So, the Labour Party in Scotland now wants to be known as the Referendum Party. Or so it would seem following Wendy Alexander's extraordinary disclosure in a television interview on Sunday that, following “tactical discussions”, she and her party are considering rallying behind the demand: “We want a referendum on independence and we want it as quickly as possible”.

It is easy, too easy, to describe this as a volte face and a U-turn and another example of the sometimes capricious nature of Ms Alexander's leadership of Scottish Labour. In fact, the proposal has a lot to recommend it and many people in Scottish Labour, some of them surprising, have believed ever since last summer that the best way to cook Alex Salmond's independence goose is to give him what he says he so dearly wants - a referendum - and kill off the notion of breaking up the UK for a generation. However, that is where the problems begin. If the referendum is to be organised and run by Holyrood, and not by Westminster, Ms Alexander will have to introduce her own Bill, containing the form of question she wants and dare the Nationalists to vote against their prime and overriding political objective.

On the other hand the Alexander “referendum” could be legislated for and organised by the UK Government at Westminster which would also, most importantly, set the question that is to be asked.

But this vital matter - is it to be Westminster or Holyrood which decides on the question - has so far not been made clear by Ms Alexander, mainly, we suspect, because on this question like so many others, Gordon Brown is in one of his “I used to be indecisive ... but now I'm not so sure” moods. If that is the case, then Ms Alexander may have well and truly jumped the gun.

But at least Mr Brown appears to have been consulted on the issue which is more than many in the Scottish Labour party can say.

Some of her MSPs were yesterday questioning whether Ms Alexander can make this sort of major policy change “on the hoof” without some form of formal or informal consultation with those she purports to lead.

Ms Alexander appears to be looking to introduce a Bill in either the Commons or at Holyrood that would clear the way for a referendum to be held some time in the next 18 months. This would come after the Calman Commission, set up by Labour and the other opposition parties at Holyrood, has come forward in late autumn with its ideas on which new powers should be devolved to Edinburgh.

That referendum would be a multi-option one (we presume), asking Scots whether they favour the status quo, a Parliament with more powers or independence. Would it be a straight choice, with the option getting most support declared the winner, or would it by single transferrable vote? Again, we await guidance from Ms Alexander.

The very method by which this initiative was launched on Sunday had an inescapable “back of the fag packet” feel to it and appeared, in the words of one critic, to be the action of a politician desperate for anything that might look as if she was putting her chief opponents, the SNP, on the back foot.

There is another unspoken problem about Ms Alexander's “grand plan”. It could soon turn into an issue of personalities.

Right now Wendy Alexander is plumbing hitherto untapped depths of unpopularity among voters. Alex Salmond is generally approved of.

Who can say in two years' time how people will vote if asked to choose between the line taken by Mr Salmond, armed with all his glib talk and a fearsome campaigning machine, and that taken by a Scottish Labour leader whom voters neither rate nor like. Perhaps Ms Alexander should consider this. Will the cause of the Union in any referendum be helped or hindered by her presence in the campaign?