THERE is a scene in No Country for Old Men when a sheriff and his deputy survey the mayhem of a drug deal gone wrong.

Bodies of men and dogs lie decaying under an unforgiving Texan sun. "It's a mess, ain't it sheriff," the deputy says. The sheriff replies: "'If it ain't, it'll do 'til the mess gets here."

The reconstruction of Scottish football is now officially a mess. It also looks dead, though the incurably hopeful might demand a definitive coroner's report. If so, here it is. League reconstruction has died because of severe self-interest. It will only be revived if one or more of the factions in the senior game decide to opt for the common good.

Strangely, this seemed to be what had happened when the Scottish Premier League agreed to proceed with the 12-12-18 system. There seemed to be enough support to allow the proposal to pass on Monday. Now St Mirren have announced they will vote against it and will almost certainly be joined in dissent by Ross County. Under the 11-1 voting system, this means the plans will stall, perhaps permanently. There is an irony in that it will be the 11-1 system, described by St Mirren last night as "fatally flawed", that will be the weapon that kills off 12-12-18. Under an 8-4 voting system, the SPL clubs would almost certainly pass the plans.

There may be a legitimate question as to why St Mirren seemed to have changed their view between discussion and vote. The answer, of course, is almost certainly self-interest. "Anyone who says they don't go to reconstruction meetings without taking their own club into account first of all is telling you a lie," Stewart Gilmour, St Mirren's chairman, told the Daily Record last month. "You try to take in the big picture but you look out for No.1 and I'd condemn no-one for that."

The problem is that while this may be understandable, it is also a barrier to change. There are so many factions in the debate it seems impossible to reach any consensus if the primary consideration is the benefit to individual clubs.

The SPL has 12 clubs, two opposed to change and 10 who seem determined to support it. There are also three distinct business models. There is Celtic, then there are the city clubs of Aberdeen, Hearts, Hibernian, Dundee and Dundee United and then the "community" clubs of Motherwell, Ross County, Inverness Caledonian Thistle, St Mirren and Kilmarnock. The business models are radically different.

Then there are the three Scottish Football League divisions. Broadly, their attitude can be summarised thus: SFL1 clubs want SPL2 with Rangers, SPL2 want restructuring delayed for a year so they can have Rangers for a season and SFL3 clubs fear the pyramid system and are so minded to oppose change. What Rangers want is difficult to divine but ultimately irrelevant when it comes to any show of hands because the Ibrox club does not have a vote. Ally McCoist, the Rangers manager, has called for a quick decision on reconstruction and he may get that on Monday. Charles Green, the chief executive, has played to the gallery with his antipathy to anything containing the letters SPL. There are those, too, at Ibrox who believe that Rangers should stick to the three-year plan the club has devised to arrive in the top division healthy and competitive.

Celtic have been portrayed in some quarters as the big bully in the playground, pushing the weaker members into change. However, it is hard to see how the 12-12-18 gives them extra muscle or suits their agenda. At first glance, they look to lose one home game, £1m in sponsors' money and that 11-1 voting system is hardly working out great for them.

There is a danger, though, to all clubs. This observer has always been sceptical about the benefits of changing the numbers of division or the numbers of teams therein. The best reason for change may be simply the need to be doing something. There may be something, too, in any new system that kick-starts the ailing body of Scottish football back to life. Yet the interests of individual clubs will mitigate against that change.

There have been calls for an "honest broker" to be introduced to study the evidence, draw up and plan and force it through.

Why doesn't the SFA do something?

Er, it already has. It has been the facilitator at a series of meetings.

Why doesn't the SFA just impose change?

Er, because it can't.

The siren calls will be made for someone such as Henry McLeish, the former first minister and author of a substantial report on Scottish football, to be a mediator with power. However, it would be a foolish club indeed who signed up for a binding agreement to whatever an independent body or individual decided. It would also be in breach of business ethics and an abnegation of a club's responsibility to shareholders.

So there it lies. The format cannot be changed because any revamp cannot and will not suit every club, every faction, every constituency. This truth remains impervious to reality. There are whispers, gentle but persuasive, that Dunfermline Athletic are not the only club to have a problem paying wages. There is the rumble from supporters who are demanding reform but who will not see it. "The supporters want change. Football has to change," Gilmour told BBC Scotland in November.

The only hope for a transformation in the game is that all the clubs see that a valid form of self-interest might be to accept that what is unpalatable to some might be in the best interest of the national game. This might not be the last hope. But it will do until the last hope gets here.