Not technical, but fundamental
There is a fundamental contradiction at the core of . (See blogs and umpteen previous comments.)
That contradiction does not lie within the party's attitude towards a potential independence referendum - although that is a key question.
In essence, will defer a decision on that until a Bill is tabled in 2010.
No more "bring it on". Rather "put it off". Doesn't mean it won't be a tough call in 2010.
But does mean Labour won't decide now.
Rather, the immediate conundrum lies in the status and nature of the job itself.
The conundrum is this. Strictly, the job vacated by Wendy Alexander is that of "Leader of Labour in the Scottish Parliament."
Holyrood spotlight
It is a parliamentary post, not one carrying wider weight within the movement or the party apparatus.
This is particularly insisted upon by Labour MPs who dislike Holyrood's place in the spotlight.
However, if such is the case - and it is - then why is the voting franchise for the coming contest extended beyond Holyrood? To be blunt, why should Labour MPs be enabled to vote for a leader to whom they owe no allegiance?
If the post is "Scottish Labour Leader", in full, then it is perfectly valid, indeed essential, that all wings of the party, including MPs, union and constituency members, should have a say.
If the post is constrained, in effect, to leading the group at Holyrood, then is that not a decision for MSPs to take?
Sound technical? It's not, it's fundamental. The wider question is this: is there truly a Scottish Labour Party to lead? Or simply a branch organisation for the wider Labour Party?
Historically, the set-up north of the Border was the Labour Party (Scottish Council.) There was minimal devolution of policy or administrative power. The leader was the UK party leader. The governing body was the NEC in London.
Least devolved
When Jack McConnell was appointed general secretary of the party in Scotland, he and fellow contenders had to travel to Preston to accommodate UK union leaders who were attending a conference in nearby Blackpool.
Labour legislated for Scottish devolution but remains the least devolved of the UK parties. By definition, that leaves it trailing behind the Scottish National Party in terms of projecting a Scottish dimension in politics.
There are good reasons for this. A party with Socialist roots was perhaps intrinsically suspicious of nationalist or quasi-nationalist politics.
Labour was seemingly dominant in Scotland and was mistrustful of internal change. The temptation of inertia was strong.
Those reasons persist. However, the party has a choice. There always was, to some extent, a Scottish body politic: that is, a broad civic debate in which the interests of Scotland are to the fore and those parties thrive which adhere to those perceived Scottish interests.
That factor is now amplified several times over - not least since the arrival of the SNP in devolved government.
To varying degrees, Donald Dewar, Henry McLeish and Jack McConnell had to glance over their shoulder, had to accommodate London and wider UK party interests.
UK force
Alex Salmond, palpably and gleefully, does not.
There will be those in London who will argue, forcefully, that the party must remain a UK force, that it should not give ground to nationalism. There was and is a case for accommodating that perspective.
But, in current and foreseeable circumstances in Scotland, that perspective foreshadows continuing defeat north of the Border.
Jack McConnell knew that - and sought change, while struggling within the shackles of the compromises involved. Wendy Alexander knew that - and pursued a course which involved greater autonomy for the party in Scotland and its elected leader.
The main contenders in the forthcoming contest know it too.
I'm 
Comments
or to comment.