Aaarrgghh Former UKIP MEP supports secession from the UK

chikrodah · 23-06-2008, 11:00 AM

Hartlepool, I first heard about this on Radio 4's News Quiz. The compere, Sandi Toksvig, had her own unique viewpoint and it intrigued me enough to dig further. It really didn't surprise me that Mote approved of this - after all, he was telling anyone who'd listen last year, from White Supremacists to the American Magna Carta society, about his dream for an island of the coast of the UK. I wonder why they didn't call it Brittania, though?

Hartlepool · 23-06-2008, 12:25 PM

I dont understand how somebody who owns an Island does not have the right to withdraw from anything or everything.

Isn't this what UKIP want to do,withdraw the whole of the UK from the EU.

Whatever may be said,if things are like Mr Hill says they are,nobody has any claim on his property,which just happens to be a tiny island in this case?

chikrodah · 23-06-2008, 12:51 PM

As I understand it, there are complex issues of land ownership here. Scots land law is different to English land law as it has/had both feudal and Norwegian (udal) law relating to who owns what and how.

There's a large chunk of analysis relating to this in a Scots Law publication, written by some of the leading authorities in Scots land law.

Mr. Hill has interpreted it one way. One of the authors was interviewed by a couple of journalists and he interprets it another way.

No doubt there'll be an expensive court case paid for by the Scottish taxpayer at some point. There might even be an expensive court case paid for by English taxpayers.

What gets me is, yet again, we've got people going off and claiming things that haven't been proven successfully using the law of the land. This is a unique and complex point of law; surely, if Mr. Hill's case had any chance of success there would be lawyers ready to take on the case? They'd all be famous if they won. So why hasn't it been dealt with once and for all through national or international courts?

You look at Mr. Hill's own websites and he claims he's done extensive research, that he's right and that he wanted, in 2007, to have a Shetland-wide referendum on the point. What happened to that referendum, for starters?

You see, the answers are missing, or incomplete. Something's not right, somewhere. Then you find that Ashley Mote, described as a "Walter Mitty character" by his own defence counsel, was promoting this very concept of UDI for a tiny islet in the middle of a short stretch of sea water between two islands back in November last year. I'm intrigued as to the real motivation behind this. Is it an attempt at defrauding the British public by Ashley Mote and/or Stuart Hill? Or is it likely that they need to invest £2.2 million somewhere to be seen as a serious off-shore tax haven? Ashley Mote should be aware of just how much the EU wants to clamp down on tax havens - he's complained about their legislation in that area before. So why is he apparently encouraging others to get involved in a plan of dubious legal status?

Aardvark · 23-06-2008, 12:54 PM

H, Yes you do understand the difference between one man owning an island or a house or an acre of mountain within an officially recognised state and the state seeking to change a treaty arrangement. If you can't see that his island is not 'sovereign', but is just something he owns then you really haven't been paying attention.

The island is part of a district council area and it has the same status as your back garden. Mr Hill pays taxes in the UK and he will pay whatever the local land tax/community charge is for the island. If he doesn't he will end up in court very quickly and he will be fined and have property sequestered under laws in force.

The UK is recognised by every country in the UN and has the status required to conclude treaties under international law. Mr Hill is not recognised by any state anywhere on the face of the planet and cannot sign treaties or be represented at international organisations.

To prove he is independent Mr Hill has applied for retrospective planning permission for his house that he is building. If Shetland Islands Council refuse it and he builds the house anyway it will be demolished. I've been on a planning committee where I was one of 3 people who voted against demolition of an illegally constructed house in the Cotswolds. Mr Hill can declare himself independent, but ultimately he will end up in court. The only question really is which court he will end up in and when. Ashley Mote will cheer from the sidelines, but Mr Hill will be the one who is bankrupted

Hartlepool · 23-06-2008, 01:17 PM

The way I see it is that, if he declares his island Independent and then Sovereign, he can declare himself as the rightfull King of it.

Mote could end up as his Dauphine as well.

Aardvark · 23-06-2008, 02:48 PM

There's no basis for that proposition in international law.

