I have been rather puzzled that no one has written about events on Sark. And it has finally occurred to me that, rather than sitting about saying “why has no one written anything?”, I should write something myself.
Sark is an island (or technically a small group of islands) in the English Channel. It was part of the holdings of Duke William of Normandy (William the Bastard) and since his conquest of England in 1066 the fortunes of Sark and (what is now) the United Kingdom have been, in some ways, linked.
Although Elizabeth II is the head of state of Sark it is not part of the United Kingdom (people who are from Australia, New Zealand, Canada or some other places will not be surprised that one can have the same head of state without being part of the same country), but the government of the United Kingdom does stick its nose into the affairs of Sark in some ways.
For some administrative purposes Sark is part of the Bailiwick of Guernsey (which is also not part of the United Kingdom). However, unlike Guernsey, Sark has not introduced such things as income tax. Guernsey introduced a nominal income tax at about the time of the First World War and then an income tax of 20% at the start of the Second World War – sadly never repealed.
Nor is Sark a democracy (as Guernsey is). The hereditory “Seigneaur” (the Channel Islanders origninally spoke Norman French after all) is assisted by a council of 40 land tenents (the “Chief Pleas”) which undertakes the duties of government. In the 1920’s 12 elected deputies were added to the Chief Pleas but (as far as I know) they have never sought absolute power for themselves (sorry, absolute power for “the people”).
Thus Sark has avoided democracy (and many of the “postitive” welfare rights that so many people now seem to believe must go with it). And is indeed known as one of the last strongholds of so called “feudalism” in the world.
Sark has had problems over the centuries (invasions by pirates, the occupation by the Germans in World War II and so on), but its most serious problem has turned out to be the coming of the Barclay twins.
These two brothers (who own, amongst other things, the Telegraph newspaper group) bought the tenancy of the island of Brechow some years ago. This is an island just off the coast of the island of Great Sark and part of the Sark group of islands.
Like all tenants the Barclay twins were required to swear loyalty to Elizabeth (their supreme feudal overlord) and to pay a 13th of the price they had paid for the tenancy to the Seigneur (their direct feudal overlord).
Sadly the Barclay twins have not been loyal to the Seigneur. Perhaps they feel justified in being disloyal because they have more money than him, or perhaps it is because they know that it is no longer a common practice to physically punish people who betray their lord.
The first sign of the disloyalty of the Barclay’s came when they appealed to international “human rights law” for the right to leave their tenancy to a female if they so choose. (Sark has had a female Seigneurs, such as the famous “Dame of Sark”, Sybyl Hathaway, who stood up to the Germans during World War II – but the laws on landholding do favour males.)
Now (last week) the Barclays have gone further. Again using international “human rights law” (with the help of the United Kingdom government) the Barclays have demanded that Sark introduce democracy.
Why should a libertarian care about any of this? Indeed why should not libertarians support the Barclays? After all the Barclays’ use the word “freedom” a lot and present themselves as proud individualists standing up to an oppressive government.
I admit that partly I just resent the end of old custom (the idea that a little place is governed by old traditions – a variation in a bland world), and I also happen to dislike the Barclays.
Leaving one country (to reduce your tax bill) is fine – but it is not fine (in my book) to then toss your weight about in your new country demanding that the ancient laws be changed and calling external powers (including the very United Kingdom government you moved to Sark to get away from the taxes of) to back you up.
But it is more than this.
No one has to stay on Sark. It may be “feudal” but there is no Serfdom there (as far as I know there has never been Serfdom on Sark) and the people do not want this new system of government (for all the patronising talk from the Barclarys about wanting good relations with the “common people” and desiring to educate them about modern political doctrines – “forcing them to be free”?).
Finally consider the off the cuff remarks of the Seigneur (Michael Beaumont) “nothing much is human rights compliant here” and “of course we will have to have a lot of civil servants now”.
I think this tells us what we need to know about a lot of modern conceptions of “human rights” and “democracy”.
The more I read about the Barclays, the more intense grows my disdain. They are a couple of London Delboys.
They have taken a wrecking hammer to The Telegraph and The Speccie has declined in political commitment and level of sophistication since blond bombshell Boris got his lefty fingers round its throat. (Has the new editor been announced yet, by the way?)
Touching that the Barclays are so devoted to “human rights”. I bet. Which law firm did they use, or need we ask?
Pedant: Barclays, not Barclay’s.
