In many ways, I agree with the decision to summon leading members of the British government to the Senate in Washington to explain the background behind the release of the alleged "Lockerbie bomber", Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi. This is because it should have been -- and essentially must have been -- a national decision and not one taken by a devolved Scottish Executive. Tony Blair, who did or did not make some kind of deal with Colonel Gaddafi, may have escaped narrowly, but Gordon Brown should not.

As I wrote in August last year:

In the confused aftermath of the release to Libya of the one man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, one truth is clear: try as it might, the government cannot escape responsibility. Whether or not Gordon Brown discussed the release with Colonel Gaddafi in July, and whether or not the Tony Blair administration brokered a "secret deal" with Gaddafi tied to the 2007 prisoner exchange with Libya, attempts by Labour to pass the buck to the Scottish Executive are wrong in more ways than one. However, the real failing is in devolution itself. This is precisely the sort of decision that should be taken -- and be seen to be taken -- at a national level by the British government, not by nationalists in one part of the UK. But devolution has led to a grave failure of accountability.

On the other hand, there is a different constitutional question here: why should a foreign country be able to grill another country's politicians over a national decision, even if it does relate to BP and its activities? The move to consider inviting Tony Blair to be held to account ushers in another question still: what did we get out of the "special relationship"? Blair, after all, went so far out of his way to ally with the US over Iraq that even George W Bush was worried that he was laying himself open to turbulence at home.

Perhaps we should pay a little more notice to the recent verdict of the Commons foreign affairs select committee:

The use of the phrase "the special relationship" in its historical sense, to describe the totality of the ever-evolving UK-US relationship, is potentially misleading, and we recommend that its use should be avoided.

The overuse of the phrase by some politicians and many in the media serves simultaneously to devalue its meaning and to raise unrealistic expectations about the benefits the relationship can deliver to the UK.

Footnote: George Galloway just accused Blair of "being on the payroll" of Gaddafi on Sky News, but was then being swiftly cut off by the channel.