Jump to content

  • Log in with Twitter Log In with LinkedIn Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

With your Shetlink login details, all classifieds, private messages, and invoices are now accessed through the new Njord | Market system. Please see Njord | Market FAQ for more details.

Photo

Sovereign Shetland

scottish independance shetland independance

  • Please log in to reply
838 replies to this topic

#16 Brian

Brian

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 206 posts

Posted 20 June 2010 - 04:58 PM

You are as in a drug-induced sleep.

#17 Guest_Anonymous_*

Guest_Anonymous_*
  • Guests

Posted 20 June 2010 - 05:15 PM

am no sure that the majority are content with the country n how its run , & if you're not then i'm affraid you're kinda obliged to not condemn or ridicule. Liars cheats n thieves is the popular perception of the govt/taxman and this man is making a stand , quite bliddy right

#18 Ghostrider

Ghostrider

    1crankymofo

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9512 posts

Posted 20 June 2010 - 05:18 PM

^^ Is however many days without legal challenge necessarily anything to crow about though? It depends on which stance you take. No doubt Hill would take the view no challenge has been made as the powers that be are not confident of winning, but the flip side argument is always going to be that the whole Forvik project is so inconsequential and irrelevant to the powers that be that they choose to simply ignore it.

A bit like having one old yowe belonging to someone else straying in your park among your flock, and her owner trying to claim she has a right to graze there simply because you've not thrown her out. When the real reason is you don't consider the damage being done by one sheep worth the time and hassle of caain the park just to catch and remove her.

That said though, agreed, building upon what's already been achieved by Forvik, regardless of how much or how little any one individual may view that as, would seem to make more sense than branching out with yet one more venture.

First there was all the Udal Law stuff he did, which largely got abandoned and buried as far as any casual onlooker could see, beneath the Crown Dependency rhetoric of Forvik. Heading off on a Sovereign Nation tangent is likely to do the same with the Crown Dependency. It all belongs in one file really, and needs to all be pushed forward together. To the casual onlooker who isn't taking all that deep an interest, it appears Hill is a serial crusader who flits from cause to cause, even when the subjects are closely related. A cohesive combined thrust is what's lacking.

#19 Kavi Ugl

Kavi Ugl

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1395 posts

Posted 20 June 2010 - 05:35 PM

I'm not sure what damoarn is going to achieve but apparently there's 6 odd people who are to be with him so instead of standing at the Market Cross making a fool of themselves why not form a political party, build it up and present the case/argument to the people of Shetland for election time?.

I could go and stand at the Market Cross wi them but for what?. On this particular issue what's said around the kitchen table will not translate into folks standing at the Market Cross. Shetlanders just aren't that kind of people, but if they can go into the privacy of a voting booth that's where they'll "speak out".

Anyway, on a personal note an independant Shetland is just not what I'm looking for because it won't resolve my deeper personal concerns about Shetland.

What I'm looking for is a return to Norway/home rule under Norway because I want to see us go back to our Scandinavian roots and that won't happen under an independant Shetland. It'll just be another english speaking Isle of Man.

#20 Ghostrider

Ghostrider

    1crankymofo

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9512 posts

Posted 20 June 2010 - 05:39 PM

You are as in a drug-induced sleep.


It would be helpful to the general population to form an educated opinion on the subject if historians, who assumedly have access to, or could obtain access to ALL of the relevant facts were to make them readily available, without first presenting a conclusion to what those facts mean, and consequently by doing so deciding which facts are relevant and which aren't.

So far all self-proclaimed experts on the subject have told the rest of us what in their opinion events 1469 to present mean. Lets for once start at the beginning, which was pre-1468, and lay down a timeline of everything and anything that is known to have occured up to present which in the opinion of anyone with an interest could possibly in any way, however small or irrelevant it may seem to anyone else, have had any bearing whatsoever on events. There is never going to be a concensus of opinion on the subject, the whole saga which has unfolded over the last 550 years has been jiggery-pokery from first to last, but at least with everything relevant to it on the table, anyone and everyone with any interest can form their own informed opinions, do their own research, consult their own choice of "expert" on the subject, and back, or not as the case may be, the "side" of the debate they can believe in from actual evidence and independent advice.

