If you look at the 2005 general election results for Scotland and 2007 Scottish election results on the BBC site, it gives you the number of votes cast and the number of MPs and MSPs returned in each. Compare the number of people who voted Conservative in each and the difference between the number of MPs and MSPs returned by Labour and the Conservatives. You will see from that that the Conservative support, which is fairly consistent, is largely unrepresented at Westminster, despite being much closer to the Labour total than the number of MPs suggests. You can only claim that is democracy at work if you completely disregard the purpose of a general election is to elect a government, not just local representation.

There are obviously limits to the benefits of proportional representation and far too many people point to the BNP’s recent victories as an obvious failing. That, however, is not a failing of an electoral system, it is a failing of the large and established parties to recognise they must work for any support and not take it for granted.

If you want the make-up of Westminster to reflect the will of the electorate, then proportional representation has much to commend it, not least that it should encourage more to believe their vote is worth casting. If you live in a safe seat, where the standing MP commands a consistent and substantial majority, is it worth voting against them? Normally it isn’t, so, normally, my vote is a waste of everyone’s time. As protest votes may well alter this next time around, perhaps my vote will count for something, but I doubt it. It will in the next Scottish election though.

Whilst MPs do spend a lot of their time dealing with local issues, it is their nationwide responsibilities that make proportional representation far more appropriate. Without it, any claim of a mandate from the people is even less appropriate.