Future of constitution (Les Sinclair)

I note the recent flurry of comment on Shetland’s status as part of Scotland, and how that might be interpreted in the event of different results in the forthcoming referendum on Scotland leaving or remaining within the UK. As most Shetlanders know to some extent, there does not seem to be any doubt that “Shetland” was “pawned” to the Scottish Crown in 1469 as part of a dowry from King Christian of Denmark (and Norway) to King James III of Scotland on his marriage to King Christian’s daughter, and the “pawning” was intended to be temporary, and redeemable by payment of the sum of money that was originally promised for the dowry. It seems that first Orkney, then Shetland were offered as a temporary settlement in lieu of the dowry money.
Since there was no feudal ownership of land in Norway/Denmark by their crown, land in Shetland was held by allodial title, independent of any superior landlord (and udal law pertained), so all that King Christian could offer were his estates in Shetland, and not overlordship of the entire Shetlands. However the Scottish Crown interpreted this in feudal terms and siezed control of the whole islands (Orkney and Shetland) by annexation in 1471, and there followed the brutal earldom of Patrick Stewart.
It may be interesting to refer to the settlement of the Treaty of Perth (1266) in which Norway recognised Scottish sovereignty over the disputed territories in the west of Scotland in return for a lump sum of 4,000 marks and an annuity of 100 marks. Scotland also confirmed in that treaty the Norwegian sovereignty over Shetland and Orkney.
Scotland at that time was a nation becoming unified from lesser kingdoms – the Scots themselves had been invaders from Ulster, vying with the Norwegians occupying the western isles and Britons, Picts and Anglo-Saxons in other regions. So – go far enough back, no land was owned by any crown until these emerged and asserted their “rights”. The Treaty of Perth does seem important in officially recognising the Norwegian sovereignty over Shetland and Orkney, and unlike the latter Scottish or English feudal crowns the Norwegian sovereignty did not insist on overlordship of all land. Thus in 1469 the then unified Danish/Norwegian crown could only “pawn” the actual crown estates but not the sovereignty – or that is one popular interpretation.
The status of Shetland (and Orkney) has never been properly clarified since. It seems that over subsequent time a number of attempts were made by the Scandinavians (themselves a shifting amalgamation of Norway, Denmark and Sweden) to reclaim them by negotiation, but they were consistently fobbed off. The Treaty of Breda in 1667 appears to have settled various issues (including the allocation of New York from the Dutch to the UK) and confirms that the pawning of Shetland and Orkney is ‘unprescribed and imprescribable’. In other words, the pawned status has not been, and cannot be, changed. Shortly after this, Charles II (in 1669) used his Act of Annexation to try to remedy the concept that the isles were held in trust (through the unredeemed pawning) to state “It is not only fit in order to his majesty’s interests, but will be the great advantage of his Majesty’s subjects dwelling there, that without interposing any other Lord or superior betwixt his Majesty and them, they should have an immediate dependence upon his Majesty and his Officers”. In other words Shetland and Orkney are a Crown protectorate directly governed by the Crown (until they are redeemed from the pawning, which he didn’t mention, nor did he mention that the land holding is allodial anyway and the crown does not have feudal superiority).
It is worth remembering that the “Crown” is that of Scotland, the descendents of King James III of Scotland. It just happens that the Crowns of Scotland and England united in 1603 with the accession of King James VI of Scotland to the united thrones of England and Ireland. This was a was a personal or dynastic union, with the Crown of Scotland remaining both distinct and separate. The Act of Union in 1707 united the sovereign states of Scotland and England/Wales/Ireland into the United Kingdom. The referendum coming in 2014 will ask the people of Scotland (since nobody asked them in 1707) whether that union (the UK) should remain or whether Scotland should leave the union and be a self-governing independent sovereign state. If the majority of the people of Scotland vote to leave the UK, and Scotland retains a Crown, that crown will be the Crown of Scotland, and Shetland will be a protectorate of the Scottish Crown, not the Crown of England (no matter how Shetland votes in the referendum). A comparison might be made to the Pacific Islands which are protectorates of Australia (could they be protectorates of the Australian Crown, also embodied in the same personage as the Crowns of Scotland, England, Canada, New Zealand, etc – or are they protectorates of the government?). There is nothing constitutional to support that Shetland could remain within the UK if Scotland secedes from the UK – the protectorate (Shetland) remains the responsibility of the Scottish Crown until the pawn is redeemed. However it seems about time that the status of Shetland (and Orkney?) as a temporary Crown protectorate is recognised and that their governance is negotiated. Their administration as a county of Scotland refers back to their illegal feudal annexation in 1471. It can be debated whether any current or future government of Scotland or the United Kingdom has the legal right to govern them directly – only the Crown of Scotland has that, and that has obligations under the dowry settlement of 1469 to protect their status, and allow their redemption. It would seem that modern day Norway has a strong claim to regain sovereignty by redeeming the dowry settlement. Is Shetland the Malvinas of the northern Atlantic, or would the indigenous islanders (and who are they?) be more willing to switch sides?