#21 Brian

Brian

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 206 posts

Posted 20 June 2010 - 05:46 PM

(1) without first presenting a conclusion to what those facts mean

(2) the whole saga which has unfolded over the last 550 years has been jiggery-pokery from first to last,

#22 Ghostrider

Ghostrider

    1crankymofo

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9512 posts

Posted 20 June 2010 - 06:38 PM

(1) without first presenting a conclusion to what those facts mean

(2) the whole saga which has unfolded over the last 550 years has been jiggery-pokery from first to last,


Quotes out of context are always good propaganda.

Quote (1) is an observation of an apparent flaw in how self-proclaimed experts on Shetland's constitutional status, who have gone public in the recent past on the subject, have behaved thus far.

Quote (2) is an overview personal opinion of any and all of the so-called "facts" and "evidence" presented by self-proclaimed experts so far. The only thing that has been proven by it, is sweet zero! Nothing yet has been clean cut or conclusive, all of it poses more questions than it answers, all of it leads to more twists and turns than had already been made known. Which pretty is pretty much the definition of "jiggery-pokery" as I know it.

"Jiggery-Pokery" in and of itself is not any kind of conclusion to any collection of facts or evidence, rather it describes a state where for whatever reason the facts and evidence so far presented are inadequate to form a conclusion.

I'm not attempting to present any conclusion, as I believe there are relevant facts and relevant information which either hasn't yet been made available by any side of the debate, or simply no longer exists to be made available. If the former a conclusion cannot be reached until it is forthcoming, if the latter a conclusion never can be reached.

#23 stephen

stephen

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 133 posts

Posted 20 June 2010 - 06:50 PM

Well, whilst I don't agree with how he's doing it at least he's trying which is more than can be said for the rest of wis who seem happy to watch wir fish and oil get sucked away from under wir feet.....


Would that be the same oil that the UK government spent near on billions looking for and initially bringing it to the surface? I don't think that you can call it 'wir oil' when it could not have been found or drilled for if not fot the UK as a whole.

And the fish... would that be the fish that comes from UK fishing grounds which are protected by Fisheries Protection Vessels financed from Edinburgh. If they are not protected, by the time the shetland fleet would get out there, the Norwegians (or whoever) would have fished the place dry.

People may not like me for this, but Shetland would struggle if 'divorced' from the mainland. Who would pay for the ferries, the schools, hospitals, doctors, subsidise the farmers, subsidise the flights etc. This can not be paid for through local taxation (not enough people live here), nor the oil (you think the UK would give that up?).

I think that this guy needs to produce a balance sheet - could be interesting...

#24 Spinner72

Spinner72

    Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPip
  • 1977 posts

Posted 20 June 2010 - 07:03 PM

A cohesive combined thrust is what's lacking.


Absolutely.

The thing with the broad subject (Shetland's history) all this refers to is that Hill's objective, as it seemed during Forvik times at least, is to get a ruling on the matter one way or the other. Surely, irrespective of any individuals opinions based on however much/little research they may have done or who they choose to believe, this would be a good thing.

You're right of course, it needs a lot more people doing this than just one for the autorities react. I can see in some way how the Sovereign Shetlander idea might work if it focussed on working from a "patriotic" standpoint and picked one specific thing to target, like boycotting council tax, which at the end of the day shouldn't detrimentally affect your life like running an illegal car could. (and you can stick the money somewhere safe to pay up at the end of the day should it all fail)

It's a shame that like all his other projects, the fact he will never shake his reputation, deserved or not, will always be detrimental especially among those most likely to support the ideas.

I would be happy to declare my status as an independant Shetlander. Less happy to be considerd "Wan o Calamity's damn fools" :wink:

#25 Ghostrider

Ghostrider

    1crankymofo

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9512 posts

Posted 20 June 2010 - 07:05 PM

^^ You have figures for what actually was paid out by the UK Treasury on North Sea exploration? I'm not saying they didn't contribute, just seems to me best of my recollection the lion's share was from the oil companies themselves.

