The touchy world of our friends and neighbours

It seems that they have met polite – even positive, responses on the subject of the Channel Islands’ special relationship with their mainland neighbour. It did not pass unnoticed that a degree of local solidarity was on show too, with a combined representation from both Bailiwicks.

The message was clear. The Islands feel that they have been forced to endure a ‘hard time’ from the mouths of the headline grabbers, be it publicity-hungry politicians, bigoted Fleet Street commentators or envious financial competitors, and that it was time to stop, examine the evidence and look towards a constructive engagement. At least , that’s what the message should have been, and the tight smiles that accompanied subsequent interviews certainly indicated that maybe the pilgrimage had achieved a modicum of success.

There’s certainly been a need for some professional fence-mending. Quite apart from the effects of the hammer blow to the nut of LCVR which has caused consequences far greater that was probably envisaged in the heat of the Westminster despatch box, the attrition heaped against the local finance industry and the stream of invective alleging institutionally endorsed tax evasion have fuelled unprecedented resentment from a community with a history of unflinching loyalty to crown and Britishness.

So it is right that our financial, political and moral bona fides is well explained and suitably understood. ‘Too many British MPs don’t understand the Channel Islands’ relationship with the UK.

They think they are colonies’. These are not my words, they’re the view of Lord McNally, Justice Minister and leader of the House of Lords, who visited the Islands recently at the peak of the irritation following the onslaught against the fulfilment industry and the widespread misreporting of the sentiments of the Deputy Chief Minister, Sir Philip Bailhache, on the subject of independence.

Historically, Members of the Upper House have demonstrated a more mature understanding of constitutional history and played an influential part in negotiating our devolved status with the United Kingdom and the EU in the early 1970s.

It is so easy to touch a raw nerve in relations with friends and neighbours – especially when there’s a degree of inequality involved. Of course, the scrapping of the so-called ‘loophole’ of LCVR appeared the work of a ‘bully-boy’ Administration. It stuck in our craw particularly because legally we were powerless to do anything against it and furthermore the concession appeared to have been hijacked by operators out of our own jurisdiction.

We felt we were being ‘ruffed up’ simply because we were easy prey and nobody else would step in to help. It also rankled because it seemed to compromise our national status and self confidence. Soon after, came the Olympic Games, with Island athletes contributing selflessly to the overall fortunes of Team GB.

True to pattern, last weekend, Guernsey’s Heather Watson, raised the flag with her success at the Japan Open tennis final. It was immediately claimed as a British victory, which is, of course true, but the effect of chipping off the little bit of local glory robs small countries, of their sense of pride and identity.

There are so many conflicting tensions, aren’t there? Perversely, while the perceived wisdom might urge us to form uniform politico-economic power blocks – take, for example, the arguments surrounding the attempts to stave off the disintegration of the Euro-zone, individuals who are experiencing pain and deprivation are more likely to pull back into the sanctuary of their own nation state. It’s a natural ‘comfort zone’, and the practice is widespread.

From the deluded self-publicists who would seek to unpick the United Kingdom, to the chorus of calls for the UK to turn is back on the EU, the instinct to draw in the national horns while punching above their weight is the oxygen of nationalists the world over. The reality is high-risk as so many newly fragmented oligarchies are now discovering to their cost.

To be taken seriously, you need the whole package, within which, self-reliance plays a more important consideration than ever figures amongst the rhetoric.

It is easy to argue that, as islanders, we are well placed to harbour independent thoughts. Whatever the jibes, we have a mature, stable political system. Moreover within the experience of our senior inhabitants, we have tasted self-reliance. But – and it is a big ‘but’ – we have never been more interdependent.

I don’t mean in a political sense – indeed, the increased involvement with the British-Irish Council has given the Islands a greater ability to speak for themselves at the political table, and the establishment of an ’embassy’ in Brussles and London gives us an international presence.

But it’s a long way from being able to pass our own laws or issue our own currency, to being able to stand firmly on our own two feet. We’ve become inevitably reliant on supplies delivered by others. We do need an insurance policy if things turn bad elsewhere. The collapse of the euro, for example, would be a disaster for Channel Islands.

It may be unedifying to be considered ‘not quite British’ and definitely not European – the passport issue is a running sore, but, currently, there is little public appetite or even political impetus for a total fracture.

Senator Bailhache only ever suggested that the Bailiwicks should be prepared for independence. And though it was a sentiment endorsed by the Council of Ministers, don’t expect to encounter a rush of secessionist lemmings heading for the Plemont cliffs.