Not just any referendum
So where are we now after the ?
A little clearer about this remarkable controversy - and a step closer to a referendum on Scotland's future.
For a moment, . I know it's fundamental to parties' electoral prospects. But indulge me and set it aside for now.
It would appear Wendy Alexander is quite determined to resist the evident displeasure of the prime minister and to sanction a referendum if and when one is advanced by Alex Salmond.
But, to be clear, not any referendum. Yes, she has said that she will not seek to block an opportunity to allow the people of Scotland to choose.
Equally, though, she has said that she won't sign a "blank cheque". So it's hands up to the principle of a referendum - but not to the detailed wording or conduct of the plebiscite.
Final break
Here is the wording favoured by the SNP, as set out in their .
People in Scotland would be asked to accept or reject the following statement: "I agree that the Scottish Government should negotiate a settlement with the government of the United Kingdom so that Scotland becomes an independent state."
We might call that the mandate option. Ms Alexander dislikes it. I suspect she fears supporters of independence might seek to imply the referendum was only the start of a process, not its conclusion. Not a final break.
Ms Alexander, I imagine, would prefer a starker choice, more apocalyptic language. She would favour talk of ending the Union or separating from the UK.
The sort of language, in short, which tends to depress support for independence in certain polls.
For myself, I think it likely that the wording matters less than the conduct of the campaign.
I think the people of Scotland would swiftly grasp the core nature of the choice - independence or the Union - whatever the wording.
Bad election
They would be confronted with emotive and pragmatic arguments on either side. They would, in short, know what they were doing.
If that problem could be overcome, then it would appear we are more likely than not to be facing a consultative referendum, called by Holyrood, during the present session which runs until 2011.
Wendy Alexander wants one asap in order, she argues, to forestall the SNP from creating further conflict with Westminster in the by-going.
She also fears being seen to oppose the principle of Scottish self-determination. She fears the issue dominating the 2011 elections if she thwarts that principle.
She fears, privately, that Labour could do badly in a 2010 UK General Election, lending further succour to the SNP.
Mr Salmond is adamant he will adhere to his stated timetable of calling a referendum in 2010. That timing seems decidedly more probable.
Back to the sound and fury. For now, this completely obscures any prospect of Labour turning this issue into a cogent assault upon the SNP.
Less than harried
The manner of executing this plan, if such a description can be used, has been utterly abominable.
It has prompted an internal Labour row. It has landed the prime minister with .
It has brought huge smiles to the faces of Nationalist MSPs.
And it has provoked scorn from the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats which, incidentally, will cause early difficulties in the .
I imagine, however, they will overcome this.
Labour can only hope the sound and fury dies down - leaving the core challenge to the SNP still extant.
Ms Alexander is promising to "harry" the first minister. For now, he looks decidedly less than harried.
Finally, what of those internal Labour relations. This is seminal stuff. Despite the assurances, this has been a significant rift between Ms Alexander and Mr Brown.
Today in the Commons, Helen Goodman, the deputy leader of the house, read out a letter from the PM to David Cameron.
Eye to impact
This missive insisted Mr Brown and Ms Alexander were united in their approach. As Tory MPs understandably guffawed, Ms Goodman could barely stifle her own giggles.
One or two of the bolder Labour MSPs are voicing satisfaction at the nature of the conflict. One told me: "We should have picked more fights with Westminster when we were in power."
Another said: "Wendy really means it when she presses for Scottish party autonomy. That's what they
Viewed from Westminster, the picture appears understandably rather different. Some MPs sympathise with the strategy. But others are angry the prime minister has been placed in trouble.
One called Wendy Alexander a "liability". Another, with an eye to impact rather than taste and discretion, called her a "political suicide bomber".
So why doesn't Gordon Brown give ground and endorse Ms Alexander's approach?
Firstly, while he has been pondering the question, he doesn't entirely buy the fundamental premise. Secondly, think of the follow-up questions which David Cameron could pose.
If you favour a Scottish referendum, Mr Brown, why wait? Why not call one yourself, using your Westminster majority?
Further, if you favour a referendum on Scottish independence, which you oppose, why not call one on the Lisbon EU Treaty, which you endorse?
I'm 
Comments
or to comment.