In that thread I quoted the Spanish Constitution's approach to devolution, as Spain is a country of 50 provinces with a few historical nationalities (Galicia, Basque Country, Navarra, Catalonia) and two archipelagos totalling 15 provinces. The issue of having Catalan or Basque MPs voting on national legislation on public services was never posed that I'm aware of. It was just not considered an issue. However, within a few years of the approval of the Constitution, Spain had been carved into 17 autonomous communities and no province was left out of one (Santander, Rioja, Madrid, Murcia consist of one province each, as do Navarra and the Balearics, but Navarra is a historical nationality and the Balearics an archipelago so that was to be expected).

Anyway, here's the Spanish procedure (which would ultimately lead to a federate England and no English Parliament)

Spanish Constitution of 1978
Section 143
1. In the exercise of the right to self-government recognized in section 2 of the Constitution, bordering provinces with common historic, cultural and economic characteristics, insular territories and provinces with a historic regional status may accede to self-government and form Self-governing Communities (Comunidades Autónomas) in conformity with the provisions contained in this Part and in the respective Statutes.
2. The right to initiate the process towards self-government lies with all the Provincial Councils concerned or with the corresponding inter-island body and with two thirds of the municipalities whose population represents at least the majority of the electorate of each province or island. These requirements must be met within six months from the initial agreement reached to this aim by any of the local Corporations concerned.
3. If this initiative is not successful, it may be repeated only after five years have elapsed.

The UK needs some sort of federalist arrangement like that in the US. The issues that make this work poorly are not determining where the authority for certain policies lies (should health care be a federal or state program, for example), but how federal money is to be allocated to the states.

My guess is that underlying all the "nationalism" in the UK is also resentment over tax allocations.

Policies not Politics
---- Daily Landscape

1. England (divided into regions). There were seven Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms which eventually got consolidated into England, with some other territories like Cornwall and Cumbria. Although those Kingdoms are not, as such, a current concern there is a regional feeling within England which has not really had much expression in government during the last thousand years. The attempts by central government to create English regions by drawing lines on a map rather than have the people define their own regions, has been a terrible setback. I suspect that given the chance regions would have been constructed largely based on one or more of the traditional counties. For example the three counties of Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire have traditional links. They would form a more natural unit than as part of the vast South East Region to which they were assigned by government whim.

Of course the result of a bottom up regional policy would be more regions with smaller populations than Whitehall is comfortable with. They would also have to be given far greater powers than central government would want (I would suggest the minimum should be the powers the Scottish Parliament was given).

2. England (as a whole). An English Parliament and Executive, whether as distinct bodies or a sub-set of the UK Parliament, (on the Scottish model) implies the speedy breakup of the United Kingdom. As I have previously suggested the only hope of avoiding this would be to elect the UK and English Parliaments by a proportional system, so it would be unlikely there would be a single party Labour UK government contending with a single party Conservative English executive.

3. Anglo-Welsh union. Plaid Cymru exists but it is not clear that a majority of the Welsh would want independence.

3. Anglo-Scottish union. The original Union deal was that England got security, because Scotland could no longer acquire a different Monarch from England or ally with English enemies, whereas Scotland got the economic advantages of free trade with England and its colonies. In modern circumstances neither of those objects requires the retention of an incorporating union. It is a matter for Scotland whether it wants independence. The ostensibly unionist Conservative Party has done much to weaken the union and its latest policy is lighting matches in a gunpowder factory. Cameron may do more to end the union than the SNP ever could.

4. Anglo-Irish Union. The most problematic of the lot. Do we really want to end up with the United Kingdom of England and Northern Ireland? I suspect the default position of the loyalist community if that union was not on offer would be an independent Northern Ireland. I do not see that a United Kingdom of Scotland and Northern Ireland is likely but if everyone wanted it I am sure the English would be delighted to agree.
   

The cross of St George still flies from the odd car roof and hangs in the occasional newsagent's window. Their owners know England are out of the World Cup; they just don't want to believe it yet. Meanwhile, on Andy Murray's website a row rages over whether Scots should support the English in their sporting endeavours and vice versa. And now the Conservatives are fleshing out their plan to stop Scottish and eventually Welsh MPs from voting on laws that only affect England. We are, in other words, in the midst of one of those perennial debates about our national identity.

They come regularly, often in summer, usually coinciding with a major moment in sport. In the case of the latest Tory announcement, that's unlikely to be a coincidence: it's proved smart media management to raise English votes for English laws while the white and red face-paint is still wet. A victory last Saturday would have made it even more timely.

The motive is pretty obvious, too. When Alan Duncan says it has become "almost impossible" for Britain to have a Scottish prime minister, we know who he has in mind. The Tories are raising the English question now to undermine Gordon Brown.

Which is not to say they don't have a point. The logic of the case is as sound now as it was 30 years ago when Tam Dalyell, arguing against devolution for Scotland, raised his famous West Lothian question: why should Scottish MPs be able to vote on schools or hospitals in England when English MPs cannot do the same for Scotland? The Conservative proposal - not new but in the manifesto in 2001 and 2005 - would untangle that anomaly. The Scots would do their thing in Edinburgh, and English MPs would do theirs at English-only sessions at Westminster. When there were matters affecting the whole of the UK, then everyone would come back together. That makes sense and, what's more, it's popular: polls show healthy majorities of Scottish and English voters in favour.

What would an EU be like with - say - France and Germany as the only big nation states, and the rest a patchwork of local affiliations?

Thanks for digging all of this up, Helen.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.