Wendy Alexander was in London yesterday. She was, I鈥檓 told, holding talks with the Scottish Secretary Des Browne.
The topic? Well, I would imagine that one or two side issues arose - but the core subject was, apparently, today鈥檚 debate at Holyrood on Scotland鈥檚 constitutional future.
So let鈥檚 remind ourselves what is going on, perhaps with a brief recap re Ms Alexander鈥檚 speech last Friday which was somewhat swamped on the day by the matter of party donations.
Right now, MSPs are debating the notion of setting up a commission to consider the devolved settlement.
As you would expect, the debate is rather lively, if a little acerbic.
The Commission is a Labour wheeze - but it has been agreed by the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats.
Which means it will get through. It will happen.
What will it do? It will provide an 鈥渆xpert led, independent鈥 review of devolution, including devolved powers.
It will provide an alternative discussion to the National Conversation opened by the First Minister. (Hint: it will not feature independence.)
Ms Alexander helpfully offered a few pointers to her thinking in her speech last Friday - which was, incidentally, a thoughtful contribution, assessing frankly the flaws in devolution while asserting the proclaimed merits of the Union.
I was intrigued by what she said - and what she didn鈥檛 say. Nothing, for example, on Scotland in Europe.
On finance, she indicated that Holyrood should be less reliant on the block grant. That would mean reverting to the original Convention plan of assigned revenues - which was sidelined in the final version.
Under that system, cash raised in Scotland through particular taxes is retained in Scotland - instead of being sent to the Treasury for subsequent disbursement.
But there were limits. Ms Alexander was sceptical as to whether, under EU rules, Scotland could vary VAT or corporation tax.
They might be partially assigned - but Scotland could not alter their rate.
Further, she offered a vigorous nod in the direction of those in England who complain that Scotland is over-funded.
Naturally, she did this subtly, stressing the requirement to be 鈥渇air to all parts of the UK.鈥 But she was promising a needs assessment, presumably instigated by the Treasury.
I have long argued that such a needs assessment, perpetually desired by the Treasury and repeatedly resisted by Scottish Secretaries and First Ministers, will happen eventually.
But we should not pretend that it would be anything other than a challenge to Scotland. Unless a vigorous defence could be mounted, Scotland would be likely to lose funding.
That might be right, it might be fair - but it would be a tough exercise.
Further, Ms Alexander floated the West Lothian question - without in any way offering an answer. She talked about regionalism - knowing, I believe, full well that regionalism does not answer West Lothian unless the regional assemblies have legislative power.
The issue was, she argued, 鈥渇or UK colleagues to consider鈥.
Be clear: that is an advance. It replaces the customary Labour position that the best way to answer West Lothian is to stop asking it.
Both these positions - finance and West Lothian - will have been agreed with Des Browne. And therefore with the UK Government. Hence yesterday鈥檚 further talks.
Hence Labour鈥檚 willingness to enter a concordat with the other opposition parties in Holyrood.
I'm 
