Alderney’s constitutional crisis – a lesson from Scotland?

Six years ago Alderney was voicing constitutional concerns about the relationship between our islands similar to those that once again are the focus of much talk. Then, as now, many – myself included – called for a renegotiated 1948 Agreement – revisions, which many of us in Alderney hoped would lead to better economic cooperation. Our vision was two islands, complementing each other but with occasional different solutions to individual problems. Sadly, this was not – at least yet – to be.

The Alderney Journal, when it reminisces on events 40 years ago, shows us that old problems persist and the love-hate relationship with Guernsey recycles with a sad, inevitability. The faces change, the issues rarely.

The ‘Islands (Scotland) Act’, 2018, requires their government, before enacting policy changes, to address and report on likely impacts on island communities. If the Bailiwick adopted similar legislation, the evidence generated might give everyone useful time for reflection, cool tensions and stop the worst. Quite simply, those promoting change would have first to answer to the wider court of public opinion and outcomes based solely on one-sided emotions might be avoided.

I believe the general public in Guernsey are fair-minded – and mostly sympathetic to our plight – certainly more so than those loud populist politicians, who from time-to-time, obtain high office in Guernsey.

As Mark Helyar and others have pointed out, Alderney is no more a drain on the Bailiwick’s finances than other parts of the Bailiwick. Alderney’s gambling industry, moreover, provides a major, albeit indirect, contribution to the Bailiwick’s wider economy. It is unfortunately often ignored.

In Alderney, stubborn refusals to consider a review of the 1948 Agreement would not only be counter-productive, they would raise tensions further. Anyone who has studied the Agreement and how the fiscal relationship has evolved since 1948, knows this. Indeed, there have already been substantial changes. But everyone in Alderney knows we must be careful – Guernsey simply controls too many other fiscal levers.

My call to our politicians is therefore to lobby for the enactment of legislation similar to Scotland – and such to occur simultaneous with, or prior to, any review of the Agreement. If the Guernsey establishment balks, I am suggesting our Guernsey representatives initiate the debate – a requete perhaps? Alderney desperately needs a long-term solution and, I believe, few outsiders would judge the protection so obtained unreasonable. A judicial review of the airport rehabilitation process might sensibly run in parallel. And the DOJ could usefully be involved in all these processes.

Guernsey has an incumbent populist chair of P&R, who has on-island problems of his own. He sadly seems to find an off-island whipping-boy useful. But populists going head-to-head are rarely pretty. Shouting the loudest will not win the day, nor will parliamentary posturing. Your own and our elected representatives touting recognition of the problem, although important, is not enough. Politicians, with professional advisers in tow, who can develop proactive solutions and steer a rational way forward, are needed instead.

Hopefully, in June, Guernsey will replace its political leads with persons more rational. And could Alderney do better and be already prepared, sitting and waiting? I do hope so.

JAMES DENT

Former chairman of P&F

Alderney