The Scottish question is untenable...

The West Lothian question has again been raised. David Cameron is accused of threatening the future of the United Kingdom by suggesting that Scottish MPs should not vote on matters that affect only England.

There is no logical reason why Scottish-based MPs should have a vote on English matters (prescription charges, university tuition fees, etc) while English MPs have no say on events in Scotland.

Am I in favour of an English parliament? No.

It is not about the break-up of the Union - Labour already put that train on the track with the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland and Wales assemblies. All three are a waste of time. Why do politicians always think that the answer to a question is more politicians? It is not. We could get along equally well without the Greater London Assembly, the elected mayors, the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland and Wales assemblies. Perhaps those employed by those organisations might not, but their worries are not ours.

Stop Scottish MPs voting on purely English matters or stop giving Scotland English money.

The Daily Mail graphically illustrates the disparity.

Gordon Brown - The Sunny Jim Of Our Time

Today The Daily Telegraph is running a story that Tony Blair is likely to resign on Tuesday.

Apparently, he will go in an attempt to limit the expected electoral damage in next Thursday's local elections.

The story goes on: "Even Mr Blair's most loyal supporters concede his unpopularity is so deep that his resignation could actually improve the party's showing, particularly in Scotland which Labour may lose control to the nationalists.

"The move could also wrongfoot his opponents and even cushion any political fallout for Gordon Brown if, as expected, there is a rout of Labour in the chancellor's Scottish backyard."

However, I believe that whenever he goes - next Tuesday, next month, after the summer - that it is all over for Gordon Brown.

If - as expected - Brown does become PM he should call an immediate general election (as should have Jim Callaghan in 1976, and John Major in 1990): he has no mandate to govern.

I can tell you now that Brown won't call an election. He will claim that he has to have time to "bed in" to show the electorate what he is like.

That's the problem - what he is like.

Frankly, Gordon Brown comes over if not "psychologically flawed", then certainly as a bit peculiar.

Lord Turnbull, the Permanent Secretary at the Treasury from 1988 to 2002, who can claim to know Brown well, said that he had a "very cynical view of mankind and his colleagues... He cannot allow them any serious discussion about priorities. His view is that it is just not worth it and ‘they will get what I decide’. And that is a very insulting process You can choose whether you are impressed or depressed by that but you cannot help admire the sheer Stalinist ruthlessness."

Brown has two choices: go to the country when Blair resigns to get his own mandate (and lose); or hang on until 2010 and lose then.

Either way, he will be seen as the Sunny Jim of our time.

We don't need an English Parliament - we have the UK one

Iain Dale argues in The Daily Telegraph that David Cameron will now have to support some measure of devolution for England and, therefore, an English parliament.

Iain says that "An English Parliament need not result in more politicians, bureaucracy or spending."

It need not but if it comes to pass it certainly will. Our council taxes will go up to pay for yet another unnecessary layer of bureaucracy and yet more professional politicians who can't seem to make a living in the real world.

If you believe in the Union then it is time to abolish the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland parliament and assemblies. The strength of this country lies in unity and the union and splitting it only serves those in Europe who would prefer England not to exist at all.