Hartlepool · 23-06-2008, 04:30 PM

Then,as they ,say the Law is an ass,for sure.

If you state international law,then tell me how this country and its islands are owned,and by who,and who holds the legal paperwork on them all showing clear title?

Are all these freely available for inspection as Mr Hill's will be during his bid for independence.

Also,the documents for the country and its islands,how can they be substantiated and checked out?

Aardvark · 23-06-2008, 05:22 PM

This country, England and Wales at least, is owned in its entirety by the Crown. All title to land is held from the Crown and if a person dies intestate with no heirs then the land passes bona vacantia to the Crown.

All titles before land registration had to be proved. I worked as a clerk in a solicitor's office for a short period at that time and a person selling, or in other way passing title, had to prove their title to the land for the previous 70 years. Clerks used to sit and wade through very ancient documents confirming that a person passing title did indeed have that title to pass. With land registration those days are gone and registered land is passed fairly easily. You might, however, if you looked at your registered title find all sorts of terms and conditions laid down by your predecessors.

Basically prior to land registration all land had been passed by the Crown to a variety of owners - lords of the manor, the church etc. It stems from the Norman invasion with some serious rearrangement by Henry VIII. If your house is old it is possible that the original title is still held in the archives at the Land Registry, but, as parcels of land were divided up, original documents were lost although some city archives might still hold manorial rolls. Copies were made of the important bits. A lot of ancient rights - grazing, turberry etc still vest in some lordships of the manor although a lot were bought out by tenants and subsequent landholders. Charles I tried to enforce knight service and ship money and caused a civil war, since then the Crown has not tried to enforce any non financial duties on land. Because the Crown owns the land it can levy charges on transfer and, since 1694, has raised stamp duty by this means (only intended to fund the war with France until 1698).

Every square inch of England and Wales is owned by somebody although it is possible that they are not aware. If you occupy someone else's land for 12 years without hindrance or the owner declaring their right you obtain genuine squatter's rights by adverse possession. This system was created so that unused land wasn't abandoned in perpetuity.

Scottish land law is very difficult and feudalism has only recently been abolished - Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc. (Scotland) Act

I didn't study Scots or Irish land law in detail for my degree so would look around for learned papers on the net, but again all land is owned by somebody and is held from the Crown (I suspect that Irish land law was changed at independence - recognised by the Crown). The Shetlands are unusual, but the principle is the same. Cornwall and parts of the west country also used to have some strange property rights.

The UK consists of hundreds of small islets. It is patently absurd that each and every one of them could be a country in its own right. No other country will recognise Mr Hill's ridiculous declaration as they would be hostage to fortune. Indonesia alone has 12,000 islands; the world couldn't cope with so many new countries. Look at a map and ask how the world would cope with rich people and bandits setting up new countries everywhere. The Carribean is a case where lots of island states were created, but many are barely viable.

Even the Vatican, the world's smallest recognised state, is 110 acres. They, however, have wealth that even Ashley Mote and Mr Hill could barely dream of.

The Sovereign Military Order of Malta has observer staus at the UN, but its sovereignty is challenged and only 100 or so countries recognise it. I think the HQ is only 4 acres, but it is wealthy and powerful.

Mr Hill's claim is drivel and is purely a money making scam that could net him over 2 million quid whilst he is pretending to be a principled person. If he dies, because the plots of land will have been transferred according to Forvik law, the island and cash go to his realtives and friends under Scots law!

You see the beauty of this scam. People will send money to Mr Hill and will receive a piece of paper for their £275. They won't own the land as it can only be transferred under Scots law. When he dies there will be nothing but a lump of rock with 8000 people fighting over it.

The fools who are buying in think there will be an airstrip (I kid you not) on 2.5 acres of land. A helipad could take up an acre on its own, not that you'd want to land there on most days of the year as you'd be blown into the sea the moment you turned your engine off.

