Divided islands, wherever they are in the world – Timor, Cyprus, Ireland, Hispaniola – mostly don't work. Economy, society and democracy become blighted by the notion that the blood and ethnicity that justify a frontier on the island trumps everything else. No one builds great societies on mystic appeals to human beings' worst instincts, that some imagined virtue comes before common purpose, rationality and even love.
In the end, Scotland voted decisively not to divide our island. It was right. There is no way, for example that Scotland can become Denmark if the rest of the island that is Britain does not want it. The island must change as a whole or it does not change at all. All the arguments about currency, pensions and everything else boiled down to that. The union made sense in 1707. It makes the same sense in 2014. Millions of English – and two million Scots – find ourselves delighted that the noxious, destructive division of our island has not happened.
As soon as one danger is averted, another has appeared that could yet revive the corpse of Scottish nationalism. The English right, with its infallible capacity to get things wrong, is on hand to revive it. England must now have what Scotland has, as John Redwood argues with menacing faux reasonableness. Only English MPs should vote on English matters to resolve the so-called West Lothian question. What could be more fair?
In fact, it is monumental political gerrymandering – inflating a manageable constitutional flaw into an attempt to organise the state around the interests of one party. Nor does it speak to the real problem at the heart of British government that the Scottish referendum campaign exposed: the British state, feudal in its origins, remains feudally centralised even in the 21st century.
It was dispiriting that David Cameron, who over the last two weeks had managed to transcend party with some magnificent speeches, conceded so quickly to the John Redwood/Nigel Farage line outside Number 10 on Friday morning. He would keep the promises made to Scotland about further devolution, he declared, but measures to address the West Lothian question would move in lockstep, all handled by a cabinet subcommittee chaired by William Hague. It was an extraordinary position. First, it casually assumes that the constitution is the preserve of the Conservative party to be bent out of true to assuage its right and Ukip. Worse, it qualifies his promise made to Scotland only five days earlier that Scotland would get more powers by making it conditional on ensuring that Scottish MPs are to be second-class members of the House of Commons. It was cynical, duplicitous and self-defeating.
In any case, the importance of the West Lothian question is overblown. The McKay commission, on the impact of devolution on British government, pointed out there have only been two electoral periods since 1919 – 1964 to 1966 and between May and November 1974 – when the party in government had not won a majority in England. Moreover, mySociety finds that of 5,000 votes in the House of Commons since 1997, only 21 depended on the votes of Scottish MPs, sadly to make matters more illiberal on issues such as control orders, allowing the lord chancellor to suspend inquests and 42-day detention. Scotland turns out to be less preoccupied with justice than nationalist propagandists claim.
But the English have lived with this constitutional messiness because we want one overarching government for Britain. We don't want to balkanise the country, which is why we ardently want Scotland in the union. In any case, even with devolution, despite what Redwood and Farrage claim, most matters before the House of Commons are all British in their scope – exactly as they should be.
Thus, just to name a few: immigration, the BBC, the structure of the banking system, company law, takeover policy, the overall level of public spending, borrowing and taxation, competition policy, the powers of the Bank of England, energy policy, rail ownership, foreign and defence policy, relations with the EU, measures to combat climate change are all British. On these, every part of the UK has and should have the right of representation within the same parliament.
Moreover, the powers that are devolved are mainly powers to vary policy from centrally determined limits and guidelines. Thus, Scottish and Welsh government receive a block grant on health and education from the UK government cast in the light of UK-wide health and education spending limits. They can then, in a separate decision, adjust the spending as they choose, varying tax rates from centrally determined tax rates. (This element of central shaping would still apply, indirectly, even under new Tory proposals.) It is perfectly reasonable for Scottish and Welsh MPs to have a say in these limits, just as it will be for London MPs to have a say if or when London gets the same devolved powers as Wales and Scotland.
Messing with who can vote on what opens a can of worms. It is an invitation to gerrymander and to foster great resentment in Scotland and Wales. The Mckay commission was firm: there can be no second-class MPs and all MPs must vote on all issues. English MPs, though, should in addition be able to assert English interests in the report stage of those few bills where English interests are disproportionately affected if a grand committee so adjudges. It's not the earth-shaking change that the Tory right want – but it's reasonable.
Much more important is to use the moment finally to allow England's cities, London included, revenue-raising powers similar to Scotland's. They can then shape their communities, something that they have so long needed. The Layfield report in 1976 called for more autonomy; it was ignored. The Lyons report in 2007 called for more autonomy; it was ignored, The Local Government Association has pressed for change for 50 years. Now is the moment for change. It is also the moment to reinvent the House of Lords as an elected senate for all the UK's nations, city regions, towns and counties.
The Conservative party is an important part of the national constituency, but it is not the national constituency. It has not won a national election since 1992 and has only one MP in Scotland. English MPs should certainly get differential authority on those few issues that are English concerns, but within the context of a wider constitutional settlement involving more power for our cities and a reformed House of Lords.
There needs, in short, to be a proper constitutional convention. Keeping this island together is a task for all, not the opportunity for David Cameron and the Conservative right to exclude MPs from those parts of our country where they cannot win an election.