We may all get a shock if the Scandinavians were to get involved in the sovereignty of the Orkney and Shetland Isles, we may find our self’s involved in more than a verbal battle over who owns Shetland, (It may end up similar to the Falkland cold war with Argentina,) Shetland sits in the middle of very lucrative area of the North sea and on the West coast the Atlantic ocean, the media have just stated that £90 millions worth of fish was landed in Shetland last year, and within the quotas dished out by the Europeans, If Shetland were to lay there cards on the table to Holyrood now not after, 2014 this would give us the chance to see what was best for Shetland, It is no use coming (greetin efter,) saying we should have done it that way or this way, where are our Politicians they should be thrashing out what is the best for Shetland, of course we hear from them weekly with there diary of how they have managed in either Holyrood or Westminster, this is not especially at this time what we want to hear, our Islands and our lives are at stake, It is the positive news we are waiting for.

Seeing as how we canna run the SIC, how can we ever hope to run an independent Shetland? Get real, folk.

There are two men in the UK who already know deep down that the vote will be YES; obviously the First Minister, and David Cameron, which is why he has decided on the EU in/out referendum.
Westminster running Shetland? No more NHS Scotland, no more Air Discount Scheme, no subsidy on the ferry- remember everything must pay- and since it was a Tory govt that promised to refund the SIC house building programme of millions, and we are still waiting, I think we would be more fairly treated, and are being , by an SNP rule than Tory.
Or are some of us getting greedy?

Due to lack of true facts and sensible argument Douglas Young has resorted to lies and scare mongering so early in this debate. It speaks volumes.

Happy burns night to all who would vote Yes or No.

Does haughty Gaul invasion threat?
Then let the louns beware, Sir;
There’s wooden walls upon our seas,
And volunteers on shore, Sir:
The Nith shall run to Corsincon,
And Criffel sink in Solway,
Ere we permit a Foreign Foe
On British ground to rally!
We’ll ne’er permit a Foreign Foe
On British ground to rally!

O let us not, like snarling curs,
In wrangling be divided,
Till, slap! come in an unco loun,
And wi’ a rung decide it!
Be Britain still to Britain true,
Amang ourselves united;
For never but by British hands
Maun British wrangs be righted!
No! never but by British hands
Shall British wrangs be righted!

The Kettle o’ the Kirk and State,
Perhaps a clout may fail in’t;
But deil a foreign tinkler loun
Shall ever ca’a nail in’t.
Our father’s blude the Kettle bought,
And wha wad dare to spoil it;
By Heav’ns! the sacrilegious dog
Shall fuel be to boil it!
By Heav’ns! the sacrilegious dog
Shall fuel be to boil it!

