PM Gordon Brown's right to silence (first published September 2009)

English cricket fans were delighted when their team defeated Australia – long the foremost nation in international cricket. Supporters of Brighton & Hove Albion Football (soccer) Club were no doubt joyous when their team escaped relegation from top flight English football. Supporters of both teams were no doubt pleased, if a little surprised, to learn that British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, was sharing vicariously in their joy. Brown is not English (he is Scottish) and hails from a part of Britain that could not be more distant from Brighton & Hove. 

Though Brown is not English, some 85% of the voters he will face in next year’s UK general election are. Though he is not from Brighton & Hove the city returns three Members to the UK Parliament. Like Brown, all are members of the Labour Party, and all will face tough fights in next year’s election. Perhaps this is why he was so keen to align himself with these sporting successes. 

But it leaves an important question open. If Brown can take time from his busy schedule to comment on uncontroversial but ultimately inconsequential matters, why do we still not know his views on the release from a Scottish prison of the largest mass murderer in UK history? Even considering the British deaths alone – 52 of them – the Lockerbie bombing claimed more lives than all the serial killers held in British jails combined. 

Perhaps Brown thinks that Americans would be confused by the subtleties of the British constitution, and unable to understand why he could not prevent the release of al-Megrahi. But such a suggestion is ridiculous. Most Americans may be unable to explain the difference between a Duke and an Earl, or be puzzled as to why the husband of our Queen is not a king, but Americans do understand federalism. Your President does not control the actions of the various state governors any more than Brown can give orders to the government of Scotland. 

He cannot give orders, but he can say whether or not he thinks the Scottish decision was a good one. Barack Obama had no hesitation in distancing himself from his own state governor earlier this year, when the man was impeached. I am sure Bill Clinton did the same, when his hand-picked successor as governor of Arkansas was sent to jail. 

The problem is, what would Brown say? He has let it be known that he thinks the hero’s welcome accorded to al-Megrahi was ‘repulsive’. But what of the decision to release him? He could say he supported the decision, but that would offend the US. He could say he opposed it, but there is documentary evidence that British government ministers favored releasing al-Megrahi two years ago, for purely commercial reasons. They wanted to facilitate an oil deal for BP. 

If UK ministers wanted to release al-Megrahi in 2007, why did it take until 2009 for it to happen? Well, in 2007, the Labour Party, which controls the British government, lost control of the Scottish Parliament and Executive. The administration in Edinburgh is controlled by the Scottish National Party. A pliant Labour administration there would probably have released al-Megrahi two years ago. 

So, let’s give the SNP credit for one thing. They kept al-Megrahi incarcerated for longer than Labour would have. The evidence that shows this also reveals why Prime Minister Brown maintains his right to silence. 

Article provided by Quentin Langley
Lecturer in PR and Political Communications,
School of Journalism, Cardiff University