawned as well?

[JAStewart]

I think I'd only support independence if we didn't have to pay tax

[Guest Anonymous]

Sorry Tronder i canna mind exactly what they disagreed on , it was the wording of documents from afore and aroiund the time of the union 1707 or so . Stuart Hill can provide the full text of his research via his website.

There did seem to be a bit of an ill wind between himself and i believe brian smith the chief archivist although they were very polite at the same time.

[roadslave]

I think there is mileage in some kind of independence. However, the vast majority of Shetlanders (partcularly the born and breds) are far too docile to ever act upon it. Many will never want to stick their heads above the parapet for any kind of semi controversial issue. Throughout histrory, Shetlanders have made the best of whatever has come their way and 'toed the line'.

 

So, regrettably, i think debating the whole issue is a waste of time.... I know its very negative but i have seen it time and time again in other aspects of Shetland life.

[Ghostrider]

I think there is mileage in some kind of independence. However, the vast majority of Shetlanders (partcularly the born and breds) are far too docile to ever act upon it. Many will never want to stick their heads above the parapet for any kind of semi controversial issue. Throughout histrory, Shetlanders have made the best of whatever has come their way and 'toed the line.

 

Is it any real wonder, approx 450 years of Scottie Lairds continously constructively exiling or "causing to vanish" any and all "rebels", "dissenters" and "troublemakers", and keeping the rest on a short leash of fear and fantation has an evolutionary effect and manipulates the gene pool. Only those who kept quiet and kept below the parapet were allowed to stay and to live.

 

The ambitious and the brave were either "eliminated" or then shipped themselves out to seek places where the aggro was lesser and the rewards higher.

[penfold]

There are plenty of folk who would speak up on this issue as there have been in the past, but as GH says there is this inbuilt sense of not rocking the boat, of na na billy say nothing and joost saw wid, but it is changing, the problem of seeking to gain enough support for a independant Shetland within the local populous is that there is such a wide range of opinion between the different camps, you have people in the "Shetland Alone Camp" the "Shetland within an Independant Scotland Camp" and the "Let Scotland Go It Alone And We'll Stay In The UK Camp" so to get a consensus on this issue to move it forward will take the political mastery that even Tony Blair could dream of.

[Styumpie]

I think there is mileage in some kind of independence. However, the vast majority of Shetlanders (partcularly the born and breds) are far too docile to ever act upon it. Many will never want to stick their heads above the parapet for any kind of semi controversial issue. Throughout histrory, Shetlanders have made the best of whatever has come their way and 'toed the line'.

 

So, regrettably, i think debating the whole issue is a waste of time.... I know its very negative but i have seen it time and time again in other aspects of Shetland life.

 

I think that while everything looks rosy, people will not want to change, but when the UK economy hits the skids over the next few years, public sector jobs will get slashed, the money will dry up, then opinion could well change. If we can make the argument that the isles could and will be substantially better off, get the timing right and drive this message home, I think we could stand a good chance.

 

I'm born and bred here and im pretty god damned far from docile, that I can assure you. I'd fight for the cause no problem.

[penfold]

I just thought of one way to get a deal, just say to Alex Salmond look billy its just like this, were happy enough to be in with scotland but we'd like a bit more autonomy, so unless we can come tae a deal, whan Scotland gets independance we'll bide da wye it is in da U.K and you'll no get your haands on da oil in the northern territorial waters. Its a position to start fae.

[islandhopper]

Well, that is where it gets a little hazy for me. What exactly was pawned? It would seem by the comments in this thread that the Scottish chose to view it as something more than it was. If the Earls of Shetland ruled on behalf of the King of Norway was this feudal relationship pawned as well?

A good question indeed, but I'm afraid we will not be able to find a definite answer.

 

i) I think we can agree that the royal lands/royal estate were pawned.

ii) I think we can agree that the royal rights based in these territorries were pawned, too.

 

That seems to be clear from the surviving documents. It's the easiest part to be cleared, but I do think that's not the final answer as far as Shetland is concerned.

 

iii) Which other rights did a Norwegian king of those days have with regard to landtransactions. Udal land? As far as I do know a Norwegian king had no powers over udal lands. Jarldom estates? If there were any they seem to have been very limited: No powers over an jarl's "home estate" (similar to udallers' right) but final powers over those parts which were added to an jarldom by royal grants over the years.

 

iv) We do know that Shetland - that's to say: feudal lordship and most probably granted lands in this part of the earldom - were withdrawn from the earldom of Orkney somewhen in the 13th century when they came under direct control of the Norwegian privy council. The remaining question which we can't answer is: Were those forfeited jarldom lands covered bey the term "royal lands and rights" or not?

 

Well, my - personal - opinion is: They were not included as was not included the question of the feudal overlordship. My personal view is that only king's land and rights were pawned, no udal land, no former jarldom lands.

 

We don't have clear evidence from the said document but we do have some indications for that:

 

a) Jurisdiction over land transactions remained with the court at Bergen for a long time and undisputed. Decisions were sent to the Scottish privy council just as a matter of information and confirmation.

 

From other pawnings made by Christian - for examples some of his home estate in Sleswig-Holsatia - we do know that the term "lands and rights" did include the right to establish some kind of administration ... that was at least some form of organization allowing to collect taxes in between ... but no transfer of feudal overlordship.

 

c) And than we do have the note of that member of the Hamburg Senade representing the hanseatic league at a riksdaag in Copenhagn. That man - Justitiar to the Senade of Hamburg - noted on the back of his report that the earldom of Orkney was expected to be represented by Archdeacon of Shetland - but that guy did not show up. So, just 100 years later the "international diplomatic understanding" of the affair simply was, that the Kings of the United Kindom of Danmark and Norway were still regarded as being the rightful overlords of (Orkney including) Shetland.

 

As a Hamburger I do trust in my Senade ...

I do have to admitt that the fact that this guy did not show up may indicate that those folks holding the powers locally by then might have had a completely different understanding of the situation ...

 

Sorry for my poor English ...