MPs debate further devolution after the Scottish referendum: Politics live blog

Nicola Sturgeon, who is set to replace Alex Salmond as Scotland’s first minister later this year, has used an article for Left Foot Forward to argue that the UK parties will pay a “very heavy electoral price” if they do not give Scotland full “devo max”. Here’s an extract.

Many people who voted No did so because they believed these vows would be honoured. Polling since the referendum has shown that most people in Scotland want the Scottish parliament to have control over welfare, pensions and taxation and two thirds want devo max – that is, control in Scotland of everything except defence and foreign affairs.

This would not be independence – it would not, for instance, allow us to get rid of Trident, or give us EU member state status – but it would be a major step forward, delivering our chosen levels of public spending, powers to create jobs, the protection of our distinctive NHS and decent social security, and transformative childcare.

This is the settlement, then, that the Scottish people now demand. Should I be elected first minister, I shall work relentlessly for its delivery as well as ensuring that our existing devolved public services – schools, hospitals, police and other services – are of the highest quality.

Should the Westminster parties fail to listen to the voice of the Scottish people on this call for more powers – and it is a loud and clear one – then in my view one thing is certain: they will pay a heavy electoral price at the polls.

Christopher Chope, a Conservative, says the “vow” offered to Scotland by David Cameron and other party leaders was never approved by parliament.

Sir Menzies Campbell, the former Lib Dem leader, and chair of the Lib Dem commission on further Scottish devolution, says that for some time he has felt that Britain’s constitution is “unsustainable”.

In the future there will have to be compromises, he says.

He says a vow has been made to the people of Scotland. Alex Salmond says he will hold David Cameron’s feet to the fire to ensure this is delivered. But he “ain’t seen nothing”, because Campbell is just as keen on holding Cameron’s feet to the fire and making sure he delivers.

The Telegraph’s Michael Deacon says there is no sign of the new Ukip MP in the chamber today.

Wishart also said he did not see why Scottish MPs should vote on England-only laws. As a Scottish MP, he would not see the point, he says.

This is from the BBC’s Norman Smith.

Pete Wishart, the SNP MP, says the referendum campaign was a”festival of politics”. It energised the whole of Scotland, he says.

Perhaps they should do it again, he jokes. (It’s a joke with an edge, because the SNP are not ruling out another referendum in the medium future, even though Alex Salmond originally said the vote would settle the matter for a generation.)

He says politics in Scotland is now bucking the national trend. People are joining political parties. The SNP’s membership has trebled; it has gone up to 80,000. And the Scottish Green party’s membership has trebled too.

He says the Scots expected parliament to debate devolution for Scotland today. But the debate has hardly covered Scotland.

David Cameron and other party leaders made a “solemn vow” to the people of Scotland. But they have been going back on that, he says.

Cameron should have been in the Commons to look people in the eye and defend his actions, he says.

And he says Gordon Brown came close to saying in his speech that he had been “duped”.

Bill Cash, the Conservative MP, says Commons standing orders should be changed to introduce English votes on English laws.

But this should not be introduced by statute, he says. That would be a recipe for endless litigation.

Graham Allen, the Labour MP, says there should now be proper devolution for England.

He chairs the political and constitutional reform committee, and has been promoting this issue strongly.

Roger Gale, the Conservative MP for Thanet North, says he first suggested more than 20 years ago getting rid of the House of Commons and the House of Lords and having four separate parliaments for the nations of the UK.

He also proposed having a senate dealing with macro-taxation, and defence and foreign policy.

His proposal was met with derision. And it will be again today, he predicts. But he suggests it should be considered.

Ian Davidson, the Labour MP for Glasgow South West, says that what has happened since the referendum has promoted a “betrayal” myth in Scotland. Some voters are so angry they are starting to refuse to accept the results of the referendum, he says.

He acknowledges that the English question needs to be addressed. But he would no accept a solution that involves Scottish MPs being “sent out of the room”, he says.

The issue needs to be considered carefully, he says.

Sir George Young, the Conservative former chief whip, is speaking now.

He proposes a version of the idea in the McKay commission. English-only laws should be considered by a committee of English MPs while going through the Commons. Then, at report stage, all MPs would get a vote. But, if the bill only gets passed with the aid of Scottish MP, it would be sent back to the English committee.

