Premier Alex Scott's calls for unity and discipline among Progressive Labour Party politicians and members at last week's party conference went further than the boilerplate such occasions demand.

Under the Westminster system, discipline is key, and the old union cry of united we stand, divided we fall has particular resonance. So leaders always call for members to rally to the flag, show a united front and so on.

Mr. Scott went further than this. He warned that Ministers who failed to perform would go, and in spite of his praise for Housing Minister Ashfield DeVent, the MP for Pembroke East Central's departure from Cabinet last week was an all too recent reminder of that.

At the same time, he trotted out the now traditional PLP line about how he welcomed MPs who had ambitions on the top post in Government ? which also happens to be his job.

All of this seems to make it clear that moves are afoot for another leadership challenge. It is somewhat surprising that it has taken this long since Mr. Scott was always a compromise candidate between the "Smith" and "Brown" wings of the party. His survival has depended on his own ability to maintain a balance between the two groups and, to a very great extent, his own personal popularity.

Since the halcyon days of the honeymoon he enjoyed after the 2003 election and the credit he and his Government received for the Fabian recovery, his own popularity has followed a downward trend, and neither Independence nor the ballyhooed Social Agenda has done anything to retrieve it.

The burning question is who will step up and deliver the challenge. Tourism Minister Ewart Brown may never live down his "we had to deceive you" remarks, not least within the PLP. And Finance Minister Paula Cox, who seems the most likely contender from the "Smith wing", is at best a reluctant candidate.

That uncertainty may be Mr. Scott's saving grace.

Still, his survival seems uncertain. His speech on Thursday night emphasised that. It was more energised than usual. He laid out the case for Independence more explicitly than he has done up to now, including several digs at the British.

And he defended his Government's record, punctuated with a string of "come on nows", that seemed to be welcomed by the delegates.

That welcome should not be surprising. Mr. Scott should have been preaching to the converted at the conference; those who attend are the very base of the party.

But there should be no doubt that there is grave disquiet in the PLP. This is reflected in anecdotal conversations in the street, by the polls, and by the very body language of Cabinet Ministers and MPs.

That should not be surprising. MPs must look to their seats, and too many PLP MPs hold their seats by margins of 100 votes or less to be altogether comfortable with the Government's direction, or more accurately, the lack thereof.

Indeed, Mr. Scott's position on whether Independence should be decided by an election or a referendum seems to reflect that. It would be nice to think that his efforts to decide it through the "Scottish solution" is a bow to public opinion. But Mr. Scott is a canny political operative and it's more likely that he is coming to recognise that a General Election in which the PLP makes Independence the central issue on its platform could lead to its defeat.

Having Independence decided by a subsequent referendum, or by having it as a separate question on the ballot paper, would allow likely PLP voters to still vote for the party while turning down Independence.

Whether that will be enough to get the PLP past the 50 percent mark again remains to be seen. But, assaulted from within and unpopular without, Mr. Scott has little choice.