The particular landscape, which was moving, was that of the Scottish Parliament and whether or not it should have more powers.
The first rumble occurred back in November when Wendy Alexander spoke for the first time about Labour looking at the "housekeeping bills" of Holyrood. She told a television audience how there was a "desire in Scotland to walk taller than to walk out" of the Union. She insisted how she was not an "unthinking Unionist" and that there were "issues to be resolved".
Now at the time the view from London was that dear old Wendy was "barking" - to use one senior Labour figure's colourful description of the then leader of the Labour Group in Edinburgh.
Indeed, there appeared to be a general consensus among the Westminster Labour clan that some of their cousins at Holyrood had lost the plot and that to concede more powers to the Scottish Parliament would be simply "playing to the SNP tune".
The thinking in London was that once you begin to feed the devolution beast with its insatiable appetite, there was going to be only one inevitable conclusion.
So in December, it came as no surprise when the PM was asked about the issue and appeared to knock the whole thing firmly on the head by declaring: "Sometimes people have forgotten this is devolution, this is not a form of federalism." In other words, those who want more powers for Holyrood can whistle.
In January at his monthly press conference, Mr B was asked directly if he was for or against Holyrood having more tax powers. He dodged the question, saying only that the debate about "accountability for money spent" had to be begun, noting without explanation how 2008 would be an "important year for the Union".
Again, it was regarded as something of a slapdown for Ms Alexander given the absence of direct or even indirect support for her idea. But looking back, had Gordy had a Christmas epiphany on the subject? Given that all the polls north of the Border were saying the same thing - most people do not want an independent Scotland but do want Holyrood to have more powers.
A few weeks later up popped David Cairns, the thoughtful cookie at the Scotland Office, who openly spelled out what, at the time, was thought to be No 10's settled view. "The Government's position is that the current fiscal arrangements benefit Scotland, that there are stable, transparent increases in public spending in Scotland. There is no case for the massive restructuring of that. In any case," noted the MP for Inverclyde, "the Scottish Parliament has powers to levy additional taxes if they think that's what they need and they haven't used them."
In an exclusive interview with The Herald, he added that talk of extra tax-raising powers for Holyrood was a navel-gazing exercise for the "McChattering classes" and what the UK Government and Labour should be focused on was how to help hard-working families cope with their everyday lives - education, health, money, tackling crime, etc.
Yet a week later, the PM appeared on the BBC to declare that no one should prejudge the Calman Commission and then, significantly, he pointed out how "in any other devolved administration in the world" financial responsibility not only involved spending money but also how to raise it. He even referred to raising money through "assigned taxation" ie taxes raised in Scotland, spent in Scotland. The ground was rumbling and seemed to be moving significantly Wendywards.
Fast-forward to last night and the Glasgow Hilton when, in expanded terms, GB declared how he was now on board to enhance Holyrood. In an echo of Ms A when she spoke of her not being an "unthinking Unionist", the PM, in declaring his support for the Union, insisted: "Do not confuse that resolve with unthinking opposition to change and development in how our union governs itself."
He then said that while devolution had worked there was "a problem".
Namely, that while the Scottish Parliament was wholly accountable for the money it spent, it had no accountability for the money raised. Mr Brown then spoke about "developing" devolution.
The SNP reacted by claiming he had "caved in" to Nationalist pressure. There is some truth in this as there is no doubt in the contention that the PM has also bent to pressure from some of his own Labour colleagues in Scotland.
There are, of course, no specifics as yet on precisely what extra powers should be devolved. No doubt these will come post-Calman. But the reality is that, having for so long swum against the tide of general public opinion in Scotland, Mr Brown appears to have joined it. The direction of political travel seems clear: more powers for Holyrood.
If once Calman reports next year, the PM decides to do a reverse ferret, he will be engulfed. So it's now down to how to package the policy on devolution phase two. The chances are Labour will put their recommendations in the next General Election manifesto in the hope of taking the wind out of the SNP sails. Yet there will be still those Labour clansmen at Westminster who will feel decidely queasy at feeding the devolution beast. They will no doubt be warning their masters that it will not be satisfied by a few federal titbits and will ultimately want the whole pie.
Spare a thought for the folically-challenged Michael Fabricant, the idiosyncratic Tory MP for Lichfield, who was on a trekking holiday with a friend in South America when he ran up against the moustachioed authorities.
He was in Colombia when he was confronted by a stern-faced police officer glaring at him and rummaging though his bags.
At gunpoint, he was questioned about the dodgy-looking jar in his baggage. The suspicion was clear: the cops thought it contained raw cocaine and that the honourable parliamentarian was, horror of horrors, trying to smuggle drugs.
