Sovereign Shetland

[EM]

Do you know if there is any case law on ownership stopping at the low water mark?

Yes. The key case was Smith–v-Lerwick Harbour Trustees (1903). Here is what Jim Wallace had to say in 2002 (in Eileen Linklater: UDAL LAW – PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE?, LLB (Hons) European Law Dissertation, which is an interesting read generally):

 

3.In your opinion, do Udal rights still exist?

Yes. Even the Crown Estate recognises that in much of Orkney and in Shetland, they have no claim to the foreshore because of Udal tenure. (see Smith –v- Lerwick Harbour Trustees (1903) SF 680)

4.If so, what rights do you consider are still pertinent?

The principal right is that the owner owns the land outright, and the Crown enjoys no superior feudal rights. As I observed when introducing the Abolition of Feudal Tenure (Scotland) Bill, (15th December 1999), the effect of the abolition of the feudal system will be to bring the rest of Scotland into line with Orkney and Shetland. In addition, Udal land ownership includes the foreshore. Other pertinent rights are less clear, although the Scottish Law Commission has invited views on this, in particular in relation to practical experience.

 

Or when the rights to fish, seals, whales etc ceased?

Here case law is mixed. Udal whale rights went out with the Hoswick case in 1890, but udal salmon rights were upheld in the Balfour case in Orkney in 1907.

 

The foreshore issue is interesting, but not as important as the seabed rights further out. That was battled by the Salmon Farmers in 1990, with the result going in favour of the Crown Commisioners.

[Kavi Ugl]

I think many people would regard the Salmon farmers vs Crown Commissioners case as a stitch-up and we all know that there's only ever going to be one outcome if it's tried in a UK court.

 

I believe that there is a strong new case with what SH has built up for a re-trial, of even a fresh new court case.

 

The problem is we have a council that would rather gamble every penny we have and destroy wir islands on a mega wind farm rather than spending an infanitely lesser sum putting together a new court case for control of wir lands and seas.

 

But then have you heard about the incident when some members of the SIC attended(by invitation) a meeting of the Nordic Council in Iceland a few years ago....?.

[crofter]

Do you know if there is any case law on ownership stopping at the low water mark?

Yes. The key case was Smith–v-Lerwick Harbour Trustees (1903). Eileen Linklater: UDAL LAW – PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE?, LLB (Hons) European Law Dissertation

 

Thanks for that, very interesting indeed. I was meaning decisions which suggest ownership stops at the low water mark (and does not include the seabed) but Smith–v-Lerwick Harbour Trustees does not state this. I suspect the salmon farmers case is all there is, and as Kavi Ugl points out it is not surprising that the Crown would rule in favour of the Crown Estate.

 

Udal whale rights went out with the Hoswick case in 1890,

 

Although the paper by Eileen Linklater has this to say about Hoswick:

 

However the case was treated as one of land ownership rather than moveables, which meant a valuable opportunity for examining the real relationship between the law of Scotland and udal law was lost.

 

But then have you heard about the incident when some members of the SIC attended(by invitation) a meeting of the Nordic Council in Iceland a few years ago....?

 

No...

[Kavi Ugl]

Well, this came from the mouth of an ex councillor/convenor.

 

The SIC had been invited to attend a meeting of the Nordic Council up in Icleand about 10+ years ago.

 

As they mingled among the delegates between meetings many people became aware of certain men in suits lurking around in the same room but nobody recognised them or knew why they were there.

 

After a while it was discovered that they were from the Scottish Office but there was no official reason for the Scottish Office to be there and so it slowly dawned on everybody that, and I quote the ex SIC member, "they had been sent north to keep an eye on us"......

[shetlandpeat]

That sorta thing happens all the time, they are delegates.

It is also good that the Scottish Office takes stuff seriously enough to do this.

[groilick]

Tink you haes Stuart Hill o' Forvik flit tae Faeroe?

 

http://shetnews.co.uk/letters/177-faroes-not-scandinavia.html

[stilldellin]

^^Wid be braawly dootful if it's him, but dere ageen maybe he haes moved on tae air transport !

[Kavi Ugl]

Tink you haes Stuart Hill o' Forvik flit tae Faeroe?

 

http://shetnews.co.uk/letters/177-faroes-not-scandinavia.html

 

No, but the man is 100% correct. I was told years ago that Scandinavia is just as he says - Norway, Sweden, Denmark.

 

[stuarthill]

 

I would be considerably less cynical of his stunts with vehicles, had he had the b*lls to have driven his Land Rover around wherever as his sole form of transport, instead of hiding it away out of sight, out of mind, out of the vast majority of most folk's rod, on a passing place half rods to Saniss. It smacked of being able to say he had a Forvik "registered" vehicle on Shetland roads, while keeping the risk of anyone doing anything about it to the absolute minimum.

 

If his stance on the subject was right and just and sound, it should have been able to stand up to scrutiny whatever section of road it was performed on, so where better than to drive it around, and park it in Lerwick as much as possible. Right over the toes of those charged with upholding the statutes he's disputing, and among the greatest concentration of witnessess observing him being allowed to do so. It certainly would have done his cause far, far more good than any Conference or Declaration at the Cross.

 

The fact that he chose not to act so overtly and publically, but instead chose a relatively little used road a considerable distance from any upholder of statutory laws, says to me he had little confidence in his own beliefs and argument. I expect if anything comes of this most recent development that it will be a similarly fudged washout, and a missed opportunity, but I am prepared to be pleasantly surprised, for once.