The wretch that would a tyrant own,
And the wretch, his true-born brother,
Who would set the Mob aboon the Throne,
May they be damn’d together!
Who will not sing “God save the King,”
Shall hang as high’s the steeple;
But while we sing “God save the King,”
We’ll ne’er forget The People!
But while we sing “God save the King,”
We’ll ne’er forget The People!

I meant to add in my comment above, at 28,000 the population of Aland is comparable to Shetland.

Positive Scottishness contrasts with the inward looking negative narrative of grievance and division. The SNP, on ceremonial occasions, wear a white rose in reference to a work by nationalist poet Hugh MacDiarmid. “The rose of all the world is not for me”, he wrote, “I want for my part only the little white rose of Scotland.” How closed-minded. How parochial. How un-Scottish. How negative.

The forthcoming Scottish independence referendum in 2014 is potentially an historic event of similar proportions to the Union of the Parliaments, 1707, or, for Shetland, the “Maid of Norway” episode in 1469.

That and the historic legal anomalies detailed by Robin Barclay above being the case, it is vital that we get it right this time. There is a potentially amazing future for Shetland if we are prepared to grasp it and no stone should be left unturned along the way.

Suffice it to say that “learned helplessness” along the lines of “A new constitution.. an laas, peerie aald wis could nivver manage dat?!” must not be allowed to enter into it.

ian, your customary abuse aimed at anyone who takes issue with you, in however slight a way, is entertaining up to a point but ultimately tiresome. I think I am now rapidly running up some sort of personal record with you as having produced the worst ideas and the worst drivel you have ever come across.

Hyperbole apart, you will see, if you re-read my last post, that I was not “claiming that the setting up of a modern independent state or Crown Dependency cannot be done in modern times”. I was merely pointing out that it wouldn’t, as you appeared to claim yourself in your previous post, be a “simple” thing to do. I think it would be a big and potentially self-defeating diversion of energies to try to do what you are suggesting. But we live in a democracy and if that is the way our representatives ultimately wish to go I will accept it along with everything else. And then you can tell me “I told you so!”

Why should Shetland hand over what rightfully belongs to us Islanders, only for either Westminster or Holyrood, to do as they want what with what is not there’s only for David Cameron and Alex Salmond to do as they wish neither of whom have never not set foot on Shetland, at the moment the UK Is in a near state of bankruptcy, if they go we go as well then what, we will get none of the freebees we are getting, I cannot see any reason why Shetland cant stand on its own two feet, at least if we go down there will be no one to blame but our self’s,
Now that our MSP Tavish Scott has become involved hopefully he will make the SNP sit up and listen, the SNP know exactly what the wealth of our Isles and surrounding waters holds, at this moment we hold the ACE card in the pack but we must play our card right, and hold out for some sort of Autonomy if there is a YES vote, or if there is a no vote all the more reason to go for it alone, is there any legitimate reason why we cant stand on our own, smaller Isles around the Globe have gone on there own and never looked back, with the proper people in charge, yes I mean intellectuals who know there right from there left, I seriously think Shetland has it all, Shetland in my estimation is like a huge Diamond sitting in the middle of the North sea and the Atlantic, what we need is some one like Tavish Scott or similar to push for our rights, I am not a Lib Dem by any means, A guy like Tavish Scott who knows Shetland in side out, is the type of person who would make a excellent Governor, or what ever the title would be, Shetland would need to think very hard on which way is the best way forward, Shetland has three options, Either stay with Westminster, David Cameron and Nick Clegg in charge, or a yes vote and go with Alex Salmond, or go it alone and look after our own affaires.

Robert, “Our islands have been part of Scotland and then the UK for hundreds of years. We have no experience at all for hundreds of years of self-government in the way you mean”. This is actually “drivel” as you are advocating Scotland as an example for self government.

Everything you have said is true, not about Shetland but about Scotland, even with the the Scottish Parliament, Scotland has no idea of self government in any way or form.

When our dictatorial First Minister is asked any question on Scotland’s future as an independent nation all we get for answers are lies and rhetoric.

