Britishness: Perspectives on the British Question includes contributions from, amongst others, Arthur Aughey, Linda Colley, Robert Hazell, Charlie Jeffery, David Willetts, David Marquand and Bernard Crick, who passed away shortly after writing his contribution and to whom the book is dedicated.

The opening chapter 'Bursting with Skeletons': Britishness after Empire contains this passage on English nationalism by David Marquand:

English nationalism appears - I say 'appears' because I am not sure - to be a nationalism of the right. There are lots of reasons. One is that the English have been the top dogs in the United Kingdom, though they have been too modest and polite to draw attention to the fact, and their position in the pecking order of Brittanic nationalism is now in question. Postdevolution nationalism in England is faintly reminiscent of post-Soviet nationalism in Russia. It is a nationalism of relative decline: a nationalism of resentment.

Is David Marquand's characterisation of English nationalism as a nationalism of the right that is faintly reminiscent of Russian nationalism a fair one?

There is a fundamental flaw in the campaign for an English Parliament and its feeble echoes in current Conservative talk of English votes for English bills. They are entirely reactive: negative, sour, mean-minded, ‘me-too’ responses to the wonderful growth of national feeling in Scotland and Wales. So far as I know, no one has yet put forward a positive case for devolution to England, based on a moral vision of what England and the English stand for or might come to stand for.

- David Marquand, Give us a moral vision for England, Our Kingdom; 4th January, 2008

Traditionally, the Campaign for an English Parliament has called for powers equal to those held by Scotland to be devolved to England. The CEP also states that to provide a complete answer to the constitutional problems of the United Kingdom it will be "necessary to upgrade the Welsh Assembly to become a Welsh Parliament with similar devolved powers" [The Aims] because "Each of the three historic nations of this island must stand in the same relationship to the Union and to each other if the Union is to survive" [Submission to the Justice Committee].

This autumn the Government is to set out its proposals to strengthen Scottish devolution based on the report of the Calman Commission. If implemented the Calman Commission's proposals, initially backed by Gordon Brown, could see Scotland gain additional devolved powers and substantial borrowing powers whilst losing some regulatory powers.

The Calman Proposals

• Calman recommends a 10p cut in all income tax rates in Scotland with a corresponding reduction in the annual block grant from the Treasury.
1. Holyrood powers to levy part or all of the 10p rate.
2. Holyrood would make a “tax decision” in terms of the size of its budget.
3. Levying less than 10p would cut its own budget.
4. Levying more could lead to increased spend on public services.

• Control over stamp duty, air passenger duty and land tax could be devolved.
• Holyrood to be given additional borrowing powers for capital expenditure.
• Holyrood to control airgun laws and power to set drink driving limits, landfill levy, speed limits and ability to run Scottish elections.
• Co-operation between Westminster and Holyrood to be strengthened. Ministers from each legislature should appear before relevant committees.
• Calman recommends that powers of insolvency, charity law and registration of health professionals be returned to Westminster.

Essentially (though not explicitly) Unionist in outlook, the CEP lays itself open to accusations of being reactionary and displaying me-too-ism by demanding powers for England that Scotland has for itself.

If Scotland adopts the Calman Commission proposals, what should the CEP's response be?