|
Introduction
In this book I present what many people would regard as radical ideas.
What I have done is to follow the evidence and draw a logical conclusion.
If others choose to live in a fantasy world, that is their prerogative.
I prefer reality.
There is an almost universal presumption, carefully nurtured by those who
covet our resources and would control us, that Shetland1 is part of Scotland
and hence part of the UK. A presumption, yes, but cold, hard facts? Not a
trace.
This is an attempt to take a fresh look at Shetland’s history from a legal
perspective. I do not come to the task with the preconceived ideas of a
historian or a lawyer and have been able, I hope, to view the documents
with the fresh eyes of an outsider and a mind clear of any baggage. It has
enabled me to find new insights and has given me a clearer understanding
of Shetland’s true position. I have challenged preconceptions and drawn
conclusions markedly different to the accepted wisdom in many cases.
You cannot give what you do not have. Shetland’s history is laced with
instances of people (mainly kings) giving, or presumed to be giving,
something they didn’t own. For a historian that is something to be simply
recorded, for a lawyer it stops the process in its tracks. In law, something
cannot be built on nothing. If an action is unlawful, anything that depends
upon that action becomes null and void - as if it had never happened.
There has been a concerted effort by vested interests to bury and distort the
real story. Those vested interests both within Shetland and without are not
interested in too close an examination of the status quo. Many more are
simply too comfortable, or too apprehensive to consider any change. In any
case Shetland is so valuable to the UK that it is generally unthinkable to
challenge the official presumption that she is part of Scotland.
It may seem inconceivable, but Shetland’s legal position has never been
properly tested in the courts. Consequently, it has been left to historians to
propose routes of varying plausibility to explain how Shetland’s
constitutional position changed between 1469 and the present day. On close
inspection there are glaring irregularities that appear to have been simply
* Most of what I say applies equally to Orkney, but there are important historical differences, so I confine my remarks mainly to Shetland. The crucial document upon which the Crown relies for its authority carries the same weight in each case.
|