We have no idea if we will be part of Europe or not, we don’t know what currency we will have. We don’t know what we will pay for our TV licence, road tax, driving licence, passport and a hundred other every day expenses. We don’t know what share of the pension pot we have all paid into in Westminster will come to Holyrood for the benefit of Scottish pensioners.

Every day people have questions about every day costs and we don’t know the answers because neither do the SNP who along with others would take us blindly into the unknown.

What Ian proposes can be researched and the answers are there because it has been done before, there are no lies or rhetoric involved.

You seem to take issue with the way Ian debates, well Iv’e learned through experience that’s the way he does it, so my advice is if you cant stand the heat stay out of the kitchen.

Douglas,

Gordon, like Ian is apt to “call a spade a spade” and for the benefit of the polite dinner party fraternity, my interpretation of “drivel” is “devoid of logic.”

Robert, I am glad for a clear and unambiguous expression of your opinion. That cannot be criticised and is laudable. It is however only an opinion, no more, no less. I would disagree, often inane as are local leaders are, they are local, contactable and our very own. We individually can see and discus events and policy with them. That is something individually we can never do with Salmond and his Holyrood friends. or for that matter Westminster politicians. I prefer our own locally bred and resident clowns to distant clowns from overseas. My natural preference would be continuation of a United Kingdom, but if that is not to be, Shetland has the ability and leadership to go for Crown Dependency, for what it is worth, that is my profound belief.

Robert,

Actually, I enjoy your contribution to the various debates and hadn’t considered my last comment as savagery at all, rather, as a light-hearted addition.

Nor do I find much to quibble about in what you have said however I can’t agree with this comment you made above;-

“I think it (setting up a Crown Dependency) would be a big and potentially self-defeating diversion of energies to try to do what you (Ian Tinkler) are suggesting.”

Yes it would involve considerable legal and bureaucratic effort however I don’t accept it would be “potentially self-defeating.”

I take your point about the Channel Islands and the isle of Man however the difficulties you indicate do not seem to have hindered Scandinavian countries from creating autonomous island communities in the twentieth century, as recently as 1975 (Greenland).

I expect places like Faroe and Greenland have experience of developing satisfactory institutions that we could learn much from if it came to it.

I am not saying we should leave Scotland or the UK, I am saying that during this once in three centuries opportunity we should consider all options and their implications carefully and indeed, debate them here and elsewhere.

I want us to make the right decision for the right reasons and if it turns out there are serious benefits in Crown Dependency I can’t accept learned helplessness in the form “Whit, peerie aald Shetlan’, we cud nivver dae dat”? as an excuse for not doing it.

A peerie suggestion.

Assuming Scotland becomes independent and the UK is therefore dissolved, the current proposal from the SNP is for a unicameral parliament as now. Basically the Scottish Parliament will simply take on the full powers of a normal state parliament and the unnecessary layer (Westminster) will no longer be in the equation. This will save Scottish taxpayers £50m a year.

Because the population is greatest in the central belt, the elected chamber will always (and correctly) be dominated by the populated areas.

One way to re-balance this would be to have a Scottish Senate – a second, revising chamber. The Senate should be elected geographically – Shetland gets – 1 or 2 Senators, Glasgow gets 1 or 2, Orkney gets 1 or 2, Edinburgh gets 1 or 2. Senatorial constituencies to be broadly based on the existing 32 local authorities – although Highland is really too big so perhaps it should be split into at least 2 constituencies.

As with the House of Lords the Senate should have the power to delay and revise, but not over-rule the elected chamber.

The Senate should not be based in Edinburgh in order to maintain ‘distance’ from the Scottish Parliament, but should be outwith the Central Belt. There’s a rather fine building in Perth that would do nicely (bear in mind that Senators would have to travel from the Borders and from Shetland).

The Senate should be constitutionally entrenched as part of our new written constitution.