However, the jar in question was in fact Coffee Mate and the white substance was not raw cocaine but, actually, coffee whitener - the backbencher did not trust the local milk.
As one officer began shouting: "Cocaine, cocaine," Mr F began replying: "No coffee, coffee." Who in their right mind would link cocaine with a senior Conservative? Yet the police seemed unconvinced.
In the end, in order to prove to the officials that Fabricanto was an innocent man, he gulped down mouthfuls of the said milk substitute.
"It took some explanation - as I don't speak more than two or three words in Spanish - for them to accept it was Coffee Mate," explained the Staffordshire MP.
"They didn't want to taste it as pure cocaine is fairly poisonous so I had to eat several mouthfuls in front of them, with guns aimed at me, until they could see it had no ill effect."
Mr Fabricant added: "Except afterwards; I felt as sick as a dog."
Apparently, the police, as they let the MP and his companion on their way, began giggling.
The backbencher said the episode had taught him an important lesson and that he would be more careful in future. "I would not wish to unnecessarily cause the risk of a by-election," he quipped.
The things our noble parliamentarians have to go through.
Who says US political commentators are hypocrites?
Well Jon Stewart of the unmatched Daily Show just about proves it with this compilation of verbal gymnastics from Republicans desperate to defend Sarah Palin from the evils of the liberal media.
Plenty words on Scotland in that Brown speech, a draft of which was embargoed until now. The whole last third is about the strength of the Union, sweeping in everything from oil to Chris Hoy's three gold medals. (Hoy, to borrow the chancellor phrase, is getting p...ed off with being hi-jacked by politicians).
Its the usual Nat-bashing stuff from Brown until you come to a humdinger of a paragraph on the Calman Commission, currently examining the powers of the Scottish parliament.
Brown is due to say: “The Scottish parliament is wholly accountable for the budget it spends but not for the size of its budget. And that budget is not linked to the success of the Scottish economy. That is why we asked the Calman Commission to look at the financial accountability of the Scottish parliament”
Translated, this is the strongest signal yet that Brown has been convinced by the case for more fiscal autonomy for Scotland. It's not quite Devolution Max - a parliament responsible for raising and spending its own taxes - but Number 10 is not a roadblock to the development of devolution any more.
These lines about “a budget being linked to the success of the economy” look like the Prime Minister favours a system similar to the German Lander where federal parliament budgets are linked to the economic growth in their region.
The German system, on quick inspection, give the Lander an incentive to grow their regional economy. In Scottish terms all this, I assume, would take place in a post-Barnett world. If you thought the Barnett formula for assigning the block grant to the Scottish parliament was complicated, hang onto your hat.
Scottish Labour MSPs feel the development of devolution is the needed to blunt the separatist sirens of the SNP come the next UK general election and the promised independence referendum. Long haul strategists in the SNP, who see independence as a process rather than one giant leap, may be pleased too.
HERE's the speech I would have advised Wendy Alexander to make to the Scottish Parliament today: “Presiding Officer, the report by the Standards Commissioner and the ruling by the Standards Committee concerning the late registration of donations to my leadership campaign fund throws up questions for all of us here in this chamber.
“It cannot be right that members seeking the advice of Parliament officials can still be held to be in the wrong if they act on that advice.
“However, given that by the time I sought advice I had already breached the time limit this does not really apply in my case. I sought and received no personal financial gain but it is clear that I committed a technical breach of the Parliament's procedures.
“For the good of this Parliament, for the sake of the integrity of its procedures, and to avoid undermining either the Standards Commissioner of the Standards Committee can I make clear that I am accepting the penalty imposed on me.
“Overturning the committee's decision would avoid me being suspended for half a day but at an unacceptable cost to this Parliament in the court of public opinion. I urge members to vote in support of the committee's decsion.”
Of course, Ms Alexander made no such speech. Instead she sat grim-faced while friends such as Jackie Baillie and Cathie Craigie attacked both the Commissioner and the committee. Ms Baillie called on “wiser heads” to overturn the committee decision. Ms Craigie ploughed through a six-page speech. All her own work? I have my doubts.
Labour are furiously spinning the saga as a Nationalist witch-hunt against their former leader. That rather ignores the role of the Commissioner, Dr Jim Dyer, or of the Liberal Democrat committee member, Hugh O'Donnell.
Yes it is true that most complaints against Ms Alexander came from SNP staffers and researchers so of course the whole thing was political. But it is also possible to accept that while seeing Ms Alexander as the author of her own misfortunes.
I think that of all the millions of words written about the saga the best flavour is given in an appendix to the Commissioner's report, in the transcript of his interview with Ms Alexander.
Politics