Young said, in the event of a stalemate, there would have to be a compromise. But this is what happens when the Lords objects to Commons bills, he says.

Brown says it has long been said the British constitution does not work in theory, but it works in practice.

States can disintegrate by accident, he says.

There is a myth that Scotland and England are on different planets. But that is not the case, he says. He found people share the same concerns.

A United Kingdom united in name only could not survive for long.

If we can avoid the mistakes that Hague is making, and rise above narrow patisan interests, then Britain can still be the great Britain that we want it to be, he says.

And that’s it. Brown has finished. I will post highlights from his speech soon.

Brown says “English votes for English laws” won’t bring stability and harmony to the UK, not satisfy the English.

It is hard to find bills that are exclusively English, he says.

What would happen if the UK parliament voted for a tax rise for the NHS? Would they vote for extra taxes, which might benefit Scotland, if the Scots would not pay?

Oliver Heald, a Conservative, asks why Brown should be able to vote on matters affecting Heald’s constituents. What is his solution?

Brown says you have to balance the need for majority rule with recognition of the concerns of minorities.

Brown says he does not underestimate the concerns of the English.

There are ways this can be dealt with, without disrupting the status of MPs, he says.

The McKay commission plans would be one way forward, he says.

Brown says the Scots should continue to pay some income tax to the UK.

And Scotland could get half of VAT, he says.

Iain Stewart, the Conservative MP for Milton Keynes south, says he was christened by Brown’s father. He says Brown should accept that the English feel the current system is unfair.

Brown says he will come to this.

UPDATE AT 4.50PM: It was Iain Stewart, the Conservative MP, who asked this question, not Sir Robert Smith as I said earlier.

Brown says he will keep his vow to the Scots. It is David Cameron who has gone back on it, he says.

Brown says this diminished status would then apply to Wales, then Northern Ireland, and then London.

And then the same principle would apply to the House of Lords, he says.

A government cannot be a servant of two masters, he says.

Brown says the Tories want to devolve 100% of income tax to Scotland.

Then they want to stop Scottish MPs voting on income tax for the rest of the UK.

This is a radical proposal, he says.

No state in the world devolves all income tax to a regional or national parliaement, he says.

John Redwood, a Conservative, says English votes for English laws was in the Conservative manifesto in 2010. He says he raised in during the last PMQs before the referendum. And it is supported by three quarters of people in England, he says.

Brown says the combination of the plan to devolve 100% of income tax, and then to establish “English voters for English laws” would be “lethal” to the constitution.

Graham Stuart, a Conservative, makes a point of order. He asks if there is a convention that MPs who attend the House the least often are exempt from time limits on speeches.

Dawn Primarolo, the deputy speaker, says Stuart is wasting time.

Brown says what matters is whether you speak sense in this House.

Brown says, given the size of England in the UK, England can over-rule Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

So there has to be a fair distribution of power, a balance between majority rule and the rights of minorities.

There was satisfaction with the referendum result, he says, right up to Buckingham Palace and Balmoral, we have it on the highest authority, or the second highest authority.

But then, on the Friday morning, David Cameron proposed new voting arrangements in the Commons for England.

Shouldn’t the Scots have been told that the downgrading of Scottish representation in Scotland was part of Cameron’s plan.

Khan says it was good to see Nick Clegg, in deputy prime minister’s questions, agree that a constitutional convention was the best way forward.

It should be a conversation with politicians in the minority, he says.

He says Westminster is at a fork in the road; either it can follow the usual route of letting Westminster decide, or it can put the people in charge.

And that’s the end of his speech.

Pete Wishart, the SNP MP, says Khan has not even mentioned Scotland. Scottish people watching the debate will be horrified, he says.

Khan says he hopes Scottish people are watching the behaviour of SNP MPs.

Khan says Ireland’s post 2008 constitution convention is a model worth exploring.

He says the pre-1997 constitutional convention in Scotland could also be a model for England to follow.

Andrew Lansley, the Conservative former leader of the Commons, asks Khan was principle he thinks should govern Labour’s approach to this. Lansley says he accepts the principle that English MPs should have the final say over English-only laws. What does Khan think?

