English votes for English laws: constitutional problems

You make some excellent points, I'm too tired to give a response that would do them justice, but will throw this out there. Maybe we need more assemblies? London is more populous than Scotland and much more so than Wales and NI, the latter three being countries, all four are endowed with an "assembly" for all intents and purposes. This means that nearly 1/3 of the UK is already under the jurisdiction of a separate legislature and executive. Why not provide more and decentralise?

Ideally, the Scottish Parliament wouldn't have as much power as it does. It'd be much better if power over issues was shared between Westminster and the relevant assembly, instead of near enough total devolution on certain issues. That's what you have in federal systems, shared jurisdiction and comity.

The hot topic following the conclusion of the referendum on Scottish independence is proposals for addressing England being left out of the devolution framework. This has led to some to call for either an English Parliament, separate from Westminster, or some kind of minimalist system in the House of Commons, restricting the right of non-English MPs voting on English matters.

This latter idea may end up being adopted. I want to urge caution though; presuming that the majority of the English (and the others) wish to preserve this ancient Union, it has to be said that English votes for English laws (hereafter abbreviated to EV4EL) could risk the Union collapsing for good.

What follows are a series of questions and scenarios that such a regime could (or would) encounter. For such a proposal as EV4EL to be practical and demonstrably good for the Union and for England, these would need answering. It's simply not sufficient for the answer to be 'It's wrong for Scots to vote on English matters', as such an answer does not address the real constitutional problems EV4EL brings up.

If your goal is to achieve English independence, this thread's not for you. You'll not care what EV4EL does to the Union anyway.

Here goes:

1) What happens if a government that controls the UK House of Commons does not have a majority in the English House of Commons, and loses a major important vote, say on the Budget?

2) How would the government be organised between a UK-majority and an English minority government? Would they stay the same or change depending on the issue?

3) What would be the function of Scots MPs when no UK-related matters are before Parliament? Isn't there a risk that their light business will become a source of criticism that they cannot help; won't it highlight the remoteness of Westminster from Scotland further, and potentially make Scots less wedded to the Union?

4) Say a party wins a majority in the UK but a minority in England; they campaigned in England for a particular policy, but lost that vote. Suppose they therefore 'coalesce' on English matters with a third party, but otherwise govern alone, in order to get that policy (or something like it) secured. This would in essence mean near-permanent coalition governments even when the UK government has a majority. How would that pan out?

5) Could Scots still become Ministers for UK positions if they involve English-only affairs; for example, the Home Secretary who controls immigration policy and policing?

6) What happens if England alone adopts a course of action opposed by the Union and the other three countries? Given its enormous size, and the fact we are likely to retain the Barnett Formula, its decision would inescapably impact them, as it impacts on their block grants, but also their economies.