Title and jurisdiction
Many people are told that “sovereignty is political” and “title is just history”. In practice, the two are linked.
This page explains the link calmly — without declaring outcomes. The purpose is to clarify what is assumed, what is evidenced, and why the difference matters in real decisions.
The practical question
The question is not whether institutions exist in Shetland. They do. The question is what they are acting on when they exercise authority over land and sea.
In modern life, authority shows up through concrete actions: consents, enforcement, taxes, licensing, leasing, contracts, and prosecution. These actions rely on legal capacity — and legal capacity relies on a foundation.
What “jurisdiction” means in ordinary terms
Jurisdiction is the claimed right to make decisions, apply rules, and enforce outcomes within a territory.
In everyday terms, jurisdiction answers questions like:
- Who can issue a licence?
- Who can grant a consent?
- Who can prosecute or enforce?
- Who can tax or levy charges?
- Who can grant long-term rights over land or seabed?
Why title matters
In Scots legal doctrine, land ownership is not a minor detail. It is the foundation of lawful capacity in land-based relationships.
This is why the “title question” is not a distraction. It goes to the foundation of who can grant rights, impose conditions, and enforce decisions in Shetland.
The difference between presumption and evidence
In the UK, authority is normally treated as settled by institutional presumption. That is how the system functions day-to-day.
But presumption is not the same as evidence. If a person or institution is asked for the documents that establish title, and the response is “we do not hold that information”, then the public is entitled to ask what the authority is resting upon.
Why courts often avoid the foundation
Courts can decide disputes. They can interpret statutes. They can apply procedure. But courts are structurally constrained in one respect:
They are unlikely to rule directly on arguments that would negate their own jurisdiction. This does not mean the foundation is strong. It means the system tends to protect its own continuity.
For that reason, the title question tends to appear indirectly — through consents, contracts, environmental law, procedural fairness, and upstream actors (regulators, insurers, funders).
Land, sea, and contractual capacity
Many modern relationships are contractual: leases, licences, consents, development agreements, grid connections, seabed arrangements, planning obligations, and corporate undertakings.
All such arrangements presuppose lawful capacity. If the underlying title is not demonstrated, then the lawful capacity of the granting party becomes an open question. That creates risk — not only for local people, but for companies, insurers, investors, and regulators.
What a calm position looks like
Shetland First does not claim authority. It does not claim to replace existing institutions. It does not ask individuals to take risks.
It asks a narrower and more disciplined question:
Where is the legal title upon which jurisdiction and contractual authority in Shetland are said to rest?
If the answer exists, it should be capable of being produced. If it cannot be produced, the public deserves to understand what is being assumed — especially before irreversible decisions are made.
Where evidence belongs
The underlying documentary record is held and indexed by TSNS. Shetland First does not host primary evidence. It explains why the questions matter.