Khan says the govenrment did not say this when the McKay commission reported. It said these issues had to be considered carefully.

Andrew Percy, a Conservative, asks Khan if he can say whether he agrees English MPs should have the final say on English-only legislation.

Khan says that Labour’s plans to devolve spending are very significant. He challenges Percy to name five English-only bills passed in recent years that his constituents are unhappy about.

A Conservative MP asks Khan to confirm there is not a “cat in hell’s chance” of Labour backing English votes for English laws before the election.

Khan sidesteps the question, saying the MP is part of the problem.

The British people want to reshape the country, he says.

But they won’t accept a top-down solution. That would be a stitch-up, he says.

Khan says one chamber is unelected, and 85% of its members are from London. But there is no sense of urgency from the government in relation to addressing this, he says.

Khan says that, although Labour agrees there is an issue here, that does not mean it agrees with the process being set up by the government. And it does not mean it supports some of the proposed solutions.

When the government replied to the McKay commission report, it said it was right to take the time to make a considered assessment, he says. He says Labour agrees.

He says it is very hard to work out whether bills are England-only. One analysis said only one bill produced in a certain year met fitted this description. And the House of Commons library has refused to make an assessment, he says.

Khan says there is an issue relating to England.

It needs to be examined, he says.

We have “asymmetric devolution”, he says. As a London MP, he can vote on transport issues in Yorkshire. But he cannot vote on transport issues in London.

Bernard Jenkin, the Conservative MP, says the issue with London is quite different to the one relating to Scotland.

Khan says the best way for the Conservatives to address the West Lothian question is to win more seats in Scotland.

Khan says the Labour party will take party in the process being overseen by Lord Smith in relation to giving more power to Scotland.

Khan says radical plans to devolve power to England are at the heart of Labour’s programme.

Khan says there is an issue regarding England that needs addressing, he says.

It is not a new issue. It was around in the 1880s, when Gladstone was considering home rule.

Dominic Grieve, the Conservative former attorney general, says Lord Irvine, Labour’s Lord Chancellor, said the best answer to the West Lothian question was not to ask it. Labour dodged this question, he says.

Khan says Labour cannot be accused of a Westminster stitch-up, and failing to address the big question.

Khan says Vernon Bogdanor, the constitutional expert, recently said that Labour’s constitutional reforms were as significant as the Great Reform Act, or the Parliament Act.

Labour learnt what worked and what did not work, he says.

It learnt the importance on consensus.

And it learnt what did not work, such as regional government, he says.

Khan says the Scottish referendum showed that the status quo is not acceptable.

People are frustrated that vested interests are not faced down. They want decisions taken more locally.

So we should reshape the country in line with what the people want, he says.

Graham Stuart, a Conservative, asks Khan if he has spoken to his voters. If he has, he will know that people want English votes for English laws.

Khan says the Tory approach did not work well in Clacton.

Sadiq Khan, the shadow justice secretary, is responding to William Hague now.

He says there is an anti-politics mood in the country. Hague’s speech was full of jokes, but it did not address the seriousness of the problem, he says.

Hague says there is a danger if the government does nothing.

He says it is his view that the proposals for Scotland and England should proceed in tandem.

Just as Lord Smith wants to produce proposals for Scotland by the end of November, he will test whether there is support in the Commons for measures for England (ie, for English votes for English laws) by the end of November.

• Hague confirms he will force a Commons vote on English votes for English laws by the end of November.
  

It is time for the way decisions are made to be fair to all parts of the UK, he says.

The next few weeks will show which parties are doing this, he says.

Hague says a constitutional convention has been proposed.

The government will consider this idea. There is merit in this idea, he says, so long as it is convened at the right time.

But no one is suggesting delay, he adds.

• Hague says government will consider calls for a constitutional convention.

Angus Robertson, the SNP MP, raises a point of order. He says the debate is supposed to be a debate on Scottish devolution.

John Bercow, the Commons speaker, says the debate is on devolution. (See 9.03am.)

Rory Stewart, a Conservative, says the Commons should gather around the McKay commission proposals.

Hague says the McKay commission is a good starting point.