In this way the outlying areas – the Borders, Dumfries & Galloway, the Hebrides, Orkney, Shetland, The Highlands, the North East – would be properly represented in the new Scottish Democracy

Forget Tramish and Lib Dem self-interest. Forget the irrelevance of UKIP or of Calamity’s Shetlandshire dreams. Forget the fake viking tosh. Take practical steps to ensure that the centralism of Westminster is not replicated in Scotland.

Derick Tulloch, the scorn in the first part of your last paragraph is typical of the attitude of the SNP and Salmond in particular towards Shetland, The apple has not fallen very fair from the lairds tree in your case, has it?

John,
Yes Shetland could and should play a role in lobbying for a Senate. I would say Shetland should play a leading role. Whatever one’s view on Scotland’s constitutional future if we are heading for Independence then it is up to us to make it fit our needs. Applies to Argyll as much as Shetland. All this nonsense about Shetland ‘staying’ with England is just scare and fear – and given the international precedents regarding ‘isolated offshore islands’ within the EEZ of other states extremely risky nonsense for Shetland.

I was at a well attended lecture at Glasgow University in September by Donald Shell entitled ‘Does Scotland Need A Senate’ http://www.gla.ac.uk/events/lectures/?action=details&id=6210 and I made the point that quite a few in the land of my birth would ask ‘Why swop far away London for far away Edinburgh?’ (not a view I hold to but I asked the question). Seemed to be well received and I noted that the Research Director of the Constitutional Commission took it on board. There are many ways to provide checks and balances but a geographically elected Senate is the only way to do it in a country with Scotland’s human geography. Shetland, Orkney, Elean Siar, the Highlands, Argyll and Kintyre, The Northeast, Caithness & Sutherland, The Borders and Dumfries & Galloway are potentially a very influential grouping and should be working together to ensure a Senate forms part of any discussions around a Scottish Constitution are in there at the drafting stage to ensure the outlying areas are fully represented. Shetland has her unique points, as do all these other areas. All have an interest in shaping any reformed Scottish State to our own interest and ensuring the Central Belt does not dominate.

Ali I have no idea what du is on aboot regarding lairds trees and apples! Certainly scorn for fake vikings though. Load a nonsense.

Gordon £50m is from the Yes Scotland main site. Presume they have added up all the MP salaries (nearly £4m alone!), expenses, staff costs, House of Lords etc and that’s what it comes to. A Senate could be funded from that with a very considerable surplus.

I suggested Perth because it is geographically central and there is a fine building currently vacant which could be adapted for a very modest sum. http://www.saveperthcityhall.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/PCH1.jpg
Amenable to other suggestions – Aberdeen or Inverness have good transport links but no suitable building going cheap.

The constitutional position is clear – the United Kingdom State was formed by the Treaty of Union between Scotland and England (incorporating Wales) in 1707. Ireland came later, and partly left again – but the founding partners are Scotland and England/Wales. If one partner withdraws from the Treaty and there is no UK State. If your wife leaves you, you are single!

Brian Smith says my account is inaccurate from beginning to end and cites his own published interpretation as the correct account. My account is based on what I was told growing up in Shetland by various sources, and verified by checking from what seems to be available currently on the internet. I am no expert in this, whereas it is in Brian’s professional/academic field – so I would very much like to hear what his interpretation of Shetland’s constitutional position is, and where my reading has misinformed me. He cites an article he has published which is not freely available, so it would be good if he could summarise his views here, not just for me but for the information of others. I have no political axe to grind – I would hesitate to join any party because I might feel obliged to vote for them. I am swithering as to how I personally should vote in the independence referendum, but suspect that the country will vote no to leaving the UK. However that doesn’t mean that Shetland’s constitutional position shouldn’t be clarified and that there might be an opportunity to use that process to gain some measure of autonomy – it may never come again so it needs to be considered and maybe pursued. It might be going a bit far to suggest that we could even look to doing some deal with Norway if we can’t get satisfaction from Scotland and/or the UK. Norwegians seem to have a good deal from their government in many respects – but that doesn’t seem to figure in any comment above. I have many friends in Norway and from discussions with them it seems to me that Shetlanders should maybe look across the water, compare, and reflect whether that might be in their interests. Maybe Brian can tell us if constitutionally that is a no starter.