Would the United Kingdom’s interference not count as some kind of invasion? Sark is supposed to be an independent member of the British Commonwealth, so unless QE2 herself tells the Seigneur to impose democracy, he doesn’t have to listen to the UK government, surely?
Sark looks like a nice place to live…
Sark. Not been there. Always get more nervous on helecopters than planes.
But isnt this the tiny island that has more off shore registered companies than the Cayman Islands?
Indeed most of the population appears to be custodians of these companies and as such earn enough to eskew income tax altogether. They certainly arnt earning their crust from new potatos and cut flowers.
In fact if you wish to move there you’d better have a million on the hip or they wont let you. Remember the fuss over John (Bergerac) Nettles wanting to move there and they wouldn’t let him (for a while anyway).
What exactly is the Barclays problem the 13%?
Sark. Not been there. Always get more nervous on helecopters than planes.
But isnt this the tiny island that has more off shore registered companies than the Cayman Islands?
Indeed most of the population appears to be custodians of these companies and as such earn enough to eskew income tax altogether. They certainly arnt earning their crust from new potatos and cut flowers.
In fact if you wish to move there you’d better have a million on the hip or they wont let you. Remember the fuss over John (Bergerac) Nettles wanting to move there and they wouldn’t let him (for a while anyway).
What exactly is the Barclays problem the 13%?
The spambot turning code is acting up again.
So what does this say about the Free State Project over here in the U.S.?
What are you talking about?
NH is part of the United States.
Sark has never been part of Britain.
The Barclays should get Bush to bring democracy to Sark.
Operation Sarki Freedom.
I can’t wait.
This is a sorry tale indeed. Someone in another thread said that Socialism always ends in Totalitarianism. That is true but it doesn’t start with Socialism. It starts with democracy.
I’d rather live in a free country but failing that a feudal one like Sark sounds pretty good to me.
Bernie – and which free country are you currently living in?
RAB– You can’t get to Sark by helicopter. You have to take the boat from St Peter Port or (summer only) St Helier.
The island has muddy tracks and horse or tractor transport. The horses dump as they please and on a day of torrential rain– as during my only visit– the thoroughfares resemble the Western Front in 1917.
Nevertheless it is a charming little place, and those silly hermits on Brecqhou should be sent where the previous owner of the Daily Telegraph is heading. On second thoughts, no need– the Barclay berks have already walled themselves into their own private Alcatraz.
Thanks Matt, like I said I’ve not been there and I think I was thinking of the Scilly Isles when talking about helecopters.
So Sark looks and smells like the whole of Britain circa 1880 vis a vie the roads? Because of course we all know that cars are banned.
I remember a dramatisation a while back(quite a while) of a Neville Shute book (think it was him) that made the place look very attractive. It was about a bloke who turns into an angel with wings and all.
As to the brothers, Yep morons with too much money.
That was Mervyn Peake’s ‘Mr Pye’, shot on Sark 20 years back.
Verity I never meant to suggest I was living in a free country now. I meant that failing a real free country I’d rather live in a feudal one than an unlimited democracy like the UK.
Sark – I was for a time a resident of Guernsey (15 years( and often enjoyed visits to Sark). The ordinary peple are very ordinary, they are not Dellboys or sophistacated company directors, families have a sense of place and a respect for community. They were (and I suspect still are ) welcoming to toursists and visitors from their bigger island neighbours.
The system of “goverment” worked well (probably still does) because little was asked of residents and little given in return, there was a small primary school, a wooden community hall, a church, there was no hospital, there was no elaborate police or penal system, the harbour was adequate but not modernised. Roads were rudimentary, few had tarmac, msot were narrow farm tracks. The only powered vehicles were tractors , most folks walked or went around on bicycles (maybe still do – it’s ten years since my last visit). The Siegneur held a benevolonet “squirage” over his people, most folks were happy , the pubs were charming, the field days bucolic, so much so that the local joke was that the biggest export was empty drink bottles.
Guernsey , the big neighbour had 45,000 cars, a law making parliament, taxes, a well equiped police force , a state of the art prison, a complex civil service, modern communications and infrastructure. ( Lest yoy think thios was dues to a polarised democratic system, the rules forbade political parties , and each elected Deputy in theory spoke for themselves; of course aliances between like minded individuals arose, but politics was generally based on Calvinistic pragmatism, and from that stemmed all sorts of aspscts of modern daily living – taxes, congestion, pollution , reliance on external expertise. and so forth.).
Sark had charm and the scale to work at a human level, I hope it still does.
Sean L.