The other items have been debated previously on another thread someplace on here, but in effect if Shetland was independent with a 200 mile/median limit, could the UK Govt. legally not give up the oil within those waters. Protecting the fish, you hire in initially at least, and sell a few fishing licences to outsiders to pay for them

#26 Kavi Ugl

Kavi Ugl

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1395 posts

Posted 20 June 2010 - 08:59 PM

Well, whilst I don't agree with how he's doing it at least he's trying which is more than can be said for the rest of wis who seem happy to watch wir fish and oil get sucked away from under wir feet.....


Would that be the same oil that the UK government spent near on billions looking for and initially bringing it to the surface? I don't think that you can call it 'wir oil' when it could not have been found or drilled for if not fot the UK as a whole.

And the fish... would that be the fish that comes from UK fishing grounds which are protected by Fisheries Protection Vessels financed from Edinburgh. If they are not protected, by the time the shetland fleet would get out there, the Norwegians (or whoever) would have fished the place dry.

People may not like me for this, but Shetland would struggle if 'divorced' from the mainland. Who would pay for the ferries, the schools, hospitals, doctors, subsidise the farmers, subsidise the flights etc. This can not be paid for through local taxation (not enough people live here), nor the oil (you think the UK would give that up?).

I think that this guy needs to produce a balance sheet - could be interesting...


No, it's Shetland's/Norway's/Denmark's territorial oil reserves. I name all three because the matter is unresolved!. And one only has to look at what Faroe is doing with the oil issue. They are shareholders in the oil/exploration companies so that if any is found they have a stake and it is them who are issueing the blocks and drilling licenses.

Again , no it's not the UK grounds it's as above!. The only thing that has happened to our Shetland fishing fleet is that they have been systematically driven off our own seas and out of business by Europe, London and Edinburgh. Infact, I'm amazed we even have a fishing fleet of any sort. I've seen huge French, Spanish etc stern trawlers fishing 40 miles north of Unst with my own eyes. Norway has one of the most prosperous fishing industries in the world due to the fact that they own and control their own waters and it probaby makes most Shetland fishermen green with envy.

For me an independant Shetland poses more questions than answers and this is part of the reason why I want us to be "under Norway's wing".

#27 Guest_Anonymous_*

Guest_Anonymous_*
  • Guests

Posted 20 June 2010 - 10:16 PM

Spanish boats , EU waters patrolled by UK fisheries "protection" , do your homework dude

And the fish... would that be the fish that comes from UK fishing grounds which are protected by Fisheries Protection Vessels financed from Edinburgh. If they are not protected, by the time the shetland fleet would get out there, the Norwegians (or whoever) would have fished the place dry.

#28 MuckleJoannie

MuckleJoannie

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3304 posts

Posted 20 June 2010 - 10:19 PM

I have been doing a bit of research on the Internet on Malise Spera. Every time when we used to drive through the Tingwall Valley my Dad used to point out the standing stone at the South end of the Tingwall Loch and say "that's where Malise Sperra was murdered". Malise Sperra was a member of the Sinclair family, the Earls of Orkney and Barons of Roslin in Midlothian. Looking into the Sinclairs I found this article by Dr Barabara Crawford

http://www.lineages....c1500-nobility/



With the rise of the Boyds to power in 1466, Earl William faced once more the prospect of aggressive policies directed by the crown towards the northern isles. The situation of tension over the ‘annual’ was used as a means to achieve royal ambitions, in the marriage negotiations which were conducted at Copenhagen in the summer of 1468. The earl refused all attempts by King Christian to summon him, undoubtedly realizing that his position as vassal of both kings made it exceedingly difficult for him to be involved in the negotiations. These resulted in the extraordinary acquiescence by King Christian in the demands of the Scottish envoys that Orkney be handed over as part of the dowry of the young Princess Margaret. Desperately short of cash, and desperate for a good marriage for his daughter, he agreed to pledge the islands as part payment for the dowry; in the following year he agreed to pledge Shetland for most of the rest. There is little doubt that his transfer included all of the islands, and not just the royal estates. It remained for the ambitious councillors of James III to prevail upon the earl to give up all his rights in his earldom, which he did in 1470, thus ensuring permanent possessions for the Scottish crown in the islands, even if the Danish monarchy should ever succeed in redeeming them. The impression that the earl came out very badly from the ‘excambion’ of 1470 is probably unjustified, since in exchange for his right in the earldom he received the very fine royal castle of Ravenscraig in Fife, a number of valuable privileges and confirmations which he must himself have stipulated, and a handsome annual pension of 400 merks.



