Sentences you don't often hear

John Major was apparently right: the main reason he gave against Scottish and Welsh devolution was that it would lead to the break-up of the UK. It seems Lord Falconer has reached the same view of English devolution:

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/constitution/story/0,,1728340,00.html

Presumably Lord Falconer has a very, very short memory. Otherwise he would provide a rather better explanation of why devolution was a good idea for Scotland and Wales, but would be bad for England, and of why the former was good for the UK and the latter would be bad for it, than with the following sparkling array of obfuscatory non sequiturs:

'Devolution had proved necessary to preserve the union and its national parliament from the threat of separatists pressing the "nationalist argument" by ensuring representation "where it is wanted", he said.'

So devolution takes the wind out of the nationalists' sails?

'"The mood required change, not at the extremes - either of an entrenchment of the status quo, or an end to the union - but with devolution of power."'

Yup, just a bit of tinkering. Notice how Mystic Charlie divines the public 'mood'. Tell us more, Falconer old scout:

'Devolution had guaranteed the rights of the nations of the UK to keep the union whole, he added. "It has done exactly that. Separatists have been stymied by devolution. And support for separation has flatlined."'

So why not guarantee the right of England to, er, keep the union whole? Why not stymie those beastly English separatists?

'Devolution introduced fairness to the nations of the UK and ensured Scotland and Wales were no 'longer dominated by an overwhelming majority from a predominantly English party, he said.'
Lawks. You mean, there was no fairness in Scotland or Wales before 1998? What none? Exactly what does it mean, that 'fairness' was introduced? that the Celts were no longer to be ruled (sorry, "dominated") by a predominantly English party? Then why is it okay for the English to be ruled by a cabal of Scottish ministers?

As so often with the collectivist milch cow that is democratic politics, I fear the only lesson to be learned is that the merits of the case of are no importance: those who shout the loudest are the ones who are appeased.