The last I heard, the old Co-op building in Glasgow's Dalintober Street had been converted into nice-looking flats.

There is no chance of the Labour Party returning to the scene to mark the anniversary of historic meetings during a summer long ago. That's a pity, in a way.

I was in no position to be a witness at the Co-op halls in August 1974. Jim Murphy would have been in primary school then, and oblivious, presumably, to what went on. Still, a couple of those who were there have shared memories of nascent devolution and democracy in action. You know: naked bullying, intimidation, fratricidal mayhem, and power ruthlessly exercised.

Strip away sentiment and Dalintober Street deserves to be remembered as the place where "the settled will of the Scottish people" began to evolve. Labour's claim to have "given" Scotland devolution was born during that summer 40 years back. The hard fact is the party in this country had no desire for assemblies or parliaments. "Constitutional tinkering" - a phrase you still hear - was not to its taste. Most of the Labour Party in Scotland, as we used to call it, despised devolution. They were not given the option. London sent up weighty folk with offers that couldn't be refused and the unions provided muscle. Things got ugly, by all accounts. The upshot was that Scottish Labour "rediscovered the home rule tradition". In other words, it was compelled to respond to the SNP.

There are lessons to be had from ancient history. One has to do with relations between a London leadership and Labour in Scotland. Another involves fissures within the Scottish party, the geological faults, these days symbolised by Westminster and Holyrood, that have endured for 40 years. A third is in the reversal of roles. At Dalintober Street, Scotland was told to get with the devolution programme. Today, one wing of the Scottish party tests the limits of autonomy.

The party's 2014 leadership contest might stand as a parable. After 15 years of devolution and a victory in a referendum campaign, the Scottish wing isn't looking too clever. It is out of power in Edinburgh and London. Such opinion polls as there are say grim times lie ahead in UK and Scottish elections. Johann Lamont has quit as branch manager and laid the blame on colleagues at Westminster.

Her replacement will tell us a lot about the nature of the party and the party Labour hope to be. Mortifyingly, a succession of figures small and large have taken pains to decline the chance to lead the way to electoral defeat. Gordon Brown might have given a big speech on the "real Scotland" during the referendum campaign, but the real place does not fit his plans. Anas Sarwar MP, Ms Lamont's deputy, doesn't want the top job. Promising juniors have thought better of it.

Handily, this is assumed to have cleared the ground for Jim Murphy, MP for East Renfrewshire, the man who put the crate back into Great Britain. Many touting his leadership would otherwise have no time for Labour, but the fact does not detain them. That Mr Murphy is not a conspicuous favourite of Ed Miliband is to his credit among fair-weather friends.

Should he fancy the job, the 47-year-old is nominated for the task of bringing Holyrood, Scotland and Scottish Labour back under control. Under whose control? There's that fly in the ointment. By what means? That might be trickier than Mr Murphy's backers are letting on. To what purpose? Never mind those still loyal to the Scottish party who might wonder about the favoured MP's devotion to Trident, Israel, Tony Blair and foreign wars. There's the Smith Commission to think about.

A week ago, it was a matter of utmost urgency. There were vows, pledges, and Mr Brown's strict timetable to respect. Iain Gray MSP and Gregg McClymont MP had just begun to defend Labour's meagre "more powers" in the first commission meeting. Now what? On whose behalf will the duo speak? To whom will they report? How can the parties reach agreement by November 30 when Labour does not expect to have a new Scottish leader until November 13?

Not for the first time, the party has made a priority of its own ancient tensions. This was not on the prospectus, needless to say, when Scotland made its referendum choice. Ms Lamont's dismay over her relationship with the Miliband leadership, far less the eroded principle of Scottish party autonomy, far less the sour mood within the Labour "family", found no place in those brave Better Together speeches. Now the ground is laid, casually, for Mr Murphy.

Like Mr Sarwar, he's an MP. Is it a clever idea to have a Scottish party led by two men whose day jobs are in Westminster? That's hardly the spirit of devolution. But, plainly, this is one of those problems that can be fixed if the prize is a dose of Blairite reform and there's a need for something resembling a contest. This will be explained to Mr Sarwar, no doubt, in due course.

Meanwhile, Sarah Boyack, MSP for Lothian and Mr Murphy's co-chair in the last internal review of the Scottish party, announces her intention to contest the leadership. Questions over the absence of a Holyrood candidate are thereby answered. The issue of gender is dealt with, you would hope, by the involvement of an able parliamentarian. Dalintober Street was a long time ago.

Those backing Mr Murphy should remember, nevertheless, that Scottish Labour retain old habits. In a fit of inadvertence (no doubt), Ms Lamont did not get around to the internal reforms that would have put an end to the party's electoral college system. Affiliated unions retain one-third of the voting power. Are these Mr Murphy's kind of people? Have they forgotten his alleged involvement in the row over a replacement for Eric Joyce in the Falkirk seat?

You might wonder. You could also wonder why, 40 years on, Labour's MPs and MSPs still march to different drums, why the former still resent the parliament housing the latter, and why those in Holyrood can't find a leader capable of living with - in Ms Lamont's words -"London Labour". For the party in Scotland, home rule remains a work in progress, a matter of fine theory more than actual practice.

That's Labour's problem. They have been paying the price for a failure to grasp devolution and accept it wholeheartedly for much of the 21st century. The ignorance and disdain shown by the UK leadership is just another piece of gristle in the stew.

An attempt to hustle Mr Murphy into a job for which he previously showed no interest does not resemble a brainwave. That will be the party's choice. Does it fancy embracing antique Blairism long after that gaudy carnival has passed, and on behalf of those who make their careers from Labour's ruin, or does it wish to represent Scotland?

Those on the party left have hopes for Neil Findlay, the shadow minister for health. Labour could do worse as it struggles with an SNP undaunted by referendum defeat. But doing worse has become the party's habit.