In the autumn of 1977 I won a referendum against Alex Salmond. It was a referendum of the student body at the University of St Andrews, where we were both studying aspects of medieval history.

The referendum was on the question championed by Mr Salmond: that we should set up a Scottish union of students.

My winning “no” campaign was based on the premise that there was no need to affiliate to any students’ union at all.

I recall that my margin of victory was rather greater than that of the “no” campaign’s over Mr Salmond last week.

I do understand the disappointment, however, of being on the losing side of a referendum campaign, after all I was on the losing side in th referendum of 1975 about whether we should stay in the Common Market.

Now, when constituents contact me in anger and frustration about how it has turned out, I feel rather vindicated.

Anyway, back to last week’s Scottish referendum.

I’ve had quite a correspondence: the majority approved; a few couldn’t care less, or felt the Scots should have gone their own way; and a minority were worried a price had been paid in terms of the powers offered to the parliament in Edinburgh.

I no longer see it in terms of a “price”. Rather, the key issue to me is one of fairness and balance.

If the Scots are to have more power to determine their own affairs from their parliament in Edinburgh, then the English should equally have the right to exclusive control of our own affairs in a parliament.

Does this mean we need an English parliament with all the attendant expense of another set of elections to supply elected representatives to occupy yet another tier of government?

I do not believe so.

There is nothing new about the policy of securing “English votes for English laws”.

Indeed, this very policy was in the manifesto on which I stood at the last election. We were unable to implement it because voters did not give us a majority in Parliament.

Instead, we had to form a coalition focused on economic imperatives, to the exclusion of policies like “English laws” for which our coalition partners had no appetite.

I believe the problem can be resolved by setting aside parliamentary days for exclusively English legislative business, and from which MPs not representing English seats would absent themselves.

A reasonable attitude could secure such a settlement quickly and without legislation. It would also avoid the issue of creating different “classes” of MPs: the settlement would be achieved by convention.

There would be nothing new about this: it is what used to happen under the old Stormont arrangements. Conservative and Unionist MPs in Northern Ireland abstained from voting on matters at Westminster.

It seems to me reasonable to expect MPs from Scottish seats to adopt the same convention.

The devolution of more power and competence to the parliament in Edinburgh gives the issue added urgency. It is just absurd to have the votes of Scottish MPs alter health or education policy in England.

Why is the solution to this situation resisted? The answer is obvious.

There is a fear that a political party, without the votes of its Scottish seats, would be unlikely to secure a majority for its parliamentary programme for England – but isn’t that what democracy is all about? If there is no majority for something in England, then it shouldn’t happen in England.

We have rightly given the Scots power over their own affairs – and now we want some too.