THE CONSERVATIVES won England in the general election, in votes but not in seats. Both the Conservatives and Labour gained more than eight million English votes, but the Conservatives finished more than 50,000 ahead. This trend is worrying for Labour. In 1997 they had a majority in England over the Conservatives of more than 3.5 million votes. In only two elections the whole of that lead has melted away.

If the trend is not reversed, the Conservatives will have their own large lead in English votes at the next election. This time, the first-past-the-post system has worked in Labour’s favour, against the Conservatives and against the Lib Dems. In 2005, although they were behind in votes, Labour led in seats by 286 to 193. But there will be comprehensive boundary changes in the course of this Parliament; Labour will not again enjoy such an excessive advantage. The next election can already be seen as a battle for England.

The English question has been created by Labour itself. After 1997 Tony Blair introduced devolution to Scotland and Wales; Northern Ireland had had devolution at Stormont since the 1920s, though the system has changed over time. There has been no devolution for England and that has thrown the constitution out of balance.

Tam Dalyell, who has just retired as an admirable Father of the House of Commons, saw the point; he called it the West Lothian question. Since 1997 it has attracted little attention, because the Labour Party had an English majority at Westminster, both in seats and votes. As the English had voted for Labour, they did not complain that the Prime Minister also had the support of Scottish and Welsh majorities.

John Prescott tried to address the problem of English devolution by proposing that England should be split into regional governments with their own, very modest devolved role. When a referendum was held in Labour’s stronghold region of the North East, the proposal was decisively rejected. The English do not want to be broken up into artificial regions with no real historic identity. If there is to be devolution, it will have to go to some kind of national body.

The Labour Party has since left the issue alone, perhaps hoping that it would continue to win majorities of English votes. The Conservatives have not pressed the issue partly because they were still in the minority and partly because they feared the constitutional implications. The Lib Dems favour regional government in England, as does the European Commission.

The English question is not going to leave politicians alone. Sooner or later Labour will be left with a majority of seats in Wales and Scotland but not in England. That may or may not give it an overall Commons majority. From that point on, the English will be claiming their share of self-government.

After all, even Welsh devolution, which does not include the power of primary legislation, covers most of the policies with which the voter is personally concerned. Health and education are issues that can decide national elections.

The political culture of Scotland and Wales is far more socialistic than that of England, apart from the industrial North. Scotland and Wales have largely become one-party states; England has not. Many English people see the Labour Party as a bureaucratic obstacle to independent national development.

Most Conservatives believe that there is room for more independence, more efficiency, better services and lower taxes — roughly what Howard Flight said before he was sacked. It is not unreasonable for English Conservatives to want social structures less socialistic than those of Scotland and Wales. England is different. These issues are bound to be discussed in the Conservative leadership debate.

The English question also interacts with the question of Europe. The commonest English view is that the European constitutional treaty is an undemocratic transfer of power to Europe. That goes to the heart of the issue of national independence. In Scotland many people see Europe as an alternative to English power.

There is a danger that England would vote “no” in the referendum, but Scotland might vote “yes”. Europe has created an English independence movement, which certainly believes that the English should manage their own affairs in all those matters which have been devolved to the Scottish Parliament. The arguments for national independence and English devolution run side by side.

There are even personal issues. Gordon Brown will almost certainly be the next Labour Prime Minister. He is a Scot of the Scots; he sits in the House of Commons for a Scottish constituency. That is fine, but it means he will be imposing Labour policies on English voters, relying on Scottish votes, in policy areas where he has absolutely no authority to make law for Scotland itself.

For the first time since Lord Bute in the early 1760s the Scottishness of a prime minister might become a real political issue. Why should Mr Brown be free to take decisions for the English health service when he cannot take decisions for the Scottish?

Devolved rights in a federal system must be equal in all the individual states of the federation. That is required by natural justice. Under the US Constitution, the legislative and administrative powers of the individual states are indeed identical, as they are between the German Länder. The only constitutional differences between US states arise in the number of federal legislators which vary according to population. Under the US constitution all states nevertheless elect two US senators, an equal number regardless of their size.

Labour has rejected the rule of equality and, even more unwisely, has discriminated against the largest, most powerful and richest nation of the United Kingdom. The English in America did not accept such discrimination in 1776. They will want equality now, so that they, like the Scots and the Welsh, can run their own affairs.

Join the Debate
Send your e-mails to
debate@thetimes.co.uk

Times Recommends

• You created the job. You should do it
• A swindler with a ready maid plan
• Charming to pillory disabled Brown