It will come as no surprise to learn that I support the position of the media in the spat about a secret, i.e behind-closed-doors, meeting to discuss Guernsey’s constitutional position. The fact that some politicians and other leading figures object strongly to the use of the term, secrecy, in reference to the States-sponsored meeting merely highlights how out of touch our leaders can become.

And it was all so unnecessary.

If all that was being discussed at the Trelade Hotel meeting was various options facing the island, why exclude the media?

All their presence would have done would have been to start a public debate about those options and I would have thought that a public debate is precisely what the powers that be should want.

Unfortunately, the organisers failed to appreciate the inevitable reaction of the media to being shut out of a meeting they considered to be of public interest.

The resulting impression is that they wanted to exclude journalists because the States members and the Crown Officers were either plotting something or they were going to say nasty things about our masters in Whitehall (or rather Victoria Street).

The truth is probably that there are still people around who are uncomfortable when the public starts talking about sensitive areas to do with our links with the Crown and/or the UK Government.

They believe that Guernsey’s constitution is something not normally spoken about in polite society and so reporters are to be feared and excluded.

It’s time they woke up.

In any case all of this is just an example of mishandling the media and of little real consequence.

The recent meeting was probably the first of many and there’s a lot of work to do before anyone decides whether Guernsey’s constitutional relationship with the UK is good, bad or indifferent and what changes should be made, if any.

There’s also the small matter of seeking agreement with the UK.

That’s why any suggestion that Jersey has stolen a march on Guernsey by reaching agreement with the Department of Constitutional Affairs is premature, to say the least.

Jersey might think it has stolen a march, but I bet the department doesn’t.

It would be inconceivable for the UK Government to agree some fundamental change in its relations with one Bailiwick without also consulting the other and probably the Isle of Man as well.

We’re all in the same boat unless there’s some constitutional quirk which I don’t know about which means that the Channel Islands have different relationships with the Crown.

I suspect that all Jersey may have done before Guernsey is to do with negotiating tax information exchange agreements without having to first go through the Department of Constitutional Affairs.

That’s hardly a significant change in Jersey’s constitutional relationship and it’s no doubt something Guernsey can have if it wishes.

The interesting thing about this little storm in a teacup is the way the islands have once again shown how closely they work together – it’s the kind of story where it’s difficult to avoid sarcasm.

No-one from Jersey gets invited to the Guernsey meeting and no-one from Guernsey is informed about Jersey supposedly stealing a march.

The mere fact that anyone should suggest either Bailiwick would want to gain an advantage over the other in this respect shows just how far we have got to go in fostering closer links.

If we can’t work together on something as fundamental as a constitutional relationship which applies to both Bailiwicks, then there’s not much hope for any other practical co-operation either.