After an election defeat, other leaders get to depart with dignity. John Major, for instance, left Downing Street to watch a cricket match.

Jack McConnell has been left twisting in the wind, remaining in office until voted out, uncertain about his party's future, the pace of events dictated by his political adversary.

The closeness of last week's result only adds to the uncertainty. The Labour Party lost by the narrowest of margins. What the SNP won decisively was momentum, and if Alex Salmond cannot use it to secure enough votes to be First Minister, Labour could return to power.

The party was convinced it could pip the SNP in seat share, and has taken days to recover from the shock of failing to do so. It then thought it could form an anti-Nationalist alliance. The plan was a third LibDem coalition, and Tories had been sounded out and had said privately they would abstain on the votes putting ministers in office.

But then, on Sunday, Tavish Scott, the LibDem campaign director and Shetland MSP, flatly ruled out a coalition with Labour, even if talks fail with the SNP.

Labour strategists questioned whether Mr Scott spoke for other LibDems or meant something different. But taken at face value, it meant the best Mr McConnell can do is run a minority administration.

Yet still he has to wait. A source close to him talks of a "complex game of chess" over coming weeks. It is a game in which Alex Salmond has control, and he has so far shown a deft instinct for setting the pace, agenda and tone of developments.

A Labour team is talking through every conceivable scenario and working out how to respond in each case. But the party needs to address not only how it will handle the future, but also the lessons of the recent past.

Critics want to know why the campaign began so late, and froze out senior figures until a late stage; why was there no budget until after the manifesto was published, undermining the attack that SNP sums did not add up; why council tax reform was so minor and vague.

They wonder what the education policy had beyond being "the big idea". And why did the leader visit Midlothian and Hamilton when marginal seats needed attention?

With Jack McConnell's future as leader looking precarious, he or his successor must consider Labour's retreat into its Clydeside heartlands, and having little to say to prosperous, aspirational and rural voters.

Those switching from Labour last week said they felt taken for granted by the party that dominated Scottish politics for 50 years. And that reflects an organisation that has hollowed out, even in places it is strong, where poor candidates are picked because they control the tiny local Labour machine. The party still suffers from a brutal purge of candidates nine years ago, when quality and brainpower lost out to blind loyalty.

Labour needs internal renewal. It should worry that Friday's results were not bad enough to spark that and a weakened leadership is in no place to make the first move.