 

What you outline here was my original intention with the land Rover, but it turned out to be so unroadworthy that it would not have made the journey to Lerwick to be parked on a yellow line outside the police station as I intended. Turning your argument round, it doesn't matter what bit of the public road it was on, it should receive the same treatment.

 

Last week somebody was in court for having no MOT. The reason the police put forward for not pursuing me for the same offence was that I was not driving the vehicle at the time, although the relevance of that is beyond me. Even when I admitted in writing that I had driven it to Sandness, they took no action.

 

The Queen not having responded to the offer of Forvik's Crown Dependency status, last week Forvik declared full independence as it is entitled to do under the Montivideo Convention. The people informed include Her Majesty, The UN, President Obama, Scottish Courts Service, Northern Constabulary, The SIC and others.

 

I now have a roadworthy Mercedes van (hand) painted red. It is on the road as the Forvik Consular Vehicle. It has a Forvik Right to Use The Road disc, FK oval sticker for country of origin (I know the Falklands already use FK, but I'll use it for these purposes for the time being). It has an oval CD sticker for diplomatic immunity, numberplates: FREE ZE123. I have informed the police of my intentions and have also notified them that I'm driving without a driving licence. The Consular Vehicle carries a notice:

 

THIS VEHICLE IS NOT SUBJECT TO

UK STATUTES.

The driver does not consent to intercourse or

interaction with 'police officers' who have not

observed him breach the peace.

Permanent estoppel is in place, barring any

'police officer' or 'prosecutor' from bringing

charges under any Act, Statute or Directive of

the United Kingdom, Scotland or the EU.

 

I drove it through Lerwick on my way to Sandness to collect a trailer and filled up at Leasks on the way. Unfortunately diesel engines don't run terribly well on unleaded and I barely made it to my destination. However, it's running again and you'll see it around. The police tell me I'll be dealt with 'in the usual fashion' - whatever that may be.

 

Now, if he would take them to court, he *might* actually start getting somewhere

I'm in a cleft stick here. Taking them to court means I have to recognise the court system here, which I don't (until they show me evidence of their legitimate authority). I have no intention of supporting an illegal regime.

 

A good part of the past year has been taken up with challenging the banks on the validity of their contracts. The relevance of this to Shetland is that, in a case with RBS, where they have had me in the Court of Session since June 2010 trying to prevent me petitioning the court for a winding-up order (so far without success), I am challenging the court's jurisdiction to hear the case since I do not live in Scotland.

 

I may have gone quiet, but there's plenty going on behind the scenes.

 

None of this is about me having a kind of ego trip as 'king of the island'. It's about forcing the authorities to justify their position here. At the end of the day, it's not for me to say what Shetland should do about its future, but if the choice is available, people should know about it.

 

The Forvik website is undergoing major updates at the moment, but more information will soon be available: www.forvik.com

[paulb]

Stuart have you been assessed by a mental health professional. I am not being nasty it just seems that your stunts are not the actions of a sane person. You can't declare independence as you don't own the land that you are claiming as independent.

As you clearly have borrowed money and are refusing to repay it. Why should you hide behind your claim of independence. Either pay what you owe or fight them on a point of law.

Now you claim that you new transport has no mot,tax and we can assume insurance and further you claim that you don't have a valid license. pray tell us what happens if you were to injure or kill someone. Would you and your ego recognise that your at fault then. Or would the normal laws apply to you too.

As a non British resident have you returned you bus pass, pension, Pay the full cost of all health treatments etc. Further as you claim diplomatic status does your real home come under that rule too. So are you paying your council tax and other charges.

Finally what international body has recognised your independent state for you to claim protection under diplomatic status.

[groilick]

I wid use FU fur da tax disc instead o FK.

[icepick239]

^^ Quite right Paulb.....

Meanwhile, perhaps Politically_Right could be roped in to advise stuarthill on his future dealings with the Police and other Government Agencies.....

 

What is it they say?

One is just a Nutter.

Two could become a Movement..

[unlinkedstudent]

^^ Quite right Paulb.....

Meanwhile, perhaps Politically_Right could be roped in to advise stuarthill on his future dealings with the Police and other Government Agencies.....

 

What is it they say?

One is just a Nutter.

Two could become a Movement..

 

Oh don't, it is a Sunday morning and there is only so much I can digress this early. More to the point, it is Mother's Day - do they celebrate that in Forvicville (oops, too much play Cityville on Facebook).

[Kavi Ugl]

Stuart - please keep going because although you don't get the public support you deserve I believe there's a growing number of people who privately know you're right and are watching with great interest.

 

[Graeme_Storey]

I like what Stuart is doing - I take my hat off to him (not that I wear a hat, but you know what I mean).

 

There is a bit in most of us that wants to stand up to the establishment - make it justify its existence - explain its roots and its purpose, etc., and Stuart is doing this, on our behalf as well as his own. He certainly has a thick skin, and he needs to with so many comments being thrown at him, but I very much agree with Kavi Ugl - there are many people who really would like to see Stuart fight and win against the established order of things.

 

Without people like Stuart, in the past, prepared to stand up - on their own if needs be - then I reckon we would not have much of the freedom and liberty we each enjoy today.

 

So, I don't feel in a personal position to take the active stance he has regarding car tax, income tax, etc., but I certainly silently support his desire to ask the questions he has put before the authorities and get proper answers, and I wish him well personally, and in his struggle to make his voice heard.