Just got this via Nick Pell:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/28/special-relationship-us-u_n_516217.html
Reading thro it right now.
I've been arguing this - from the other side - for about four years now. It does apply to both sides (UK economic and military weakness makes it less attractive a partner for the USA, and the relative decline of the US in world affairs means Britain gets less for it's subservience to Washington, especially when it could be trying to subvert the EU into becoming a de facto British power base, instead of just subverting it so it can never threaten the USA).
But the FCO aren't very bright, you see.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8590767.stm
Yeah, the BBC version is a bit fuller but has pretty much the same tenor.
My 2 cents? What Cain said plus Churchill got it way wrong - from a British POV the relationship was always "special" in the same sense as the "Special Olympics" are special . . .
At the time, Britain was operating under the delicious delusion that the Empire would form a third rival power base to both America and the USSR, so we should probably be thankful that this was the defining phrase to sum up the relationship between the two.