The answer to the Scottish question lies in Edinburgh, not London: and is about money, not procedures at Westminster. But none of the main parties has produced a convincing answer: Labour has not attempted to do so, while the Conservative solution would threaten, rather than strengthen, the Union. Scotland could be as divisive and destructive to British politics as Ireland was a century ago. The problem arises from treating one part of the UK differently from other parts; what the aficionados call asymmetrical devolution. That is summed up in the West Lothian question: that Scottish MPs at Westminster can vote on health and education issues in England, but not ones affecting their own constituents, while English MPs cannot vote on Scottish issues.

All these questions were fully debated over Irish Home Rule from 1885 until 1914, as Jack Straw noted in the Commons yesterday. The stumbling block is England, its relative size as 85 per cent of the UK. It is the elephant in the union, which cannot be ring-fenced, since its actions affect the other constituents. Consequently, a federal, home rule all around, solution would not work and there is no public support for breaking down England into separate regions.

Moreover, proposals for treating England as a whole, via either an English Parliament or having just English MPs vote on measures affecting England, are deeply flawed. The Unionists, as the Conservatives were then known, rejected such an “in-out” plan in 1893, as did Gladstone eventually.

First, it is hard to distinguish between English and UK-wide measures. Second, it would be political chaos if a Prime Minister had a majority for UK-wide measures, but not for English ones. That would destroy the coherence of Cabinet Government. (This also applies to Sir Malcolm Rifkind’s ideas for a grand committee just on Scottish affairs.) Third, decisions affecting just England would inevitably have repercussions for Scotland and Wales. Such “English” solutions would exacerbate tensions and make Scottish separation more likely.

If there is no neat constitutional solution, there is still a problem, which Gordon Brown is reluctant to acknowledge for fearing of making things worse. The answer, even if not a neat solution, lies in making Scotland and Wales more financially responsible for their policies. The most incendiary argument is that public spending per head is higher north of the border. Initially, there should be a review of the Barnett formula allocating public spending to Scotland and Wales. This should involve a needs assessment to take account of the dispersal of people in the Highlands, as well as urban and health problems.

The key step in any settlement should be to require the Scottish and Welsh administrations to raise more of their own money. This could be achieved by expanding the current, and so far unused, powers to vary income tax by 3p in the pound, and by extending such powers to other taxes.

There would therefore be a closer correlation between decisions in Edinburgh to have different, and more expensive, policies on student finance, elderly care and prescription charges and what the Scots pay in tax – in other words, no representation without taxation.

The English need to be more relaxed. They are not victims, but still dominant. As Professor Vernon Bogdanor, of Oxford University, noted: “The English have no need to beat the drum or blow the bugle. If they do, they will strain the devolution settlement, which rests on a sense of restraint by the dominant nation in the UK.”

Times Recommends

• It’s the beginning of the affair
• Afghanistan: still a price worth paying
• Heroes of the downtrodden