Labour’s John Denham says Hague said he wanted a great debate on this. Why won’t Hague consult the people of England on this?

Hague says he does not claim to have a monopoly of wisdom on this.

The people of England are already discussing this, he says. And they may discuss it at the election.

He says he has invited Labour to contribute to his cabinet committee on this. He has not received an official reply. But he has learnt from the media today that Labour is not attending.

Hague says Labour could have turned up with some ideas. Or they could have pretended to have some ideas. But they did not. So he hopes Labour won’t lecture them on not listening to ideas when Labour won’t give its ideas.

Labour’s Clive Betts asks if MPs from London or greater Manchester should be stopped from voting on matters devolved to local government there.

Hague says it is important to be pragmatic.

This prompts a bit of jeering.

Hague says localism and decentralisation is essential.

But it cannot answer the West Lothian question. There has been prevarication and delay for years, he says.

It is not unreasonable to say English MPs should have the final say on English laws.

Hague says we should establish the principle that, when the Commons decided laws affecting only England, or only England and Wales, they should be taken by, or with the consent of, English, or English and Welsh, MPs.

This question cannot be ignored for the next decade, he says.

It should be addressed now, without creating extra cost or extra layers of politics.

Helen Goodman, the Labour MP for Bishop Auckland, says people in her constituency feel too many decisions are taken in Westminster. English votes for English laws would create two classes of MPs, she says.

Hague says the two issues are not mutually exclusive. You can devolve powers locally, but also address the English problem, he says.

Hague says devolution has left the UK with an “asymmetrical union”.

There is no widespread demand for regional government, he says. Voters rejected this when Labour was in power.

Graham Stewart, the Conservative MP for Beverley and Holderness, says in Yorkshire people are angry to see the votes of their MPs diluted by Scottish MPs having a vote on English matters.

Hague says he agrees.

Hague says Wales should also be at the heart of the debate about constitutional reform.

David Hanson, the Labour MP for Delyn, says one third of his constituents use English hospitals. Is it right to stop him voting on English health?

Hague says they might be using English hospitals because of the state of the NHS in Wales under Labour.

Of course there are links between the two countries, he says.

But that has not stopped devolution in the past.

Dominic Grieve, the Conservative former attorney general, says one problem with Wales is that the legislation has been so badly drafted that it is not clear what is devolved and what is not. Isn’t that why it is important to have a comprehensive look at constitutional reform.

Hague says Grieve may have a point about Wales. But the Wales bill is addressing some of this lack of clarity, he says.

Ian Lucas, the Labour MP for Wrexham, returns to David Hanson’s point about people in Wales using services in England. He accuses Hague of making a “cheap shot” about this. The health service has been designed so that Welsh patients can use English services, he says.

Hague acknowledges this. But he says that should not stop devolution happening.

Sir Alan Beith, the Lib Dem MP for Berwick-upon-Tweed, says it has been harder for patients on the England/Scotland border to access health services across the border.

Crispin Blunt, a Conservative, says Gordon Brown (who is in the chamber) did not speak for him when he promised Scotland that the Barnett formula would be retained.

William Hague says that was a commitment that the party leaders supported. But it is a “great joy” of the Commons that all MPs can express their views.

Angus MacNeil, the SNP MP, says the “vow” to Scotland was unconditional. Then it became conditional. And where is David Cameron, he asks.

Hague says the promise to Scotland is unconditional. The SNP should not pretend otherwise, he says.

Hague says the government’s commitment to deliver on devolution to Scotland is not conditional on what happens to England.

Labour’s Kevin Brennan says any proposal for “English votes for English laws” could lead to a break up of the UK.

Hague says he rejects this. Fairness to England should not lead to the break up of the UK.

Oliver Heald, a Conservative, says there is a standing order allowing Scottish MPs to deal with Scottish legislation in the Commons. Why can’t that be introduced for England?

Hague says that is an option.

Hague says Lord Smith, who is heading a commission looking at how to take forward giving more powers to Scotland, has already started work.

Hague says he is glad all parties are contributing to this process.

And Smith will also consult civil society in Scotland.

