An English parliament would still be dominated by the City's economic imperatives, so a regional solution is required
Whatever the result of the coming referendum on Scottish independence, one thing we can be sure of is that more powers will be devolved to Holyrood. Scotland's deputy first minster, Nicola Sturgeon of the SNP, recently called upon Labour, Conservatives and the Lib Dems – the parties behind the Better Together vote no campaign – to set out their competing vision of a 21st-century Scotland. She never used the phrase "devo-max", but she was clearly seeking to draw the Westminster parties on what concessions they'd be willing to offer the Scottish electorate if they chose to remain within the union.
The status quo is clearly not an option. And the idea that any future British prime minister could contemplate bringing the Scots back into the fold by diminishing the power of Holyrood is laughable. The Tories are still suffering from the damage done by Margaret Thatcher's dismissive attitude to Scottish self-determination.
For their part, the unionist parties have already outlined what might be on offer. Labour has suggested giving Holyrood control of income tax; the Lib Dems support the idea of fiscal autonomy; while the Conservatives say they are committed to "a strengthening of devolution".
Implicit in this willingness to cede more powers to the Scottish parliament is a recognition by Westminster that devolution is beneficial to civic society. The obvious question that arises from such a conclusion is when will they offer those same benefits to the people of England?
The English Question is never directly addressed by our political establishment. The Tories might make noises about "English votes for English laws" but any poking around behind that slogan merely reveals a shabby attempt to undermine a future Labour majority. The debates over independence appear to be conducted between Scottish separatists on one side and British unionists on the other. No one seems willing to speak for England.
The situation is not helped by the cultural blind spot suffered by those living south of the border. As the Scots are fond of pointing out, the English suffer from an inability – or is it unwillingness? – to discern a difference between Britain and England. They may sing Jerusalem at the Last Night of the Proms, but it is Rule Britannia that really gets the English waving their flags.
Part of the problem lies in the fact that, unlike the Scots, we have no border between us and Westminster, so an English parliament seems like just another level of local government, rather than a symbol of national self-determination. And because the English state is so much larger, it is questionable whether citizens far from the centre of power would feel the benefits of devolution in the same way their Celtic neighbours do. Would an English parliament of 53 million be any more representative of those of us who live in the south west than is the UK parliament of 63 million?
If we in England want to experience the level of local autonomy seen in Scotland, then we need to introduce borders between Westminster and ourselves. The nine regions of England have an average population of about 5 million, similar in size to Scotland and sufficient to provide a tax base big enough to fund the kind of strategic spending that is difficult to sustain at a county level.
Critics will be quick to point out that regional government was rejected by the people of the north-east a decade ago, but go back and read the reports and you'll see that this was in part because voters didn't feel that Labour's proposals actually amounted to self-government. Westminster just couldn't contemplate real localism for England.
Offer the people of the south-west a regional assembly with the same powers as those currently enjoyed by the Scottish parliament and I believe there would be broad support, especially if it was backed up with a regional development bank. Devolving power to the nine English regions would also provide the rest of the country with the means by which to moderate the economic power of London.
It has become clear over the past decade that the gravitational pull of the capital is distorting our economy. This week a TUC study reported that George Osborne's widely trumpeted recovery is restricted to the south-east. The London-based financial sector has captured the institutions of our state, leaving us with a political class who are more willing to devolve power to the bond markets than to their own citizens.
An English parliament, wherever it was based, would still be dominated by the economic imperatives of the City of London, meaning that market-based solutions will continue to be unquestionably followed, no matter what their implications for our communities. Regional assemblies, acting in concert to challenge London's power, offer us a better chance of ensuring that the benefits of growth reach every part of the country.
The campaign for Scottish independence is, in part, an attempt to break with the Thatcherite agenda and create a new settlement that puts people before profit. Those in England who believe that our own society needs to be rebalanced along similar lines should wake up and join the debate.