Take comfort in democratic patchwork

Lesley Riddoch (Perspective, 9 December) writes that it is “hard fact” that Scots “never get the government we vote for”.

This, of course, is the erroneous argument put forward by Nationalists who point to the 1980s when substantial Conservative majorities in Westminster were accompanied by a dramatic collapse in the Conservative vote in Scotland – but it conveniently overlooks the more recent period (1997-2010) when the vote in Scotland aligned with the rest of the UK to return a Labour government – with, latterly, both a Scottish prime minister and Scottish chancellor of the eExchequer.

It also ignores the fact that on three occasions since the Second World War (1950, 1964 and 1974) votes in Scotland contributed to forming governments at Westminster that were a different colour to those voted for in England.

But that, of course, is the nature of any democracy – the party with the majority of MPs within a given geographic area forms the government. It is not necessarily an argument for separation. In the Scottish Parliament, for example, Orkney and Shetland consistently vote Liberal Democrat but we have an SNP administration and, while there may be occasional mutterings about breaking away if Scotland votes for independence, nobody seriously seems to be suggesting the Northern Isles separate from Scotland.

And, of course, the rest of the UK is not some monolithic block that all votes the same way. It is a patchwork of different areas with varying opinions that may or may not get the government it votes for.

In the most recent general election in 2010, for example, of the 74 parliamentary seats in Greater London, 44 returned Labour MPs, 23 Conservative MPs and seven Liberal Democrats.

So London, with a population more than double that of Scotland and a massive contributor to the national Exchequer, could also argue it didn’t get the government it voted for.

However, some would argue that not always getting what you voted for is compensated for by the benefits of remaining in a unified country without the threat of internal borders; with a common currency; a common defence force and intelligence system; an extensive network of embassies and consulates throughout the world that benefits travelling citizens; and without the massive expenditure of duplicating a host of agencies required to run a separate country.

Peter Lewis

Greenhill Place

Edinburgh