SARK AGAIN – WITH BETTER TYPING
Sark – I was for a time a resident of Guernsey (15 years and often enjoyed visits to Sark). The ordinary people are very ordinary, they are not Dellboys or sophisticated company directors; families have a sense of place and a respect for community. They were (and I suspect still are) welcoming to tourists and visitors from their bigger island neighbours.
The system of “government” worked well (probably still does) because little was asked of residents and little given in return, there was a small primary school, a wooden community hall, a church, there was no hospital, there was no elaborate police or penal system, the harbour was adequate but not modernised. Roads were rudimentary, few had tarmac, most were narrow farm tracks. The only powered vehicles were tractors, most folks walked or went around on bicycles (maybe still do – it’s ten years since my last visit). The Seigneur held a benevolent “squirage” over his people, most folks were happy, the pubs were charming, the field days bucolic, so much so that the local joke was that the biggest export was empty drink bottles.
Guernsey, the big neighbour had 45,000 cars, a law making parliament, taxes, a well equipped police force, a state of the art prison, a complex civil service, modern communications and infrastructure. (Lest you think this was dues to a polarised democratic system, the rules forbade political parties, and each elected Deputy in theory spoke for themselves; of course alliances between like minded individuals arose, but politics was generally based on Calvinistic pragmatism, and from that stemmed all sorts of aspects of modern daily living – taxes, congestion, pollution, reliance on external expertise. and so forth.).
Sark had charm and the scale to work at a human level, I hope it still does.
Sean L.
Couldn’t this be solved by a Unilateral Declaration of Independence i.e. Sark could declare Barclaystan independent?
Yes indeed “Barclays” not “Barclay’s” – an apostrophe without warrent.
As for convincing them to leave people alone: Well, one idea would be for the new democratic government to impose a high income tax (on income home owed overseas, as well as at home) on anybody with the name “Barclay” (if that is how they spell their name).
However, the B. twins would (no doubt) find some “human rights” way to block that.
There could be a special wealth tax on anybody with a net worth of more than whatever the Barclay’s (or Barclays) net worth is. This would be very “progressive” and I doubt that even the B. twins could find any “human rights” way out.
The B. twins could either stay and fund this wonderful “human rights” modern state that they demand (with requests for backup from Britian and elsewhere), or they could leave (which would mean great happiness for everyone else).
Of course just going cross the water in the middle of the night and buring their house down would be violating the non aggression principle – so I could never suggest that.
Although, the B. twins have violated the nonaggression principle first.
Thanks Matt for the correction.
Was it that long ago!
I’m about to put my foot in it again, but wasn’t the angel Derek Jacobi? anyway it made a big impression, in a way that most current drama doesn’t.
So, then, “human rights” turns out to mean “governmental powers”? What a surprise!
I blew-in to Sark in 99,on a romance of how retro it seemed to drive a horse and carriage on an island with no cars,in the last year of the 20th century,so I arrived at a time when the Barclays where making their first impact with their attempts to change Sarks Laws.
a view I have heard a few times from actual local people,(of whom there are not really that many) is that in the past the current system worked because the tenants were the people that lived and worked the island,and thus had the general interests of the island and its way of life at heart.while increasingly tenaments are being brought by people from outside,who dont appreciate the responsibilitys,but gain the right to a seat on the parliament,thus resulting in the more usual vested interests of people that dont actualy have to live and work in the place they so wish to change.
My own view is that if like me,you have no money..sark is self regulating..there is no safety net here,I am still here because i have work and a place to live..I have work and a place to live because ,people like me enough to offer me those things,if I start behaving like an ass-hole..I would have to leave.unfortunately if you are rich enough, a common view of the people, that you are not to be trusted to live in there community without messing it up,remains just a view.
I have advocated a Plebiscite,with only 500 people here Sark should be looking at so called democracies,and saying,if we give everyone a voice,in a true democracy, you can stick your human rights..the people have spoken..of course I take it for granted that the people here are unlikely to vote to eat the rich or storm the seigneurie,they are in the majority..a lovely bunch..mostly wings and not horns a la Mr.Pie
Sad to hear of the Barclay’s intrusion into the peaceful life of Sark. I’m sure that money is the driving force behind their agenda – these “little people” of Sark are simply in the way. Certainly, there are no human rights violations on Sark – no one is being held in confinement, no one is forced to live there, no one is being tortured/maimed/bombed. Are all the UK politicians so pathetically spineless that they cannot speak up on behalf of the Sark people? The Barclay brothers are nothing but rich bullies, using money instead of guns. It is all so needlessly sad.