#29 Guest_Anonymous_*

Guest_Anonymous_*
  • Guests

Posted 20 June 2010 - 10:30 PM

many things written by the con men to try n prove thier point, i think the original signed documentation says different , but ask Stuart Hill as he does actually know

With the rise of the Boyds to power in 1466, Earl William faced once more the prospect of aggressive policies directed by the crown towards the northern isles. The situation of tension over the ‘annual’ was used as a means to achieve royal ambitions, in the marriage negotiations which were conducted at Copenhagen in the summer of 1468. The earl refused all attempts by King Christian to summon him, undoubtedly realizing that his position as vassal of both kings made it exceedingly difficult for him to be involved in the negotiations. These resulted in the extraordinary acquiescence by King Christian in the demands of the Scottish envoys that Orkney be handed over as part of the dowry of the young Princess Margaret. Desperately short of cash, and desperate for a good marriage for his daughter, he agreed to pledge the islands as part payment for the dowry; in the following year he agreed to pledge Shetland for most of the rest. There is little doubt that his transfer included all of the islands, and not just the royal estates. It remained for the ambitious councillors of James III to prevail upon the earl to give up all his rights in his earldom, which he did in 1470, thus ensuring permanent possessions for the Scottish crown in the islands, even if the Danish monarchy should ever succeed in redeeming them. The impression that the earl came out very badly from the ‘excambion’ of 1470 is probably unjustified, since in exchange for his right in the earldom he received the very fine royal castle of Ravenscraig in Fife, a number of valuable privileges and confirmations which he must himself have stipulated, and a handsome annual pension of 400 merks.

#30 Ghostrider

Ghostrider

    1crankymofo

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 9512 posts

Posted 20 June 2010 - 10:58 PM

I have been doing a bit of research on the Internet on Malise Spera. Every time when we used to drive through the Tingwall Valley my Dad used to point out the standing stone at the South end of the Tingwall Loch and say "that's where Malise Sperra was murdered". Malise Sperra was a member of the Sinclair family, the Earls of Orkney and Barons of Roslin in Midlothian. Looking into the Sinclairs I found this article by Dr Barabara Crawford

http://www.lineages....c1500-nobility/



With the rise of the Boyds to power in 1466, Earl William faced once more the prospect of aggressive policies directed by the crown towards the northern isles. The situation of tension over the ‘annual’ was used as a means to achieve royal ambitions, in the marriage negotiations which were conducted at Copenhagen in the summer of 1468. The earl refused all attempts by King Christian to summon him, undoubtedly realizing that his position as vassal of both kings made it exceedingly difficult for him to be involved in the negotiations. These resulted in the extraordinary acquiescence by King Christian in the demands of the Scottish envoys that Orkney be handed over as part of the dowry of the young Princess Margaret. Desperately short of cash, and desperate for a good marriage for his daughter, he agreed to pledge the islands as part payment for the dowry; in the following year he agreed to pledge Shetland for most of the rest. There is little doubt that his transfer included all of the islands, and not just the royal estates. It remained for the ambitious councillors of James III to prevail upon the earl to give up all his rights in his earldom, which he did in 1470, thus ensuring permanent possessions for the Scottish crown in the islands, even if the Danish monarchy should ever succeed in redeeming them. The impression that the earl came out very badly from the ‘excambion’ of 1470 is probably unjustified, since in exchange for his right in the earldom he received the very fine royal castle of Ravenscraig in Fife, a number of valuable privileges and confirmations which he must himself have stipulated, and a handsome annual pension of 400 merks.


Even if that is right, all its saying that by the Scots Royals getting the Earldom off Sinclair they and their successors have permanent hold of the Earldom of Orkney and Shetland, which is a long way short of ownership, sovereignity etc etc. If anything that piece strengthens Hill's stance that we are a Crown Dependency, as it admits the possibility of redemption by the Danish Crown is/was still open.





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: scottish independance, shetland independance