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.

Note: some scanned documents bear the words "SIC Document". This does not imply that the source is Shetland Islands Council - it is something inserted automatically during the scanning process, which we have been so far unable to eliminate.

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.

Constitutional Scope

The Foundation Corpus is presented as a body of documentary evidence concerning the legal foundations of the Scottish Crown's claimed authority in Shetland. Its relevance is not confined to Shetland alone.

If Shetland forms part of the territory of Scotland, as is presently asserted by Scottish institutions, then the documentary basis upon which that territorial claim rests is necessarily part of the constitutional foundation of Scotland itself. Questions concerning the legal basis of Scottish authority in Shetland are therefore also questions concerning the territorial extent of Scotland insofar as that extent depends upon lawful title.

The Foundation Corpus does not assume the answer to those questions. It identifies the primary documentary materials upon which they may be examined, distinguishing evidence from interpretation and leaving conclusions to the reader.

Definitions and abbreviations

Stair: The Laws of Scotland, Stair Memorial Encyclopaedia.
Green's: Green's Encyclopaedi of The Laws of Scotland.
McNeil: Common Law Aboriginal Title (1989). Professor Kent McNeil.
Feudal: Ownership under the Crown.
Allodial (or Udal): Ownership under God.

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.

Institutional statements linking sovereignty, landownership, and authority.

• Stair, 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".Simply put, sovereignty and landownership are the same thing.
  The above is written in the past tense because it refers to feudalism at the time of the pawning, but Note 4 on the same page brings it up to date: "We still have a relic of this in the rule that the Crown cannot dispone but only feu, for to dispone would, in the feudal scheme of things, be to alienate not only land but also sovereignty".
• Stair, 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".
• The 1469 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. We can find no evidence of that happening.
• Stair, 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, Vol. XV, para. 692 — document - Speaking of the pawning documents: "This is the title by which the sovereignty stands in Great Britain".
• The Crown Lands Act 1866 — document — Section 7: "From and immediately after the Thirty-first Day of December One thousand eight hundred and sixty-six all such Parts and Rights and Interests as then belonged to Her Majesty in right of the Crown"
  Section 25: "Nothing in this Act contained shall extend or increase or be construed to extend or increase the Powers or Authorities, Rights or Privileges, of the Crown over the Foreshore, or any Part thereof, but as between the Crown and all other Persons such Powers and Rights shall continue as the same existed before the passing of this Act".
  We have to ask what were the "Powers or Authorities, Rights or Privileges, of the Crown over the Foreshore, or any Part thereof" in Shetland before 1866?
• THE MISSING DOCUMENT: There is no treaty - necessary for territory to change hands. The Hebrides were part of Norway, just the same as Shetland, but were ceded to Scotland by the Treaty of Perth in 1266. There is no treaty for Shetland. Present day efforts to combine Orkney, Shetland and the Hebrides as 'Scottish Islands' appear to be an attempt to blur that difference.
• Treaty of Perth — document — Before the Treaty of Perth, the Hebrides, Orkney and Shetland were all part of Norway. The Hebrides were ceded to Scotland after the battle of Largs, but Orkney and Shetland remained part of Norway. Because there was a treaty to transfer the Hebrides to Scotland, there is no question that they are now part of Scotland. There was an instantaneous change of ownersip, laws and administration.
  No such treaty exists for Orkney and Shetland. The change of administration and law was gradual and only driven by the convenience of the incoming Scots.

THE ABOVE ARE THE KEY DOCUMENTS IN ESTABLISHING THE OWNERSHIP OF SHETLAND'S LAND AND SEAS. The following are supporting documents:

• 2011 Crown submission — document — In 2011, the Crown, for the first and only time, set out its position regarding Shetland. Its submission to the Sheriff Court in Lerwick relied on a magazine article by Shetland archivist Brian Smith as the foundation for asserting Scottish jurisdiction, with all its subsequent arguments presupposing that conclusion rather than evidencing lawful title. Sheriff Napier accepted the Crown's position. At appeal, the Sheriff was supported by the opinion of Lord Wheatley. Lord Wheatley was supported at the second appeal by Lords Bonomy, Easie and Carloway. Nothing appears to have changed since, in which case, it appears that the top law lords in Scotland are united around the notion that the Crown's authority in Shetland relies upon the Word of Brian.
• The 1469 Letter — document - This separate letter, written the same day as the pawning document, instructed the other Lords of Norway in Orkney and Shetland to pay their skat to James III until the King's lands were redeemed. It is important to note that it did not form part of the pawning contract (otherwise it would have been written into the terms of that document), thus confirming that the Pawning document did not concern the whole of Shetland.
• The 1486 Letter — document - The 1486 Letter confirms that even James III himself did not think he had ownership or sovereignty.
  Hans had apparently heard rumours that James was about to remove the inhabitants of the islands and replace them with Scots, which would make the job of imposing Scots law much easier. His remarks to Hans are very interesting. He goes to great lengths to placate Hans, assures him that no inhabitants have been removed and there is no intention to change the laws or language of Norway. This is just 14 years after the islands had been 'annexed' in 1472.
• Stair, Vol. 18, para. 47 — document — "ownership of land must be either allodial or feudal".
• Green's, Vol. XV, para. 702 — document - "All lands in Orkney and Shetland remain udal, excepting such as have been feudalised by charter emanating directly from the Crown, or indirectly through earldom or bishopric title". We can find no evidence of feudalisation in Shetland, in which case all lands would remain udal.
• Stair, Vol. 4, para. 1 — document — "The authority of the court derives from the sovereign power".
• Udal Law and the Land Register — document — "The Crown has no assumed prior right to the foreshore under udal law."
• Stair, Vol. 24, para. 307 — document — “No length of time can by itself convert tenure from udal to feudal”.
  “The mere fact that land has been transferred by written deeds and that sasine has been passed on it does not in itself suffice to change the tenure of the land and convert it from udal to feudal”.
  “There can be no proper feudal holding which does not flow from the Crown”.

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".
• McNeil, p. 85: — document — "The Crown must prove its present title just like anyone else."
• McNeil, p. 139: — document — “If the Crown grants land where it has neither title nor possession, the grant is simply void.”
• McNeil, p. 82, footnote17: — document — “At common law, if the king was not in possession, he could not grant land, but at best a right to acquire possession of it, assuming he had such a right, and then only expressly:.” Winchster's Case (1583).
• McNeil, p. 150. Note 86: — document — “Unless under another sovereign, a subject of the English Crown could not own land except of that Crown because, if he could, he would be sovereign of that land.”

2. Evidence of Presumption in Practice

FOI / EIR replies indicating information not held

These authorities were asked via Freedom of Information Requests if they 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 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 in 2013. 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 in September 2024 — 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".
• Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) declined to prosecute in June 2026. "I refer to your below email and would simply confirm that the complaint against you bearing PF Reference LE25000285 was, when it called at Lerwick Sheriff Court on 3rd June 2026, deserted pro loco et tempore at which time the reasons for the making of the motion were articulated to the presiding Sheriff in your presence .
  I have decided to take no further action in this case."
• 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.
• Pensions Regulator — Case Closed Without Proof of Authority — correspondence showing reluctance to prosecute — document - TSNS required clarification of authority and statutory basis. No clarification was provided. No compliance action was taken by our member. Case closed administratively. No determination made
  Result: Enforcement ceased without the authority question being answered.
• 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.

3. Other Documents

• Shetland Input/Output 2003 - document - Showing Shetland's net contribution to the UK Exchequer of £64 million in that year (page 37) and that it was £10 million in 1996.
• Shetland Input/Output 2010 - document - Showing Shetland's net contribution to the UK Exchequer of £76.1 million (page 43)
• Shetland Input/Output 2017 - document - Figures worked out on a different basis and now showing Shetland owes the UK Exchequer £129.5 million (page 26). Worked out on the same basis as the 2010 figures, Shetland contributed £139.7 million to the UK in 2017 - £13,970 per household.
• 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.

4. Competing Interpretationss

The items below summarise common objections and counter-claims. They are included so that readers can review the strongest opposing positions in a structured way. Each item links to an HTML note page.

• RBS v. Stuart Hill
• Pawning document concerns the whole of Shetland
• It’s too late to make changes

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

• provides a single reference point for public understanding,
• anchors all TSNS doctrinal and strategic work,
• allows courts, institutions, journalists, and the public to engage directly with the evidence,
• prevents drift or inconsistency across discussions and platforms.