Perhaps Premier Alex Scott was right after all.

Shortly after becoming Premier and before travelling to London for talks with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Mr. Scott said he was concerned that Britain was interfering with Bermuda?s internal affairs.

At the time, the comments, which were spectacularly vague, were largely dismissed, including in a editorial

A subsequent meeting in London between Bill Rammell, the UK junior minister responsible for Bermuda and Mr. Scott seemed to settle the question.

Then earlier this month, in a speech to a foreign affairs class at the Bermuda College, Governor Sir John Vereker added credence to Mr. Scott?s fears when he said that the traditional division between internal self-governance and external affairs (Britain?s responsibility) was being eroded.

The constitutions of most Overseas Territories were written ?for an earlier and simpler time?, he said, when it was easier to separate external affairs which Britain dealt with from internal matters (other than security and policing) which were left to colonies.

He added: ?The UK has an array of responsibilities that bear directly on internal affairs.?

Counter-terrorism, global financial stability, organised crime, aviation and maritime security, international agreements on human rights and protection of the environment recognise no boundaries, not even those of islands.

?With good sense and good will on both sides ? and those qualities are much in evidence here in Bermuda ? this complexity need not evolve into confrontation, but it does mean the relationship needs careful management.?

It is not surprising that the words raised the ire of Mr. Scott and other members of his party.

Bermuda prides itself on the high quality of its self-government and has enjoyed a strong and largely amicable relationship with the UK on foreign affairs and defence issues.

And on the face of it, Sir John?s comments did suggest that Britain would be taking a more aggressive stance on other issues.

But a closer look at what Sir John should give less cause for concern.

No one would dispute that Britain should assist Bermuda with counter-terrorism and fighting organised crime. An Island of 60,000 people cannot be expected to have the resources that may be necessary to take on global scourges like these.

Aviation and maritime security issues raise similar concerns. Ships flying under the Bermuda red ensign and aircraft on the Bermuda register are as vulnerable to terrorists or hijackers as any other country?s and Britain must take the risks into consideration.

The other areas that Sir John mentioned are more complex. Certainly, Britain cannot bear responsibility for a domicile that threatens to upset global financial stability or indeed that cannot manage its own economic affairs.

Neither of those possibilities are real in Bermuda?s case. But where the UK government must take care ? and it has not always done this in the recent past ? is to commit Bermuda to agreements or regimes that threaten its own economy. And it must be said that Britain has not done a particularly effective job of defending Bermuda?s policies on taxation.

Sir John is on the stickiest wicket on the environment and on human rights. On the environment, Bermuda?s record is rather better than most European countries, and it has been a pioneer on protecting fishing stocks and zoning of open space. Certainly, British advice is welcome here, but some care should be taken that the pupil does not end up instructing the teacher.

On human rights, the British Government must take care not to impose on matters of conscience which are the affair of Bermuda?s legislators.

Still, on the whole, Sir John was not out of line in making his statements. But ensuring that Bermuda and Britain can settle these matters does require careful cooperation and partnership.

The risk is that Britain will feel it can impose its decisions on the Island and that is not in tune with the ?partnership for progress? unveiled by former Foreign Secretary Robin Cook.

Sir John said ?careful management? would be required. It might have been better if he had used the phrase cooperation instead.