Few people realise that the fastest ever recorded wind speed at sea level was achieved at nearby Saxa Vord (235kts estimated, but the anemometer was only stressed to 200kts so has not been seen since the big storm). A radar was blown from the cliff. The Shetlands, which I visited years ago, are beautiful, but winters of perpetual darkness and overcast skies are bleak and unendearing. It rains for 90% of the year.

There are no trees on Forvik. The cliffs are only 30ft. The 'harbour' can barely take a rowing boat and is only accessible at high tide. There is a site of special scientific interest and a number of rare birds and sea otters that will be destroyed under Mr Hills' plans.

Stuart Hill and Ashley Mote, who seems to have a hand in this, will make a fortune from the gullible and dim. There's one born every minute and they've seen you all coming from miles away.

C_steam · 23-06-2008, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hartlepool

I dont understand how somebody who owns an Island does not have the right to withdraw from anything or everything?

why draw the line at an island? If you fully own your house and land, what would the difference be?

At least then you could try it, and find out the answer!

Hartlepool · 23-06-2008, 06:16 PM

Aardvark,you have shown me absolutely nothing at all to convince me that it isn't a situation just as I said,an island,in the sea,owned by Mr Hill who can declare UDI and creat his islands sovereignity at his leisure.

Why would anyone of us wish to stop him from doing so?

C_s,hardly the same siuation is it,a King on his own little island,and me in my seaside apartment,claiming independence from the country for my plot and its holdings?

The point of all this is that I see no reason at all why we cant all buy up islands,singularly or as groups.The Bahamas has lots of islands for sale,just need developing and investment,cheap too,wanna go?

23-06-2008, 12:51 PM	#13 (permalink)
chikrodah Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Midlands Posts: 1,383	As I understand it, there are complex issues of land ownership here. Scots land law is different to English land law as it has/had both feudal and Norwegian (udal) law relating to who owns what and how. There's a large chunk of analysis relating to this in a Scots Law publication, written by some of the leading authorities in Scots land law. Mr. Hill has interpreted it one way. One of the authors was interviewed by a couple of journalists and he interprets it another way. No doubt there'll be an expensive court case paid for by the Scottish taxpayer at some point. There might even be an expensive court case paid for by English taxpayers. What gets me is, yet again, we've got people going off and claiming things that haven't been proven successfully using the law of the land. This is a unique and complex point of law; surely, if Mr. Hill's case had any chance of success there would be lawyers ready to take on the case? They'd all be famous if they won. So why hasn't it been dealt with once and for all through national or international courts? You look at Mr. Hill's own websites and he claims he's done extensive research, that he's right and that he wanted, in 2007, to have a Shetland-wide referendum on the point. What happened to that referendum, for starters? You see, the answers are missing, or incomplete. Something's not right, somewhere. Then you find that Ashley Mote, described as a "Walter Mitty character" by his own defence counsel, was promoting this very concept of UDI for a tiny islet in the middle of a short stretch of sea water between two islands back in November last year. I'm intrigued as to the real motivation behind this. Is it an attempt at defrauding the British public by Ashley Mote and/or Stuart Hill? Or is it likely that they need to invest £2.2 million somewhere to be seen as a serious off-shore tax haven? Ashley Mote should be aware of just how much the EU wants to clamp down on tax havens - he's complained about their legislation in that area before. So why is he apparently encouraging others to get involved in a plan of dubious legal status? Last edited by chikrodah; 23-06-2008 at 12:53 PM.

