|
My reply to the SIC's letter of 1 May: ![]() 1 May, 2009 Shetland Islands CouncilInfrastructure Services Department Grantfield House Lerwick ZE1 0NT For the attention of Ian Isbister Dear Mr. Isbister, Landrover No. FORVIK 1 As you may know, I have been trying for a number of years to find a date upon which Shetland became part of Scotland. My research has involved long and protracted correspondence with the highest legal authorities in the United Kingdom and Scotland. Nobody has been able to give me an answer. I refer you to the correspondence on my website at: www.forvik.com. Click on Documents and Official Correspondence. It’s a simply enough question that should have a simple answer. The truth, it seems, is that there is neither a document nor a date proving that Shetland ever became part of Scotland.Since the authority of the United Kingdom and Scottish governments depends on that notion, it seems not unreasonable to be assured that it happened. My research indicates that not only did Shetland not become part of Scotland, but that it never could have. If the event cannot be proved, the authority of those governments in Shetland would seem to be on very shaky ground indeed. I do not intend to encourage them by complying with their statutes – statutes that are clearly fraudulent in the absence of proof of their authority. Simply because nobody questions that purported authority does not confirm its existence. Before you carry out any of the provisions of the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978, or any other United Kingdom statute, please provide proof that it has any validity in Shetland by showing documentary evidence that Shetland is indeed part of Scotland. I will need to see a document and a date – a simple assertion is not sufficient. In the absence of such evidence I must assume that the statutes have no relevance here. The notice I have displayed on the vehicle carries the full force of law and any attempt to remove the vehicle will render the perpetrator liable to the payment of £1,000 plus expenses as shown on it. For the avoidance of doubt let me make it clear that the vehicle is not abandoned, no matter what you might think of its condition. It is my property and I do not consent to its removal and destruction as intimated on your notice No. 1638. Yours faithfully, Stuart Hill. Further correspondence was eclipsed by the vehicle being vandalised to such an extent that the police decided to remove it. When they had done the job, I sent them the bill. |