Sport? I would have thought that could be devolved to a more er... individual level.
I was not a big fan of the English parliament for the reasons you stated but I've come around to the view that a federalist settlement does not require national parliaments to be of equal power.
In the US, smaller states have more centralised governments while Texas has a part time legislature. I think a similar settlement would be appropriate here.
I can concieve a situation where an English parliament passes most of the laws (rather than counties having different by-laws for murder) but it is enforced by local officials (elected police chiefs and DAs etc..). Prisons would probably be mostly run at an English level.
I think that you are slightly naive in your understanding of the rationale behind devolution to Scotland and Wales.
Devolution was, without any shadow of a doubt, a result of increasing nationalism in Scotland and Wales.
The Scottish Constitutional Convention made the following statement:
"SCOTLAND’S PARLIAMENT: SCOTLAND’S RIGHT” A CLAIM OF RIGHT FOR SCOTLAND
"We acknowledge the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of government best suited to their needs."
That is not about localism. Tony Blair acknowledged as much when he wrote the preamble to the Scottish white paper, "Scotland is a proud, historic nation" he said.
The Wales Devolution White Paper exhorts and instructs the Assembly as "the forum for the nation" to "provide leadership to re-invigorate all aspects of Welsh life and culture".
Now I'm not saying that you are totally wrong when you say there would be no need for an English parliament if there was greater localism. But I would ask you to think about whether greater localism will lead to a decrease in English nationalism and demands for an English parliament. I think not.
Would the English care about whether they were almost unique in the world - a nation without any constitutional recognition, national leader or government? You can theorise that they may be but the only way to find out is to ask them - and when that happens they will overwhelmingly vote for some form of English-only government. Whether that means a full-blown English cabinet government answerable to an English-only parliament, only time will tell.
Let the people speak and England will have her parliament.
I'm not sure you are right about this being due to nationalism. Sure, there was nationalist gloss put on it, but it is less clear to me that nationalism was the root cause. I think the chain of causality went something along the lines of a)resentment at central government policy leads to (b)sense of estrangement which causes (c)disgruntled people to reject central government because it is "English" leading to (d) calls for devolution.
ie centralisation at the root, with nationalism as the vehicle. (to mix a metaphor).
The article on the CEP comments thread on the need for a civic English Nationalism is very interesting. The point that there needs to be a visible public expression of English nationalism is a good one.
We seem to have reached a stage in the debate where my scheme may not answer the emotional issues and yours may not answer the political ones. We need to think a little about how we could find a scheme which would do both.
(One thought which occurs to me here is my constitutional scheme in an independent England. Let nobody accuse me of treating the Union as a safety blanket 
Yes, ask the people. Just make sure you ask them the right question.
We seem to have reached a stage in the debate where my scheme may not answer the emotional issues and yours may not answer the political ones. We need to think a little about how we could find a scheme which would do both.
Precisely. We need to square the circle and address both these primary concerns.
Gareth; I agree with Bishop that the nationalism was a vehicle not a cause. Sure, there were (and will always be) some Scots Nats, but I think the majority were much more interested in the need to decentralise, especially after the Thatcher years (remember, for example, that the Poll Tax was pushed on Scotland a year earlier than England for no valid reason I could see). It's certainly true that the LibDem policy wonks I've been in contact with north of the border were in favour of it despite, not because of, the nationalism, they wanted decentralisation, this was what was on offer.
Personally, I'd like to find an answer that preserves the Union. It's not a necessity, but it would be nice. And as for referenda questions? I'm arguing for a preferendum. Give us options, let us decide the best, not just an either/or, that's folly.
reckon in fact that the advent of an English Parliament would be good not only for the English but also for the Celtic fringe, in that the loss of their subsidies will force them to embrace business in the way that their brethren in Ireland have done.
It will only be good for the celts if they are allowed to drop business taxes as radically as the Irish did. That was how they attracted inward investment but dropping the taxes was only possible for the government because of vast regeneration grants from the EU.
I don't think that any of that willbe coming the way of Wales or Scotland; not with the Eastern block hoovering up so much...
DK
I have to say I pretty much agree with Bishop Hill on this one (Shock!) The nature of the devolved government in Wales in particular points to the fact that the main reason for it is that the mainstream of English politics is significantly to the right of the mainstream in Welsh politics. The further right Westminster goes, the more pressure there is for Wales to be able to "secede" at least partially.
The same argument works in reverse, but since England is 80% of the UK, the potential for a UK government to be far to the left of mainstream English opinion is more limited. It's no surprise though that the idea of an English parliament comes largely from the right.
Looking around the world, there are many cases of large countries with semi-autonomous regions, not least NI, Jersey, Guernsey, and IOM. The Welsh and Scottish arrangement is hardly new or unusual.
Personally I think an English parliament would be a complete waste of money. It would be far better simply to prevent MPs with constituencies in Wales, Scotland, or NI (or England for that matter) from voting on issues which don't apply in their countries. That would arguably deliver most of the benefits of an English parliament without any of the cost. However, I'd question whether that was any fairer than the situation now. Arguably the fact that Welsh MPs (e.g.) can vote on purely English issues is inadequate compensation for the fact that policies can be forced on Wales entirely at the bequest of English MPs who outnumber Welsh ones by a large margin.
As an aside: I thought for a minute following Bishop's argument that he was going to argue in favour of the devolved governments at regional level which was a Labour policy which was stopped by a referendum
The problem with English Votes on English Matters is that we do not have a separation of powers. Labour lost the last election in England but they are still the government because of our electoral system. Since ministers have massive powers of secondary legislation this leaves EVoEM totally inadequate.
"Arguably the fact that Welsh MPs (e.g.) can vote on purely English issues is inadequate compensation for the fact that policies can be forced on Wales entirely at the bequest of English MPs"
I don't think any majority should be able to use government to impose their view on others, but why does it matter whether it is a geographical majority or or just a group (say benefit recipients)?
DK
Surely a fiscally independent Scotland would be well to the right of their Laffer curve. They should therefore be able to increase tax revenues while cutting marginal rates. Even if they aren't they would still have to embrace business, because that would be their only way out.
Tom
Check out the CEP site for arguments against EVoEM. They have made a pretty convincing case against.
I'm interested by Mark's comment: "I don't think any majority should be able to use government to impose their view on others". That's essentially how democracy works. What alternative is there, other than having a minority imposint their view on others? As I understand it even Bishop's "communities" plan allows a majority to enforce a policy against the will of a minority.
It's not nice, but what in the real world is the alternative?
>>>We seem to have reached a stage in the debate where my scheme may not answer the emotional issues and yours may not answer the political ones. We need to think a little about how we could find a scheme which would do both.
I already considered that. The answer is an English parliament with regional lists. I would also be in favour of more localism, devolution to cities, and districts.
English votes on English Matters is old news. Ken Clarke said as much on Andrew Marr's programme last week. He even said that we might well need an English Executive. If the Tories review of the British Constitution comes up with proposals for something on these lines the English people will then have some concrete proposals to consider.
Tom
A decently written constitution will create limits on the ability of the majority to impose their views on minorities. That's pretty much the purpose of a constitution. The rights defined are the rights of individuals - the smallest minority if you like - and they are defined in order to stop the majority or an influential minority from interfering with them through the democratic process.
A constitution is therefore a limit on democracy.
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.
-Benjamin Franklin
HomeRule
I think if we are to have an English parliament then an executive is a necessity. Just hope it's better than the Scottish one.
An English Parliament will probably become a necessity. It can use the Houses of Parliament when the British Parliament moves to Berwick-on-Tweed.
Commenting by HaloScan
