Scotland's had its say. Now what about us?

In a late intervention to swing the vote in favour of No, the main party leaders promised Scotland the equivalent of Home Rule. Now it's time to wonder about England.

Public spending is £8,498 per head in the West Midlands, compared to £10,152 in Scotland. To put that difference in perspective, if the 5,602,000 people in the West Midlands had the same spending as Scotland they would get an extra £9,265,708,000 a year.

That's about 17 rebuilds of Birmingham's New Street station paid for every 12 months.

The West Midlands has proved that it is more than capable of pulling itself up by its boot straps when the Government gives it the right tools.

Take, for example, the Jaguar Land Rover engine plant over at the i54 on the Wolverhampton/Staffordshire border.

There, councils joined forces and agreed to fund the £36.7 million slip road from the M54 motorway – a key sweetener in attracting JLR to the site – by using the business rates they will collect as a way to pay off the investment.

But too much development has relied upon going cap-in-hand to Whitehall.

How many times have we heard that Wolverhampton's long-awaited rail station was on the cards? And how many times have the hopes been dashed because governments just would not release the cash?

Devolution itself has never been sold particularly well in England. There were proposals for regional assemblies and three referendums were planned. Only one took place.

In 2004, voters in the North East rejected the proposal by 77.9 per cent.

Whatever does happen for the West Midlands cannot just be a re-heated version of a plan that's been dead for a decade.

But with the Scots now about to receive more power than they've ever held in the United Kingdom, it's time we ask the question: What about us?

Common sense is not the preserve of one party

Ian Austin is not an MP who is afraid to speak his mind, even if it does not necessarily fit the current party line.

He has long been calling for a referendum on Britain's membership of the EU and thinks it should be held before the General Election. He also thinks there should be tough action on illegal immigration.

So far, so common sense. And with a key marginal constituency in Dudley North, Mr Austin knows all too well that it won't just be his core Labour supporters he needs to keep on side, but the floating voters, too.

UKIP knows this as well. But Mr Austin's opponent Bill Etheridge seems mightily miffed that the Labour MP is saying some of the same things that UKIP has and thinks he ought to switch sides.

Mr Austin, of course, dismisses the idea utterly.

It's perhaps not the best strategy by UKIP to draw attention to the fact that a Labour MP can and does support the same 'common sense' arguments as it does, while also being a member of one of the biggest parties that could form either the Government or the main opposition.