Letter to MP: Ask English people before deciding English Devolution!

In the last two weeks before Scottish Independence, lots of promises were made about further powers being transferred to Scotland.  And following their "No" vote, we're now being told UK residents of England will be given devolution... whether we like it or not.  Another letter to Bob Goodwill is in order!
---

Dear Mr Goodwill

I guess that you have delayed responding to my letter of 8th September (repeated below) until after the Scottish Independence Referendum, in which we now know - to our great relief - that Scots have voted to stay within the United Kingdom.

However I am very disquieted by the subsequent discussions on devolution of further powers from Westminster to Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland, even *still* without any talk of rUK (and particularly residents of England) so much as being asked for their opinion!

Summary:

• I am in favour of localising waste-of-money activities (such as all spending on Welsh and Scots Gaelic)
• I accept regional spending priorities should be facilitated (they already are: free university education in Scotland, for example).
• I'm dead against devolving any power which allows different regions to compete against each other (such as having lower tax rates)
• I'm opposed to an English Assembly, or any other new layer of bureaucracy: it's enough to prevent MPs voting on matters which are devolved in their constituency.

Here's are my views:

1. Giving Scotland further devolved powers is not by definition a bad thing, but they must not be at the expense of the Union. During the Referendum Campaign, the important fact that the Scottish Assembly has never used any of its existing tax raising powers, was barely even whispered. I never heard the pro-independence campaign challenged on why they want more powers when they're not using the ones they've already got.
   
   But as an example, unlimited tax raising powers pose no major challenge to the rUK economy, and different spending priorities should be fine (we already have these). On the other hand, the ability to reduce tax below rUK rates would be a major harm and must not be entertained.
    
2. In response to any further devolution from Westminster to Scotland, I am very much worried by the suggestion of an English Assembly, another attempt at English Regional Assemblies, or any further layer of costly and efficiency-sapping bureaucracy. I already have a representative to the Westminster Parliament, and even though I may doubt that any of my correspondence has ever influenced your opinion or vote, I have at least the opportunity to participate in the democratic process.
   
   I am also very concerned that David Cameron's promotion of an English parliament are ill-motivated to the purpose of obtaining party advantage.
    
3. What I do agree needs to be addressed is the narrow confines of the so-named West Lothian question. But even then, rUK voters need to be reminded that the over-representation of Scottish MPs was addressed in 2005 when Scottish representation at Westminster was reduced by 13 seats.
   
   The remaining issue is simply to formalise a rule that MPs do not vote on matters which are devolved in their constituency (a practice which I suspect has long been self-imposed by MPs serving Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland). I recognise that there could be some issue of a Scottish Chancellor deciding budgets for - as an example - Education in the UK which are only binding in England; but it's not a matter I dwell on. The population share in England is such that if English priorities are not seen to be met, the party will simply be out at the next election: that's the imbalance to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland which is answered pretty neatly by the regional assemblies.

What are your views on the devolution debate?