– Gordon Harmer, would you care to comment on the following?

“‘Scotland subsidising rest of UK’ October 2010 by World Renowned Economist Andrew Hughes Hallett

“A leading Professor of Economics, Andrew Hughes Hallett, has sensationally confirmed that Scotland has been subsidising the UK treasury in London for years and that the Calman Commission recommendations are unworkable and potentially damaging.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbUZkKD-jrY

@ Allan Reid, So what would happen to the continental shelf if Shetland and Orkney were to choose to be free of both Edinburgh and London? Scots nationalists are happy to crow about how the oil and fish is theirs all theirs and no one else’s.
But what if eh?

Alan Reid, I think Andrew Hughes Hallett was probably having a delusional attack when he said that, the same kind of attack that seems to affect most separatists from time to time. It seems to be brought on by actually believing what Alex Salmond preaches.

I suppose it all depends where you pull your facts and figures from and how you wish to present them. Some actual figures which anybody can get.

Everyone tells us that Scotland is too poor to stand on its own feet and we will always require an English subsidy.

Fact! Scotland has 8.6% of the UK population yet raises 10.41% of all UK tax revenues. (Source Treasury red Book 2002) Go figure it out for yourself. Exactly who is subsidising who?

Scotland could not survive without the Barnet formula handout from England.

The Barnett Formula is nothing more than a device which gives Scotland some of its own pocket money out of Scotland’s pay packet which is taken by England. In 2002, Scotland contributed £42.7Billions to the UK Exchequer and received £18.1 Billions doled back in return via Barnet. It would be a much better idea to keep the £42.7 Billions as an Independent Country.

North Sea oil is running out fast and soon there will be nothing left……

According to Professor Alex Kemp, of Petroleum Economics at the University of Aberdeen. North Sea Oil and Gas production will still be present in 2050. There is as much known oil left yet to be extracted than has already been exploited. Shale gas looks to be a long term solution should we decide go down that route and stop paying a ludicrous subsidy to an industry that never will be able to meet our needs.

Britain is becoming a net importer of oil and natural gas.

False, Scotland is a net exporter of Oil and Gas. Fact: An independent Scotland with 17.5% of Europe’s Oil reserves will be a net exporter of oil and gas for at least 25 years more years. Properly invested the proceeds will make Scotland the second richest nation on earth for its size. There will be huge social and economic benefits for all Scotland’s Citizens and public services.

Scotland is too poor and small to afford to defend itself.

Why not? Switzerland uses just 1% of its GDP to provide a modern efficient Army and Air force. Norway spends 1.9% and can defend itself adequately. The UK spends 2.32% of GDP on its armed forces (Including Trident) Scotland can afford 1.6% of its GDP and still have modern professional armed forces half the size of the present UK.

We have a huge balance of payments problem; Scotland cannot possibly hope to pay her way.

False, the UK as a whole has Balance of Payments deficit of £44 Billions per annum. Scotland however actually contributes a Surplus of £3.4 Billions in 2005.

Scotland could not compete against the mighty economic muscle of England.

Untrue, Denmark has an economic superpower to her south (Germany) and she does very well indeed. Switzerland is surrounded by three great economic superpowers, France, Italy, and Germany, yet she is the most prosperous nation in Europe. Singapore is a tiny island of 4 million people right next door to Indonesia with a population if 201 Millions yet is the powerhouse driving the SE Asian economy. Scotland has more than enough expertise to compete and prosper.

Scotland is too far away from the centre of Europe to prosper.

Nonsense, we have all the resources that a modern society will need, it is incredible what is being made of Scotlands place in Europe if there was a yes vote. There is absolutely no reason to suggest we would not be accepted as currently it’s all hands to the pumps to try and save the floundering Euro economy.