Angus Robertson, the SNP MP, says today is the funeral of the Angus Macleod, the former Times Scottish editor. He pays tribute to Macleod. Why is David Cameron not attending the debate? And why does the government’s command paper on further devolution published yesterday not mention the “extensive” powers to Scotland promised by the three main UK parties.

Hague pays his own tribute to Macleod. He says he will deal with the other points in due course.

John Bercow, the Commons speaker, says there are so many MPs wanting to speak he has imposed a six-minute time limit on backbench speeches.

In the light of John Redwood’s comment (see 12.34pm), it is worth looking at what the current voting numbers are in the House of Commons.

The Conservatives have 302 votes (excluding Eleanor Laing, a deputy speaker, because she normally doesn’t vote.) Labour have 255 (excluding Dawn Primarolo and Lindsay Hoyle, both deputy speakers) and the Lib Dems 56. That gives Labour and the Lib Dems combined 311 votes.

But there is also a Ukip MP now, who would probably vote with the Tories on this. There are eight DUP MPs, who often vote with the Conservatives, but three SDLP MPs, who normally vote with Labour, plus a Green MP and a Respect MP, who also tend to vote with Labour. There are nationalists and others too.

So, if there were to be a vote on this, it could be close.

(But would the Tories really want to push this through before the election? Isn’t it more value to them as an election issue, and if they were to change the constitution in this way, wouldn’t they want to do so with an mandate from the electorate?)

The Labour MP Simon Danczuk was on the Daily Politics alongside John Redwood. He said England needed more devolution of power to the regions.

Redwood argued that Labour tried this with its plan for regional assemblies when it was in power, and that this was rejected by the voters.

On the Daily Politics John Redwood, the Conservative MP, has just said that he expects his party to hold a vote in the Commons before the end of the year on changing Commons standing orders to allow “English votes for English laws”. Although the Conservatives on their own do not have a majority, they would have SNP support and could win, he said.

He has written more about this on his blog.

I will post his quote shortly.

You can read all today’s Guardian politics stories here. And all the politics stories filed yesterday, including some in today’s paper, are here.

As for the rest of the papers, here’s the PoliticsHome list of top 10 political must reads, and here’s the ConservativeHome round up of today’s politics stories in the papers.

And here are three articles I found particularly interesting.

• Damian McBride in the Times (paywall) says Labour will lose unless Ed Miliband starts listening to his colleagues.
  

To the extent that there is any open discussion at their meetings about the critical policy issues or the big political strategy, there is no sense that Mr Miliband is listening, let alone acting on what he hears.

In good times, that might not matter. But these are not good times for Mr Miliband, and the lack of sensible counsel from senior colleagues is showing.

Loyalists such as John Denham, John Healey and Peter Hain have walked away in despair. Wise hands such as Alan Johnson and Peter Mandelson have not thus far been persuaded back, not least because Mr Miliband will not lower himself to ask.

Even Douglas Alexander, one of the leader’s few confidants, now finds himself ignored, clinging to his role of election co-ordinator in title alone.

Less than 30 weeks to polling day, and no one is actually managing Labour’s campaign; it’s certainly a novel approach.

• Frances Elliott and Laura Pitel in the Times (paywall) say David Cameron is facing a Tory rebellion over the European arrest warrant.

David Cameron is heading for a Commons rebellion over Europe next month, just as a “must-win” by-election battle with Ukip comes to a head.

Senior Tory MPs warn Mr Cameron today that they will vote against handing police powers to Brussels, including signing up to the European Arrest Warrant (EAW), and could even support Ukip moves to mount a legal challenge.

The government has until December 1 to sign up to EU-wide police and court arrangements and ministers now expect a parliamentary vote to approve a package in the middle of next month ...

Jacob Rees-Mogg, another leading Tory critic, said that signing up to the warrant was Mr Cameron’s “biggest mistake”. He plans to work with Ukip to mount a judicial review of the decision in a further challenge to the prime minister’s authority.

The EAW was cited by Mr Reckless as one of the reasons he quit the Tories for Ukip. Mr Cameron is aware of the “approaching nightmare” of the Commons rebellion but knows there is no hope of avoiding the deadline, an aide said.

• The Financial Times (subscription) in its editorial says “English votes for English laws” would be a mistake.

