Channel vision

David Torrance’s article (Perspective, 20 June) mentions some of the interesting points about the Channel Islands, which might offer an alternative vision to those who seek to split up the UK.

However, there are important differences between the Scottish instance and that of the Channel Islands.

The main difference between the two is in the attitude of the political establishment in the two places.

In the Channel Islands, for all their relative independence (excepting foreign policy and defence), their governments are not hostile to the UK as the SNP is. This is where the two differ.

If the SNP were not anti-British, it might be possible to make an arrangement within the UK to “float off” Scotland and to have a looser relationship, in much the way that the Liberal Democrats want.

Also, while the SNP wants lots of foreign immigrants in Scotland, the Channel Islands use a system of “licences”, or work permits, for non-islanders, including mainland British citizens, to work there.

They also have their own immigration services.

However, a considerable part of the appeal of the Channel Islands is that they are so close to France and yet are not part of the EU.

Having done business in the two main jurisdictions there for many years, I find that the islands are a crossroads between the UK and the EU, between North America and Europe.

They are two of the leading financial services centres in Europe, offering many tax advantages to investors.

Their appeal is in the solid, reliable standards they apply to financial regulation, which are very much in line with the UK. They speak English, but, unlike the Irish, they are not subject to EU red tape.

Unless the SNP is prepared to reconsider their anti-British mindset and look at the benefits (and potential demerits) of being outside the EU, they will be unable to emulate the success of Jersey and Guernsey.

Andrew HN Gray

Edinburgh