A missing assumption: sovereignty and title
Most constitutional discussion in the UK begins with an assumption: that sovereignty exists as a political fact, and questions of land title are separate. Classical Scots legal doctrine contains a different idea — one that matters if the Crown’s ownership title to Shetland is not demonstrated.
This page introduces that idea calmly. It is not a declaration. It is an explanation of why the “title question” is not a technical distraction.
Why this page exists
Shetland First asks a simple question:
On what demonstrated title does authority in Shetland rest?
In response, public bodies have repeatedly stated words to the effect that they do not hold the relevant information, or cannot provide the documents requested. TSNS has published evidence suggesting that the Crown’s ownership title to Shetland has not been demonstrated in the way that classical Scots law would require. Shetland First does not declare conclusions on title. It treats the matter as serious enough that the public deserves to understand the implications of uncertainty.
A concept many people have never been told
Under classical Scots legal doctrine, sovereignty is not treated as a free-floating political idea. It is treated as inseparable from title.
In Scots legal reference works, sovereignty is described as being “the same as” ownership — and not something that can exist independently of demonstrated title. That is why the question “Does the Crown own Shetland?” goes to the foundation on which jurisdiction, contractual capacity, and enforcement are said to rest.
What this does not mean
This page does not claim:
- that Shetland is a separate state today,
- that Shetland First holds any authority,
- that existing institutions can simply be ignored,
- that individuals should take risks or refuse obligations.
Shetland First is a civic and political movement. It does not claim jurisdiction, sovereignty, or coercive power. The purpose of this page is more modest: to explain why the title question is not a side issue.
Why the question is unavoidable
Many of the most consequential decisions affecting Shetland today are decisions about land and sea — seabed leasing, offshore wind and cables, marine space allocation, planning and enforcement, fisheries displacement, and major infrastructure agreements.
These decisions are routinely treated as though the lawful foundation is settled. If the foundation is not settled — or cannot be evidenced — the public has a legitimate interest in asking:
- Who is acting, on what authority?
- What is assumed rather than proven?
- What risks follow from unresolved title?
This is not an attempt to “negate sovereignty”. It is a request for clarity about what sovereignty is said to rest upon.
The democratic consequence
If the basis of authority is assumed rather than evidenced, the consequence is not automatic independence.
The consequence is more serious and more practical: the people of Shetland are left without a clear constitutional settlement. In that situation, it becomes reasonable to say that major irreversible decisions should not proceed on pure presumption, consent must be meaningful rather than procedural, and constitutional options should be revisited openly.
A calm way of stating the “elephant”
The question is not “Can we declare independence?”
If sovereignty is said to depend on ownership, and ownership is not demonstrated, what exactly is the lawful foundation of authority in Shetland?
That is a legitimate question in a democratic society — and it has real consequences, because large-scale decisions are being made now, not in theory.
Where evidence belongs
Where this page refers to Scots legal doctrine or historical title, Shetland First relies on evidence and analysis published by TSNS. Shetland First does not curate primary evidence or issue legal determinations.