The idea is unworkable. If it went ahead, a future general election might produce a UK governing majority led by Labour that was different from an English one led by Tories. This would create deadlock. It would turn Scottish MPs into a second class of legislators, something that might soon be seen by citizens north of the border as an English provocation. Besides, the proposal is a drastic response to a much exaggerated problem. Since 1997, only 21 of the 5,000 votes passed in the Commons have depended on the “swing” support offered by Scottish MPs.

In the Commons Nick de Bois, a Conservative, says Nick Clegg recently said on LBC that he wanted a speedy resolution to the “English votes for English laws” proposal. So will Clegg support a change to Commons standing orders to alter voting rules on English-only bills.

Clegg says the Lib Dems have put forward a proposal. (See 11.48am.) He accuses the Tories of proposing a fix, and Labour of ignoring the problem.

Sadiq Khan, the shadow justice secretary, says MPs have got nothing to do between now and May. Why won’t Clegg work with Labour to push through votes for 16 and 17-year-olds.

Clegg says Khan can speak for himself if he thinks MPs have nothing to do.

It is an “open secret” that the coalition parties are split on this, he says.

He says he is confident that votes at 16 will eventually happen.

Nick Clegg, the deputy prime minister, is taking questions in the Commons.

In response to a question about priorities for constitutional reform, he says he thinks there should be a wide-ranging constitutional convention after the general election.

Labour’s Willie Bain asks why the government will not legislate now to allow 16 and 17-year-olds to vote.

Clegg says the Lib Dems support this. But the Conservatives don’t.

Labour’s Debbie Abrahams asks why the future of English devolution is being decided in a cabinet committee. Clegg says his preference would be for a constitutional convention, or a form of “citizens jury”.

David Laws, the Lib Dem education minister, has put out a statement about the Lib Dem position on “English votes for English laws” ahead of this afternoon’s debate.

The Liberal Democrats are determined to resolve the matter of English and Welsh votes on English and Welsh matters but this must not be a politically motivated stitch-up by the Conservatives. The Tories have a majority of MPs in England but got less than 40% of the vote at the last election. Any solution to this matter must reflect the will of the voters, not the entrenched advantage the electoral system gives the Conservatives in England. Whether it is in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or London, every time Westminster has devolved power it has been on a proportional basis and this must be consistent with that approach. That is why the Liberal Democrats have proposed a Grand Committee system to allow English MPs, appointed proportionately, to vet laws that will apply only in England, joined by Welsh MPs when matters affecting Wales are debated.

He set out this argument in more detail in a recent Guardian article.

And Sunder Katwala, director of the British Future thinktank, has written a good blog on the English question which is on the Politics in Spires website.

He says Labour needs to find an answer to this issue.

If Labour is not careful, it could end up achieving the unenviable combination of being portrayed as the party of Westminster in Scotland, and the party of Scotland and Wales in England.

There is a growing number of Labour voices at all levels in the party who will be keen to ensure that their party is not left out of this national conversation, though loyalty to the leadership muted this challenge during the party conference.

Because Labour failed to answer the question properly while the political spotlight was on them during their conference, English Labour voices will now find themselves playing catch-up as they seek to make the case that their party should also have its own distinctive contribution to make to this debate about how England’s voice will be heard.

He also dismisses the suggestion that “English votes for English laws” would be unworkable, because a UK government might not have an English majority.

The technical questions about how to define English legislation, and when bills have knock-on effects, are not impossible to sort out, as the Mackay commission report has shown. The powers devolved to the Welsh assembly will also have a bearing on which issues are England-specific and which affect England and Wales.

The political objection that a government without a majority of English MPs may not have a majority for English-only bills is unpersuasive. After all, there are two straightforward political solutions to this dilemma: a party could win more votes and seats in England, to avoid that headache; or it would have to seek broader support for its proposals, rather than whipping laws through. Combined with stronger parliamentary committees doing more substantive pre-legislative scrutiny, that could well be a recipe for better laws.

Phillip Blond, head of the ResPublica thinktank, was on BBC News earlier criticising “English votes for English laws” as a proposal.

On the ResPublica website there is an interesting blog on the issue from Robert Hazell, the politics professor. Here’s an extract.