The City of London is too powerful a financial centre for Scotland to compete against.

Scotland is the third largest of Europe’s top ten financial centres, supporting employment for in the region of 200,000 people. Financial Services accounts for 8% of Scotland’s GDP and generates more than £20 billion annually for the economy. Scotland is reckoned to be the 12th leading global financial centre.

Scotland does not have the financial expertise to run its own affairs.

Who says so, it is strange that the late British Empire relied on a preponderance of Scots to run their affairs. Scots bankers, economists and Accountants (reckoned to be the best in their fields) are to be found at all levels of the UK Government. Therefore the expertise is there. I can hear ‘What about Gordon Brown’ well we did not lose the triple A status under his tenure. In my lifetime the longest period of controlled interest rates and no boom and bust economy as in the eighties when we lurched from one election to the other. Allbeit they gave the decision making power to Sir Mervin King a guy who actually knew what he was doing.

One thing we do seem to excel at is running ourselves down. The ballot box will decide, but remember there is no 2/3 majority required as was imposed by Westminster in the Seventies 51% will do.

So Jim you have literally copied word for word an article from “Pros and cons of unionism” dated 28/02/2007 and you are calling it facts “what!”

Quoting figures from 2002 and 2005, 11 and 7 years ago is hardly pulling facts relevant to today’s reality but more like clutching at straws to make fiction.
Followed by the same old rhetoric, if so and so can do it so can we. This reminds me of being in the playground and hearing other guys bragging what their Dad could do better than a siblings Dad.

I notice you have not used poor old bankrupt Ireland as an example of what Scotland could be like, you have finally realised this example is a bit to near the truth for comfort.

And only this week (not 11 years ago) the OBR forecast an £8bn fall in projected revenues from the UK’s oil and gas industry. This will critically damage Scotland’s chances of surviving as a viable independent state, in the unlikely event of a yes vote. The fall in expectations, since the last OBR projections must be hard for the SNP and their sheep like followers to swallow, as they have laid claim to at least 90 per cent of the UK’s North Sea energy reserves. What a blow to Alex Salmond and followers who have depended heavily on claims that “Scotland’s oil” could help their fantasy of an independent state.

Greetings from Fife. I stumbled upon, “The Shetland Times”, website while searching for something else and was greatly interested by the debate on the subject of independence for the Northern Isles. As a long term SNP supporter I know SNP Party policy upon independence for any parts of an independent Scotland wishing independence. First, to be clear, the Scottish Government has no powers to grant independence. This is what Mr Salmond had said about Orkney & Shetland that is wrongly reported as him saying they were too wee to matter. Thus independence for Shetland, if Islanders so voted, is dependent upon Scotland’s first gaining her independence. SNP policy is that, “In an already independent Scotland”, if Shetland so voted, they would become independent but that more decentralised powers would be the best way forward for all concerned. The obvious downside for Shetland is this – On Shetland independence the Islands would be subject to, “The International Law of The Seas”. The Islands would thus become an, “Enclave”, within another state’s territorial waters. Thus they would have very little territorial waters and NO continental shelf whatsoever. How much oil & gas fields would remain in Shetland waters would be very much limited. Please, Shetlanders, ask proper Scottish Government, or even independent, legal advice before continued debate upon this matter. I fear your elected members are rather sparse with the truth.
Aefauldlie, (Scots for Honestly), Frae, Robert, (Auld Bob), Peffers.

Ian,

I live on the Scottish mainland and I like the people and the place very much, indeed. That is irrelevant to what is best for the future of Shetland.

I’m unsure why you are resurrecting this argument, there’s a far more important one based on a contemporary issue on another thread – notably, the inability of the SNP and its former member Jean Urquhart MSP to properly research their sweeping statements about the consequences of home rule for Shetland in international law.

I’d rather carry on with that one for the moment if you don’t mind and I’d very much like to hear your views on that subject.