The English question must now be settled too

So it’s a No. But the process of constitutional change is only just beginning.

While it is not yet clear precisely what additional powers on tax, spending and welfare, the Scottish Parliament will get, the binding pledge of the main Westminster party leaders will have to be honoured. But in the process, the English question must be settled too.

The first, curmudgeonly, reactions of predominantly Tory MPs has been to complain about Scotland’s special treatment. Before too long, resentment will surely turn to the realisation of something else: what the Scots will get is something every nation, city and region of the UK will want. Rather than kicking back, the challenge is to make sure we all have some of the same. David Cameron this morning has talked this morning of the ‘voices of millions of English people must be heard’. But he then moved quickly to talk of Cabinet Committees and the Westminster parties.

So let’s set out a few principles.

First, this has to be a popular participative process. Scotland’s devolution was preceded by a constitutional convention involving many parts of civil society: business, unions, voluntary organisations, faith communities, local government. We have just witnessed unparalleled public involvement in determining the future of the Union. It is simply not possible for England’s future to be determined by MPs from a few Westminster parties. So we need a popular constitutional convention.

Second, English Labour needs it’s own voice in this process, unrestrained by Labour from other parts of the union. I’d argue that devolution with England has been held back by a UK Labour Party not convinced that England needs change as much as Wales and Scotland. Now we need a voice of our own. English Labour will need to show that we have: the vision of a decentralised England with powers to cities, communities, households and individuals; are committed to a process of a people’s convention that gives England a real voice and makes the state more accountable, and practical plans for reform, taking decisions out of Westminster to our regions, cities and communities.

Third, change in Westminster is inevitable, but it is not enough. Any attempt to change Westminster without wider change in the way England is governed will be a crude fix, lacking legitimacy or authority.

As the powers of the Scottish Parliament increase, the role of Scottish MPs in determining English laws will inevitably diminish. If the aim is to ensure that laws affecting England alone have the consent of elected English representatives, there are many ways of doing so. It’s possible to restrict the issues Scottish MPs can vote on (EVEL); the Commons could ensure that only English MPs to could amend laws (the Mackay commission); some have proposed federal solutions with an English Parliament (John Redwood included) and others, including this author, have argued that an elected second chamber could ensure that elected English members only scrutinised English legislation. This is not the time to close this debate. The strengths and weaknesses should properly be thrashed out in the constitutional convention, not settled in deals in Westminster for narrow party advantage.

The fourth principle is equally important. England is far too centralised and any new settlement should ensure that fewer English decisions are taken in Westminster at all. Not so much reducing Scottish influence in Westminster as taking English decisions out of Westminster. This devolution can give England’s cities and regions power that looks like those that will be enjoyed in Scotland. It will take time, of course. It should begin with the delivery and policy for public services, but we should not rule out an evolution to include some taxation and legislative powers.

Finally, settling the English question cannot be on a different timetable to the delivery of enhanced powers for the Scottish Parliament. It may not be possible to do this in the same piece of legislation but the implementation of new decision-making arrangements should be across the UK. Not all will agree with all these principles. But, at the very least, surely we can agree on the central importance of a constitutional convention that goes way beyond current parties, MPs and activists?