23-06-2008, 12:54 PM	#14 (permalink)
Aardvark Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Oxonia Posts: 3,546	H, Yes you do understand the difference between one man owning an island or a house or an acre of mountain within an officially recognised state and the state seeking to change a treaty arrangement. If you can't see that his island is not 'sovereign', but is just something he owns then you really haven't been paying attention. The island is part of a district council area and it has the same status as your back garden. Mr Hill pays taxes in the UK and he will pay whatever the local land tax/community charge is for the island. If he doesn't he will end up in court very quickly and he will be fined and have property sequestered under laws in force. The UK is recognised by every country in the UN and has the status required to conclude treaties under international law. Mr Hill is not recognised by any state anywhere on the face of the planet and cannot sign treaties or be represented at international organisations. To prove he is independent Mr Hill has applied for retrospective planning permission for his house that he is building. If Shetland Islands Council refuse it and he builds the house anyway it will be demolished. I've been on a planning committee where I was one of 3 people who voted against demolition of an illegally constructed house in the Cotswolds. Mr Hill can declare himself independent, but ultimately he will end up in court. The only question really is which court he will end up in and when. Ashley Mote will cheer from the sidelines, but Mr Hill will be the one who is bankrupted __________________ When in Woking do as the Wokes do. "I do not wish to form my opinions by thoughtlessly quoting others; I wish others to support their opinions by sensibly quoting me." Paul Wesson (Aardvark) 13th April 2008 Last edited by Aardvark; 23-06-2008 at 12:59 PM.

23-06-2008, 02:48 PM	#16 (permalink)
Aardvark Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Oxonia Posts: 3,546	There's no basis for that proposition in international law. __________________ When in Woking do as the Wokes do. "I do not wish to form my opinions by thoughtlessly quoting others; I wish others to support their opinions by sensibly quoting me." Paul Wesson (Aardvark) 13th April 2008

23-06-2008, 05:22 PM	#18 (permalink)
Aardvark Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Oxonia Posts: 3,546	This country, England and Wales at least, is owned in its entirety by the Crown. All title to land is held from the Crown and if a person dies intestate with no heirs then the land passes bona vacantia to the Crown. All titles before land registration had to be proved. I worked as a clerk in a solicitor's office for a short period at that time and a person selling, or in other way passing title, had to prove their title to the land for the previous 70 years. Clerks used to sit and wade through very ancient documents confirming that a person passing title did indeed have that title to pass. With land registration those days are gone and registered land is passed fairly easily. You might, however, if you looked at your registered title find all sorts of terms and conditions laid down by your predecessors. Basically prior to land registration all land had been passed by the Crown to a variety of owners - lords of the manor, the church etc. It stems from the Norman invasion with some serious rearrangement by Henry VIII. If your house is old it is possible that the original title is still held in the archives at the Land Registry, but, as parcels of land were divided up, original documents were lost although some city archives might still hold manorial rolls. Copies were made of the important bits. A lot of ancient rights - grazing, turberry etc still vest in some lordships of the manor although a lot were bought out by tenants and subsequent landholders. Charles I tried to enforce knight service and ship money and caused a civil war, since then the Crown has not tried to enforce any non financial duties on land. Because the Crown owns the land it can levy charges on transfer and, since 1694, has raised stamp duty by this means (only intended to fund the war with France until 1698). Every square inch of England and Wales is owned by somebody although it is possible that they are not aware. If you occupy someone else's land for 12 years without hindrance or the owner declaring their right you obtain genuine squatter's rights by adverse possession. This system was created so that unused land wasn't abandoned in perpetuity. Scottish land law is very difficult and feudalism has only recently been abolished - Abolition of Feudal Tenure etc. (Scotland) Act I didn't study Scots or Irish land law in detail for my degree so would look around for learned papers on the net, but again all land is owned by somebody and is held from the Crown (I suspect that Irish land law was changed at independence - recognised by the Crown). The Shetlands are unusual, but the principle is the same. Cornwall and parts of the west country also used to have some strange property rights. The UK consists of hundreds of small islets. It is patently absurd that each and every one of them could be a country in its own right. No other country will recognise Mr Hill's ridiculous declaration as they would be hostage to fortune. Indonesia alone has 12,000 islands; the world couldn't cope with so many new countries. Look at a map and ask how the world would cope with rich people and bandits setting up new countries everywhere. The Carribean is a case where lots of island states were created, but many are barely viable. Even the Vatican, the world's smallest recognised state, is 110 acres. They, however, have wealth that even Ashley Mote and Mr Hill could barely dream of. The Sovereign Military Order of Malta has observer staus at the UN, but its sovereignty is challenged and only 100 or so countries recognise it. I think the HQ is only 4 acres, but it is wealthy and powerful. Mr Hill's claim is drivel and is purely a money making scam that could net him over 2 million quid whilst he is pretending to be a principled person. If he dies, because the plots of land will have been transferred according to Forvik law, the island and cash go to his realtives and friends under Scots law! You see the beauty of this scam. People will send money to Mr Hill and will receive a piece of paper for their £275. They won't own the land as it can only be transferred under Scots law. When he dies there will be nothing but a lump of rock with 8000 people fighting over it. The fools who are buying in think there will be an airstrip (I kid you not) on 2.5 acres of land. A helipad could take up an acre on its own, not that you'd want to land there on most days of the year as you'd be blown into the sea the moment you turned your engine off. Few people realise that the fastest ever recorded wind speed at sea level was achieved at nearby Saxa Vord (235kts estimated, but the anemometer was only stressed to 200kts so has not been seen since the big storm). A radar was blown from the cliff. The Shetlands, which I visited years ago, are beautiful, but winters of perpetual darkness and overcast skies are bleak and unendearing. It rains for 90% of the year. There are no trees on Forvik. The cliffs are only 30ft. The 'harbour' can barely take a rowing boat and is only accessible at high tide. There is a site of special scientific interest and a number of rare birds and sea otters that will be destroyed under Mr Hills' plans. Stuart Hill and Ashley Mote, who seems to have a hand in this, will make a fortune from the gullible and dim. There's one born every minute and they've seen you all coming from miles away. __________________ When in Woking do as the Wokes do. "I do not wish to form my opinions by thoughtlessly quoting others; I wish others to support their opinions by sensibly quoting me." Paul Wesson (Aardvark) 13th April 2008 Last edited by Aardvark; 23-06-2008 at 05:27 PM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

