Calculation and fear
It can be intriguing to examine the motives underpinning political decisions.
A blend, perhaps, of party interest, personal interest, national interest and financial interest.
With , I prefer more precise terminology.
It is driven, I reckon, by calculation and fear.
To be clear, that does not make the decision necessarily wrong. Merely fascinating.
We are led to understand that Ms Alexander has long been intuitively supportive of the concept of popular plebiscites, that she was an early advocate of such a ballot with regard to devolution.
Further, we are led to understand that she has been, from an early point, sympathetic to the notion of responding positively to the SNP demand for a referendum on independence.
We are led to understand that her reticence on the matter was simply driven by the times, by a lack of understanding with regard to the issue, perhaps particularly among her Holyrood colleagues.
If so, she hid it well.
Her Holyrood colleagues would, understandably, have been lulled when Ms Alexander said, repeatedly and as recently as the spring party conference, that independence and its associated referendum were an "obsession" for the Nationalists and not a topic for serious-thinking politicians.
Calculation and fear?
The fear is obvious. Fear of electoral defeat, fear of defeat even worse than the reversals in May last year at the Holyrood polls.
Wendy Alexander glances at Labour's collapse in the English and Welsh locals, she ponders Boris as London Mayor - and she thinks: Is Scottish Labour immune?
The situation is different, admittedly.
The Tories may be notably cheerful in Scotland but they are scarcely driving forward in a manner comparable to the march of the Cameronians.
In Scotland, Labour's big opposition - Labour's fear - is the Scottish National Party.
But there is a read-through from the locals nonetheless.
Voters disenchanted with the UK government, annoyed by totemic issues such as the 10p tax rate, may seek alternatives in Scotland too.
That alternative may be the SNP.
Which brings us to the calculation.
I believe this has two factors.
Firstly, Alex Salmond's strategy is to challenge his Unionist rivals to hold an independence referendum.
If they decline - which, until now, was the stance - then Mr Salmond takes the issue to the Holyrood voters in 2011, arguing that the people have been denied a say.
Wendy Alexander knows that is a highly potent argument. She now, apparently, wants to forestall it, if she can.
The second factor is her innate confidence that, presented with the choice in serious terms, the people of Scotland would reject independence.
She calculates that would undermine Mr Salmond, would set his administration off course.
In short, she is prepared to sanction a referendum she wouldn't, in other circumstances, want.
Which leaves us where?
Firstly, Ms Alexander's mates in the Calman Commission - which only began work last week - are entitled to feel somewhat sore.
The Tories and the Liberal Democrats thought they were joining an initiative to shore up the Union; an initiative which deliberately excluded the option of independence.
They did not know, they were not told, that there would be a side bet on an independence referendum.
Secondly, a referendum now seems likely by 2011.
We are very far from knowing precisely how or when. This was a speedy initiative of calculation and fear, not governmental detail.
However, the UK Government may eventually exercise its reserved power over the constitution and call such a ballot.
That could happen under the cautious Gordon Brown - or under his (Tory?) successor.
More probably, Mr Salmond's eventual bill for a consultative referendum will be tabled at Holyrood and Labour would support it.
At this stage, it would appear that such a referendum would be a straight choice: independence, yea or nay.
The alternative of "more powers" would sit on the sidelines, an available substitute.
I'm 
Comments
or to comment.