I may have been unclear. I'm not in favour of selective voting within the UK parliament, and never have been: I have always argued for either an English Parliament or a number of regional assemblies with substantial devolved powers comparable to those in Scotland and Wales. The passage you quoted was in the context of my pointing out that the blogger's argument was really one against devolution tout court, that is to say in favour of a single UK parliament in which (of course) English MPs would vote on Scottish matters, because all MPs would vote on all matters.

When given the chance, voters in England (well, those given the choice) have chosen against devolution (at least the versions on offer)

Both those parentheses are pretty important! The only people ever given the choice were the voters of the North East - i.e. a bit less than 5% of the English population. And you're right, what was on offer was pretty shit, as even the sponsor of the Bill, John Prescott, now admits. Apart from that I can only repeat what I said when someone made a similar claim on andrewducker's LJ a couple of days ago. Namely, that I suspect you'd have got a different answer (or at least a much closer vote) in some other parts of the country, notably the north-west. And I very strongly suspect that in the intervening decade views may have changed, just as they have changed so substantially in Scotland even within the last two years. English devolution wasn't a live political issue for most people in 2004; it is, increasingly, now, in part because of the Scotland debate and in part because of the increasing concentration of wealth and power in London, which is much more noticeable in the wake of a recession.

In short, the fact is that devolution has never been offered to the English.