The United Kingdom is full of anomalies. As an asymmetrical quasi-federal union, almost any change means more anomalies. So the proposals on devolution from Kenneth Clarke's Democracy Task Force are, while ingenious, also flawed. And they will satisfy neither believers in devolution nor English nationalists.

Legislative devolution to Scotland, and to a more ambiguous extent to Wales and Northern Ireland, means that MPs from north of the Border can vote on matters affecting only England when they are no longer able to vote on similar issues affecting their own constituents. This is the so-called West Lothian question, coined in the late 1970s by Enoch Powell and Tam Dalyell. It is now mainly expressed as an English question: the inferior rights of voters and MPs there compared with the Scots, in particular.

Various solutions have been urged: an English Parliament; devolution within England; reducing the representation of Scots and others (as with Northern Ireland from 1921 until 1972); and ensuring that only English MPs vote on English measures. Most of these ideas risk making the break-up of the Union more likely, because England forms 85 per cent of the United Kingdom. The elephant is bound to dominate the smaller animals.

The Clarke plan is a variant of English votes for English laws. All MPs would vote on the second and third readings of Bills, but the committee and, crucially, report stages would be voted on by English MPs only.

This risks stalemate if a UK majority objects at third reading to earlier amendments. But this is a nuclear option since there is no chance for compromise then. There are also questions about defining English-only Bills or clauses (surmountable but messy); the knock-on effects for the UK of English Bills; and the position of the Lords (seen as having the same arrangements as the Commons when reformed and elected at some distant, future date). And, as emerged at yesterday's news conference, how do you treat Welsh MPs given that Cardiff controls health and schools policies in the Principality? The Clarke plan has fewer flaws than alternatives but was criticised yesterday as inadequate by Sir Malcolm Rifkind and in the blogosphere. The bloggers' concerns are as much political as constitutional: an over-powerful Scottish clique running the UK and an unfair financial settlement. The former point is exaggerated and contradictory coming from supporters of the Union. The latter is more valid and was not addressed by Mr Clarke.

The 30-year-old Barnett formula for distributing central grants needs to be reviewed. Given the relative poverty of parts of Scotland, this might mean a smaller change than some South-of-England nationalists hope but it is right that Scotland, and other parts of the UK, should be made more financially responsible for their policy choices.

Yet is this all a sledgehammer to crack a nut? The political problem, a Labour majority in the UK but a Conservative one in England, is very rare: occurring only three times, briefly, since 1945 (in 1950-51, 1964-66, and between the 1974 elections). It is highly unlikely after the next election. The Tories now have an answer to the West Lothian question, but one that a Cameron-led government may be in no hurry to implement.

Times Recommends

• The Republicans need a good kicking
• Those things other people look after
• Find the link between these three . . .