TSNS Foundation Corpus

Reader’s Note
This Foundation Corpus presents the core legal authorities, historical instruments, and documentary evidence upon which TSNS analysis proceeds. It is evidential in nature and is not a manifesto, policy statement, or political argument. The documents are cited for what they say and show, not for conclusions drawn beyond their text. Readers are encouraged to distinguish carefully between evidence, interpretation, and unresolved questions.

Purpose of the Foundation Corpus

The TSNS Foundation Corpus sets out the core evidential materials upon which all analysis, doctrine, and engagement by The Sovereign Nation of Shetland (TSNS) proceeds.

• It is not an argument, manifesto, or political programme.
• It is a closed evidential foundation consisting of primary legal authorities, historical instruments, and documentary evidence of practice.
• All TSNS positions, discussions, and strategies assume this corpus as their common factual and legal baseline.

The documents included are not controversial as documents. Their existence, wording, and provenance are matters of record. Interpretation and consequence may be debated; the materials themselves are not in dispute.

1. Legal Authorities (Scots Law)

The following institutional sources of Scots law establish the relationship between land ownership, authority, and jurisdiction. They are cited for what they say, not for conclusions drawn beyond their text.

Stair Memorial Encyclopaedia of the Laws of Scotland

• Vol. 4, para. 1 — document — "The authority of the court derives from the sovereign power".
• Vol. 18, para. 42 — document — "Thus in feudalism landownership and sovereignty coincided, so that the Crown's sovereignty over Scotland and its dominium eminens, its ultimate tenurial superiority, were the same thing, were identical concepts".
  Note 4 on the same page: "We still have a relic of this in the rule that the Crown cannot dispone but onlt feu, for to dispone would, in the feudal scheme of things, be to alienate not only land but also sovereignty".
• Vol. 18, para. 47 — document — "The dominium eminens or ultimate superiority of the Crown is allodial, because not held of a higher lord, except of God".
• Vol. 24, para. 302 — document - "These two documents [the 1468 and 1469 pawning documents] form the basis of the Scottish Crown's right to Orkney and Shetland".

Green’s Encyclopaedia of the Laws of Scotland

• Vol. XV, para. 692 — document - Speaking of the pawning documents: "This is the title by which the sovereignty stands in Great Britain".
• Vol. XV, para. 692 — document - "All lands in Orkney and Shetland remain udal, excepting such as have been feudalised by charter emanating directly from the Corwn, or indirectly through earldom or bishopric title".

Other institutional material

• The Shetland Report (1978) — document - A constitutional study prepared for the Shetland Islands Council by the Nevis Institute under the chairmanship of Lord Kilbrandon. The Report give nine possible Models of how Shetland might go forward in the event of Scottish devolution. From the Chairman's preface: "Above all, the Report is not intended to, and does not, give advice or opinions on the desirability of any of the Models set up. That would be to usurp the responsibilities of the people of Shetland".

2. Historical Foundation Instruments

• The 1669 Pawning document — document - This is the document upon which Shetland is founded according to the Laws of Scotland. By its nature it does not give allodial ownership to the Scottish Crown.
• The 1468 (Orkney) pawning document — document

3. Evidence of Presumption in Practice

FOI / EIR replies indicating information not held

These authorities were asked via Freedom of Information Requests if the had information showing either that the Crown owns Shetland, or that Shetland is part of Scotland.

• UK Government Legal Department — document - Information not held.
• Scottish Government — document - Information not held.
• COPFS - Refused to answer
• Crown Estate — document - Information not held.
• Crown Estate Scotland — document - Information not held.
• DVLA — document - Information not held.
• Electoral Commission — document - Information not held.
• HMRC — document - Information not held.
• Lands Tribunal for Scotland — document - Information not held.
• OFGEM — document - Information not held.
• Registers of Scotland — document - Question evaded.
• Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service — document - Information not held.
• Police Scotland — document - Refused to respond.
• Scottish Police Authority — document - Information not held.
• Shetland Islands Council — document - Information not held.
• SSE — document - No Response.

Correspondence and replies

Claims, with associated correspondence, made by The Sovereign Nation of Shetland for allodial ownership of the whole of Shetland and the surrounding seabed out to 200 miles. They were made to The UK government, the Scottish government and the Scottish office and remain unrebutted, despite reminders in 2021.

• Scottish Government — TSNS allodial claim to Shetland — document
• Scottish Office — TSNS allodial claim to Shetland document - People in Shetland will recognise Alistair Carmichael, Shetland's MP, in his then position at the Scottish Office.
• UK Government — TSNS allodial claim to Shetland — document
• Scottish Courts — No court, when challenged, has shown, or been shown, proof of its jurisdiction in Shetland.

Here follows correspondence with various key authorities, where they have failed to prosecute on matters that would normally be routine:

• Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) declined to prosecute — document - the Procurator Fiscal gives no reason for not prosecuting on routine traffic offences. "I have considered the report and have decided to take no action in this case against you at this time".
• HMRC — correspondence showing reluctance to prosecute — document - since 2023, one of our members has been withholding payment of VAT and income tax until HMRC shows proof of its authority in Shetland. HMRC send threatening letters, followed by collection agencies. The collection agencies return the file to HMRC when they are faced with the problem. HMRC sends more threatening letters and so it goes on. A key quote is from their first response. Having pointed out that Tax law in the UK is governed by UK legislation, they then say "The UK consists of Great Britain, Northern Ireland and the waters within 12 miles of their coastlines. This includes the Shetlands". No explanation of how this includes "the Shetlands". Our first letter to HMRC states "In the event that you are unable to show proof of authority in Shetland, our members will reasonably expect full recompense for the VAT and other taxes they have paid in the past". We have seen no proof.
• DVLA — correspondence showing reluctance to prosecute — document - gradually escalating letters from the DVLA, threatening court action for breaking the law and ending with one that said "... if the DVLA receive any notification of such a breach then we will have no option but to take the necessary actions to enforce the law". When they were notified, nothing more was heard. It seems there was another option.

4. Other Documents

• Leading Edge — document - Documents the amount of BPAs shed by turbine blades. See page 5.
• The Green Warriors of Norway — document - EU: 100,000 times stricter proposed limits.
• European Food Safety Authority — document - Bisphenol A: EFSA draft opinion proposes lowering the tolerable daily intake.
• EU consultation (BPA) — document - EU Directive.

5. Status of the Corpus

• Closed: documents are included only where they are foundational and indispensable.
• Stable: documents are not rewritten, summarised, or editorialised.
• Evidential: interpretation is separated from the documents themselves.
• Shared: all TSNS analysis, doctrine, and engagement proceeds on the basis of this common foundation.

6. Use of the Foundation Corpus

• provide a single reference point for public understanding,
• anchor all TSNS doctrinal and strategic work,
• allow courts, institutions, journalists, and the public to engage directly with the evidence,
• prevent drift or inconsistency across discussions and platforms.