23-06-2008, 11:00 AM	#11 (permalink)
chikrodah Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Midlands Posts: 1,383	Hartlepool, I first heard about this on Radio 4's News Quiz. The compere, Sandi Toksvig, had her own unique viewpoint and it intrigued me enough to dig further. It really didn't surprise me that Mote approved of this - after all, he was telling anyone who'd listen last year, from White Supremacists to the American Magna Carta society, about his dream for an island of the coast of the UK. I wonder why they didn't call it Brittania, though?

23-06-2008, 12:25 PM	#12 (permalink)
Hartlepool Uber Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: North East England Posts: 6,605 Party: Free England Party	I dont understand how somebody who owns an Island does not have the right to withdraw from anything or everything. Isn't this what UKIP want to do,withdraw the whole of the UK from the EU. Whatever may be said,if things are like Mr Hill says they are,nobody has any claim on his property,which just happens to be a tiny island in this case?

23-06-2008, 01:17 PM	#15 (permalink)
Hartlepool Uber Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: North East England Posts: 6,605 Party: Free England Party	The way I see it is that, if he declares his island Independent and then Sovereign, he can declare himself as the rightfull King of it. Mote could end up as his Dauphine as well.

23-06-2008, 04:30 PM	#17 (permalink)
Hartlepool Uber Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: North East England Posts: 6,605 Party: Free England Party	Then,as they ,say the Law is an ass,for sure. If you state international law,then tell me how this country and its islands are owned,and by who,and who holds the legal paperwork on them all showing clear title? Are all these freely available for inspection as Mr Hill's will be during his bid for independence. Also,the documents for the country and its islands,how can they be substantiated and checked out?

23-06-2008, 06:16 PM	#20 (permalink)
Hartlepool Uber Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: North East England Posts: 6,605 Party: Free England Party	Aardvark,you have shown me absolutely nothing at all to convince me that it isn't a situation just as I said,an island,in the sea,owned by Mr Hill who can declare UDI and creat his islands sovereignity at his leisure. Why would anyone of us wish to stop him from doing so? C_s,hardly the same siuation is it,a King on his own little island,and me in my seaside apartment,claiming independence from the country for my plot and its holdings? The point of all this is that I see no reason at all why we cant all buy up islands,singularly or as groups.The Bahamas has lots of islands for sale,just need developing and investment,cheap too,wanna go?