London, England, UK

I thought I'd take as my first issue a deeply wonky one- the West Lothian Question

I'm a Londoner from an English father and a Welsh Mother. Having said that my English father was brought up in the West Indies and my Welsh mother was brought up in York, Kent and New Zealand. And I was brought up in a whole bunch of different countries to parents who worked in the British Foreign Office. So it's not too surprising that I like to identify first as British. I support England in the football, Wales in rugby and the England and Wales team (technical title) in the cricket. London is the only place that I've ever felt was really home and I have a strong tribal attachment to it.

I want Scotland to stay part of the union. I think the UK benefits from being a mix of nations in one country. I don't see Scots as foreigners and have no wish to do so. I believe it is completely their choice and think a referendum is a sensible thing to do now. I don't believe Devo Max should be on the same ballot. I think that requires a broader conversation which does require input from the rest of the country. So I would suggest that action to solve the West Lothian question should be delayed until after the Referendum in 2014.

But action must then be taken and so the discussion should start now in earnest. It's not acceptable that Scottish, Welsh and Irish MPs get to vote on issues that don't affect them. There is a democratic deficit in England and once the fate of the union is agreed then a sensible solution needs to be found.

This British Future blog post sets out the options and their popularity as currently polled. This is not a majorly discussed issue so I'm slightly surprised that only 14% had the grace to say they didn't know. I consider these numbers pretty soft all round. Nonetheless they are a good place to start.

24% say keep it as it is. That's not a ringing endorsement of the status quo. I'd say that when a quarter of proponents propose not doing anything then the alternatives need to be discussed in depth and found seriously wanting to not be taken forward.

34% would like to have English MPs vote only on English matters. I appreciate that this is neat and solves the need for a new parliament, elections and the general chicanery of politics which there is no appetite for. But I find it slightly amazing that this has survived so long as an idea as it's quite clearly nuts.

The powers devolved to the Scotland are different to those in Wales and Northern Ireland. London has slightly more powers than the rest of England. New mayors may also mean places such as Bristol and Birmingham have slighlty more powers. That gives a huge range of different parliaments depending on the subject being voted on. And so unless one party or coalition has a majority with all these different combination (UK, UK minus Scotland, UK minus Scotland & N. Ireland, England, England minus mayors) then it's not clear who should be the government.

If the UK has a Labour majority and England a Conservative majority do you have a joint cabinet with Labour getting the UK (PM, Chancellor, Foreign Office, Welfare) posts and the Conservatives getting the English ones (Health, Education, Home Office)? Do they have separate cabinets? Do the English have tax raising powers like the Scots do (or did)? If so do they need their own finance team. Do they work in the treasury?

All new solutions have plenty of unanswered questions. They require detail. It's called legislation. And it takes a while to iron out kinks. And it will never be a perfect solution. But I find the proposals above to be totally unworkable in a political reality where Wales and Scotland's political makeup is substantially different to England's.

So I believe there needs to be some form of devolution to England. That means, and this is a really hard sell, more politicans and more elections. It also means new overpriced assembly buildings and offices for a whole new set of bureaucrats. Surely this can't be the right answer?

I fear so. Actually I don't really fear it. I just fear trying to sell it. There's no reason why a new parliament building has to be bloody expensive but even if it is (and it probably would be) it's a building that is meant to last. To be a symbol of a political identity. There are worse things to waste money on and compared to how much the people inside will waste on bad policy in the lifetime of that building, its really is a pub's own brand of unsalted peanuts.

The bureaucracy is a stronger argument but it's worth pointing out that if you give England the responsibilities that Scotland and Wales do, then you get rid of the bureaucrats in London dealing with health, education, transport, planning, culture and environment.

And I believe they would do a stronger job by being part of a parliament that focussed only on these areas. Where your Transport Secretary wouldn't be moved to Defence Secretary or your Culture Secretary wouldn't have come from Energy. It would be a parliament focused on the provision for the most part of public services for the people of England. And having such a parliament would allow more budding politicians to have executive experience before they took on a Whitehall brief. Something it seems almost everyone agrees would be a good thing.

I've gone on a proper ramble now and probably lost anyone who's read so I'll leave it at I believe England should have a form of parliament. But I'm willing to have a go at more detail in a later post as to what that means in practice..