English votes on English laws does command mass support. It seems only logical and fair. The McKay Commission recommended English-only votes at the earlier stages of legislation, but subject to override by the whole House at later stages. Objections are that it would create two classes of MP, a parliament within a parliament, and could lead to political instability. If the next election delivers a Labour government for the UK but a Conservative majority within England, Labour would have to govern England as a minority government, requiring cross-party support for its English legislation.

Two partial solutions have been suggested to correct the underlying problem. The first would be to reduce the number of Scottish and Welsh and Northern Irish MPs, to reflect their reduced role. This happened under the Stormont Parliament of 1922-72, when Northern Irish representation was reduced by a third. The second would be proportional representation, which would help reduce Labour’s exaggerated representation in Scotland and Wales, and might increase their representation in England ...

The English Question does not demand a single answer. What seems most likely to happen is gradual experimentation at Westminster with English votes on English laws, coupled with further experiments in decentralisation. These could include encouragement of city regions to promote greater cooperation between local authorities; a further push for elected mayors; reversal of some of the restrictions on local government.

In his Today interview Alex Salmond said SNP support had been soaring in Scotland since the referendum. (See 9.26am.)

Here Lesley Riddoch has picked out the Scotland figures from today’s YouGov poll.

Labour has decided that it will not participate in the cabinet committee being chaired by William Hague to consider the “English votes for English laws” issue. Labour had been invited to contribute, but the party has decided to stay away. “We need proper reform, not a closed-shop stitch-up in a cabinet room,” said a party source.

For the record, here are today’s YouGov GB polling figures.

Labour: 34% (no change since YouGov on Sunday)

Conservatives: 31% (down 1)

Ukip: 17% (up 1)

Lib Dems: 7% (down 2)

Government approval: -22 (no change)

AT 17%, Ukip’s rating is equal to its highest ever score in YouGov poll (it last hit 17% in June).

According to Electoral Calculus, this would give Labour a majority of 32.

The Tories will move the writ for the Rochester byelection to be held on Thursday 20 November, the BBC is reporting.

Normally the title of a Commons debate on the order paper does not merit much attention. But the wording of today’s Scotland debate is neatly ambiguous.

Devolution following the Scotland referendum

It doesn’t say Scottish devolution, or devolution to Scotland; just devolution. In the final days of the Scottish referendum campaign (as the prospect of losing created a mood of near panic at Westminster), all three leaders of the main UK parties firmed up their promise of further devolution for Scotland in the event of a no vote. Ostensibly, today’s debate is just about giving MPs a chance for the first time to debate that. But, in a surprise move shortly after 7am on the Friday after the referendum, David Cameron revealed that he was going to use Scotland getting further devolution as a pretext for accelerating further devolution to England, with a version of “English votes for English laws” ( or EVEL, to use the horrible acronym). This is a move that would take the UK much further towards federalism, and open the prospect a Labour government having a majority for UK laws but not English laws. The Tories are quite open about the fact that they want to turn this into an election issue.

So today’s debate will be interesting on two fronts. First, we might learn more about what further devolution Scotland may get. On the Today programme this morning Alex Salmond, Scotland’s first minister, claimed the three main UK parties were already reneging on their promises.

There is a huge gap that is emerging between the vow, the last-minute desperate promise made under the guarantee of Gordon Brown by the three Westminster leaders and what was suggested in the command paper which was just a regurgitation of what has been indicated last spring, promises which were so weak they hardly featured in the no campaign.

And, second, we will learn more about where the EVEL debate is heading. William Hague, the leader of the Commons, told MPs yesterday that he was planning to stage a Commons vote on this before the end of this year.

Today I will be focusing mostly on the debate. I will cover the opening speeches in considerable detail, and after that I will cover the highlights.

Here’s the full agenda for the day.

9.30am: Inflation figures are released.

9.30am: Trade unions give evidence to the Commons education committee about free schools.

11.30am: Nick Clegg, the deputy prime minister, takes questions in the Commons.

12.40pm: MPs start debating further devolution for Scotland, and for England too.

1.40pm: Norman Lamb, the care minister, gives a speech to the King’s Fund integrated care summit.

If you want to follow me on Twitter, I’m on @AndrewSparrow.