Our initial enquiry, via WhatDoTheyKnow.com, on 9 January 2025 was:
Dear Police Scotland,
We are having difficulty finding proof that Shetland is part of Scotland.
According to The Laws of Scotland, Stair Memorial Encyclopaedia, Vol.18(42), "The Crown's sovereignty over Scotland and its dominium eminens, its ultimate tenurial superiority, are the same thing, are identical concepts”.
At Volume 18(47) it states that "The dominium eminens or ultimate superiority of the Crown is allodial, because not held of a higher lord, except of God".
We want to know:
1) Do you accept The Laws of Scotland, Stair Memorial Encyclopaedia as a binding authority in Scotland? and
2) Are we correct in thinking that the Crown's sovereignty in Scotland is the same as its allodial ownership?
3) Are we correct in thinking that, for the Crown to have sovereignty in Shetland, it must have allodial ownership of Shetland?
4) If we are correct at 2) and 3) above, do you have proof that the Crown holds the allodial title of Shetland?
Yours faithfully,
The Sovereign Nation of Shetland
--------------------------------------
They sent an acknowledgement on 9 January:
--------------------------------------
Then this on 22 January 2025:
OFFICIAL
Good Morning
Please find attached our response to your recent FOI request.
Kind regards
FOI Team
This is the essence of the response:
"I am refusing to respond to your request on the basis that I consider it to be 'vexatious' in
terms of section 14(1) of the Act.
'Vexatious' is not defined in the Act, but I would refer to the following factors as set out in
the Commissioner's guidance:
- It would impose a significant burden on the public authority.
- It does not have a serious purpose or value.
- It is designed to cause disruption or annoyance to the public authority.
- It has the effect of harassing the public authority.
It would otherwise, in the opinion of a reasonable person, be considered manifestly unreasonable or disproportionate.
Furthermore, an authority can reasonably conclude that a particular request represents the continuation of a pattern of behaviour. It might, in those circumstances, decide the request can be refused as the continuation of the pattern of behaviour makes the latest request vexatious.
This may arise, for example, where a requester has an on-going grievance against a public authority or could reasonably be described as conducting an extended campaign to the point that their behaviour can be described as obsessive."
In other words, any excuse.
Maybe those accusations apply
- we are certainly persistent in the absence of any proof.
- If it causes a significant burden, it must be difficult (if not impossible ) to find.
- It would certainly cause disruption if they can find no proof of their authority.
- If they feel harrassed, that is their problem.
- We think that "in the opinion of a reasonable person" be considered eminently reasonable to ask. Would you want some official looking person knocking on your door, unable to show proof of their authority?
We have no grievance, but we have conducted an extended campaign and we certainly are persistent. This reaction appears to show that we have made a mark. Methinks they do protest too loud.
--------------------------------------
On 25 January 2025 we wrote::
Dear FOI,
Thank you for your reply. We will not be pursuing this request any further. It is sufficient that you cannot produce the information quickly and easily and that you make such a hostile reply. If the information we requested exists, it would be no problem for you to produce it.
We reject any accusation of vexatious behaviour. We are persistent, yes, but would have gone away if the information proving your authority in Shetland had been produced.
Yours sincerely,
The Sovereign Nation of Shetland
--------------------------------------
