In April 2007, the then Chancellor, Gordon Brown, asked for two discreet meetings with Sir Menzies Campbell, the UK Liberal Democrat leader.
The SNP appeared on the verge of winning the Scottish elections and Brown – who viewed Scotland as his personal, political fiefdom - was terrified. His long-held dream of becoming Prime Minister was about to be undermined by the Nationalists.
The Chancellor asked Sir Menzies: "Was there any way the two men could engineer a new Lab-Lib Dem coalition to thwart the Nationalists?"
Sir Menzies insisted this was something for his Scottish party leaders, not him. That, he stressed, was the nature of devolution.
Now, fast forward on to Mr Brown as Prime Minister a year later when Abdelbasset Al Megrahi, the Lockerbie bomber, was diagnosed with prostate cancer.
Aware of the sizeable damage that would be done to UK-Libyan relations if Megrahi were to die in a British prison, Mr Brown champions an unpublicised policy of getting Megrahi out of prison before he dies.
This is on the record now. It came out yesterday from Sir Gus O’Donnell, Britain’s senior civil servant, who declared: “Policy was progressively developed that Her Majesty's Government should do all it could, while respecting devolved competencies, to facilitate an appeal by the Libyans to the Scottish government for Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed al-Megrahi's release under the Prisoner Transfer Agreement (PTA) or for release on compassionate grounds.”
This was known by all Whitehall departments. But why? It had nothing to do with the UK Government. It was all very well saying that the policy was about “respecting devolved competencies” but in pursuing this course, the policy was doing the reverse it was actually challenging the very essence of those devolved competencies themselves.
This was a decision for the Scottish Government to take, a government which was of a completely different political make-up to the Labour Government in London. It had nothing to do with the London Government, which shouldn’t have had a policy on it at all – let alone a multi-departmental one.
So, with that in mind, then go back to those meetings between Mr Brown and Sir Menzies in 2007 (revealed in Sir Menzies’ autobiography). It is now clear that Mr Brown’s approach to the Megrahi issue was not novel. In fact, he had appeared ready to ride rough-shod over devolution before and was willing to do so again.
This is the same Mr Brown who stood up for devolution when Tony Blair, Lord Irvine and Jack Straw were wobbling over the Scotland Bill details in 1997.
This is the same Mr Brown who was never more at home then when he addressed the Scottish Labour Conference.
Yet this is the same Mr Brown who now, it appears, believed that devolution was fine – but as long as it did not interfere with his approach as Chancellor of the Exchequer or Prime Minister.
Indeed, it is now clear. Mr Brown just didn’t get devolution. Not only did he pursue a policy of trying to free Megrahi even though this was not anywhere near his remit, but he did so without bothering to tell his colleagues in the Scottish Labour Party.
It is difficult to come to any other conclusion given that Iain Gray, the Scottish Labour leader, and Richard Baker, the party’s Scottish justice spokesman, were so forthright in their condemnation of the decision to release Megrahi when that was done by Kenny MacAskill in the late summer of 2009. Mr Gray and Mr Baker were adamant: it was wrong to release Megrahi and MacAskill should be castigated for doing so.
Would they have taken such a strong line had they known that their bosses in London had been lobbying for Megrahi’s release behind their backs?
Mr Baker was on Newsnight Scotland last night to explain the difference in approach between Scotland and London. He insisted that neither he nor Mr Gray had sought the views of Mr Brown or the Labour Cabinet in London over Megrahi because it was a devolved issue.
That is entirely the appropriate stance to take. That correctly identifies the limits of the devolution settlement. It is just a pity that Mr Brown and his colleagues in London couldn’t see those very limits themselves.
Mr Baker and Mr Gray may not have asked Mr Brown what his views were but Mr Brown could have done them the courtesy of letting them know what he was doing so. Not doing so has now left Mr Gray and Mr Baker looking, at best out of the loop, and at worst, embarrassed and humiliated.
Alex Salmond has described it as “organised political hypocrisy” by the Labour Party and it is difficult for Labour to duck the charges. Labour leaders in London were pursuing one policy while their colleagues in Scotland were not just pursuing another but were attacking that very policy when it was adopted by the SNP government.
This all came about because Mr Brown either did not understand the devolution settlement or, more likely, he knew every detail but didn’t want to abide by the spirit of the law when it interfered with what he wanted to do.
If this was a one-off, then maybe it would be possible to give Mr Brown the benefit of the doubt but, as Sir Menzies has pointed out, this was not the first time Mr Brown wanted to interfere when he had absolutely no remit so to do.
There has been so much murky rumour and speculation swirling around about the Megrahi release that it is important to get the available evidence straight.
This was a decision taken by Kenny MacAskill, the Justice Secretary, in accordance with Scots Law. There is no evidence that either big business or the Labour Government did a deal with Mr MacAskill to secure Megrahi’s release – whatever some Americans might believe.
Whether that decision was right or wrong is obviously open to interpretation depending on an individual’s view of it.
But what is now clear is that Labour pursued different policies to the Megrahi release north and south of the Border, Mr Brown had been active behind the scenes in trying to secure his release beforehand then stayed strangely silent afterwards, while his Scottish colleagues attacked the very outcome he was trying to achieve.
It is difficult for Mr Gray and Mr Baker to justify the Labour position simply because they were kept out of the loop.
Privately, they must be relieved that Mr Brown has gone and been replaced with someone who, at last, not only seems to understand the devolution settlement but seems prepared to abide by it too.
Related posts: