Though Scotland has decided to stay in the union, the ghost of the referendum will be with us for some time. The campaign promise that Scotland would be granted greater autonomy has started a devolution debate, with the other parts of the Union demanding equal treatment.

In Wales and Northern Ireland this isn't too surprising, as they already have devolved legislatures, but controversially there is now a popular movement for a devolved England. The Prime Minister has indicated that this will happen, but in what form? And will he be able to pass such huge reforms, so near to the end of his term? The next general election is looming on the horizon. If Scotland doesn't get devolution by then, I dare say the Scots will be somewhat miffed.

This is a complex issue with many variables. The different forms of devolution, the timetable of delivery, and the exact powers which should be devolved are all significant debates.

The Government wants to bundle English devolution with Scottish devolution, thus putting significant time pressure on the England debate. Labour objects to this, wanting to shift the English issue into the next Parliament and only address Scottish devolution immediately.

It's understandable why they would want this: if Labour manage to win the election, they'll be able to dictate the detail of English devolution. There's significant political advantage in being able to determine that detail. It would also make Scottish devolution much easier to pass, placating Scotland sooner rather than later. Labour has good justification for their position: the complexity of the issue should give pause to politicians keen to push reform through at a sprint.

But Labour is playing a dangerous game. They cannot be seen to be dragging their feet on an issue which has popular support. With the Conservatives ahead in the polls, Labour need every percentage point they can get.

There are three main forms of English devolution being discussed.

A two-track Westminster

This is David Cameron's preferred form of devolution. In this system, Westminster Parliament remains the same: it is elected the same way and has the same powers. But non-English MPs would not vote on Bills regarding policy that only affects England. This option has the advantage of providing English devolution while making minimal disruption to the constitution, and would have the smallest costs as no new institutions would have to be created.

There are three main problems with the idea.

Firstly, it would be possible (though rare) that the party with the most English MPs was different from the party with the most UK MPs. This would mean that the UK Government (composed of Ministers from the party with the most UK MPs) would have problems passing their largely English election manifesto.

A government without the ability to pass their legislation is considered a party without the confidence of the people and generally triggers another General Election. Historically, if the same party gets elected then it is considered the clear will of the people that the contested legislation be passed (this happened in 1910 after the House of Lords vetoed the 1909 budget).

This historical remedy would not be able to resolve the issue of a two-track Parliament, because the will of the people would not be made any clearer by re-election. The whole problem is that the will of the UK and the will of England can conflict. A possible result of this reform would be more frequent coalition government, with all the problems that follow (most importantly, a shackled Government unable to enact all its policy, with national policy being determined by political deals rather than election manifestos).

The second problem with the two-track Westminster is that many consider it to be too small a change. Those who object to the dominance of London see greater devolution to the regions of England to be the goal of devolution, not merely devolution to another London-dominated entity. This is seen as key in combating the level of inequality in our society, as the North of England is significantly more liberal than the South.

The pros and cons of London's dominance of UK business, government and culture is a huge discussion in itself. Supporters of London say London gives the UK access to economies of scale. They argue that London is not in competition with other English cities, but rather cities like New York, San Francisco, and Shanghai. London is our national champion in the international competition for business. Reducing London's dominance would not create other such champions; it would leave us with no champion. The pro-London camp also argues that London's high incomes and businesses subsidise the rest of the UK.

Critics of London, however, argue that London only subsidises the rest of the UK because it has received decades of preferential infrastructure spending and brain drain. They also point to the example of Germany as a developed, internationally competitive economy without any single "global city" that rivals London.

The third problem is the question of which MPs could become Government Ministers. While the Government would be officially the Government of the UK, much of their business would deal only with England. "English Bills for English MPs" risks making non-English MPs second-class citizens within Parliament, unable to take up UK executive roles.

English Parliament

The second form of English devolution being discussed is that of an English Parliament separate from the UK Parliament. It would have its own premises, elections, MPs, and an English executive government, following the model and powers of Scotland.

But there's a problem: England's size relative to the UK. The Scottish Parliament works because Scotland is a relatively small part of the UK. An English Parliament with the same powers would largely dictate England's domestic policy, and England has around 85% of the UK's population. In short, the English Parliament would begin to encroach on the authority of the Westminster Parliament. Who would be in charge of the UK? The Prime Minister, of the First Minister of England? The UK would have two de facto heads of government, and in the event of disagreement between the two, we could end up with a US-style governmental paralysis.

The objections about the dominance of London still apply to a separate English Parliament. One proposal is for the English Parliament to be based outside of London (York is a popular location), but it's not clear how much this gesture would actually result in policy focus shifting away from London.

Regional Devolution

The third devolution proposal is the idea of devolving powers to an England divided up into regions (one rather romantic proposal is the resurrection of the old Anglo-Saxon Kingdoms as states). This is the federal option, a "United States of Britain and Northern Ireland". England is by necessity divided, to avoid the problems resulting from England's size relative to the UK as a whole.

Each region-state would have its own elected legislature and executive. The exact powers of these states vary considerably between different proposals, but the most obvious answer is that they would be the same as those Scotland will have following their upcoming further devolution. These would include significant control over education, health care, police, transport, welfare, and taxation. Also unclear are the election mechanisms to be used in these regional parliaments (e.g. "first past the post" or "proportional representation").

This format is praised for reversing the dominance of London, allowing greater self-determination via regional Parliaments, but still maintaining a UK government for coordinated defence, foreign policy, and certain types of taxation.

This option represents the most dramatic change to the UK constitution and it is unlikely to find political support in Westminster, especially among the Tories. It seems exceedingly unlikely that such a complex change could be made on the timetable that has been presented by the current Government.

Regional devolution also carries significant risks. One risk is that, rather than combating inequality, regional devolution would exacerbate it. With reduced fiscal transfers between regions via national taxation and investment, and with diverging education and healthcare systems, we would see a kind of free market in government. Successful regions would be able to keep their own tax revenue and reinvest it solely in their own region. Brain drain to successful regions would occur. The result would be entrenched regional inequalities, not a levelling out. This would be especially true of London, now able to hold on to its own significant tax revenues.

Other Issues

The devolution debate has revived other constitutional issues such as House of Lords reform and changing the electoral system away from "first past the post" (FPTP). However, it's hard to imagine these two issues being addressed again in this Parliament. The House of Lords Reform Bill was dropped in 2012 after it failed to gain widespread political support, and a recent referendum regarding changing from FPTP to the Alternative Vote (AV) failed.

What next?

If the Scottish referendum has shown us anything, it's that our democracy can work. Get involved! Write to your MP, discuss the issues with your friends, get into arguments in the comments of YouTube videos. We can all help shape the debate, if we have the will to do so.