THE General Election is about choosing the next UK government. A statement of the obvious? It is a notion those who have only been to exposed to SNP rhetoric might have missed.

Take this, from Nicola Sturgeon's speech to the SNP conference last month: "As long as Scotland remains part of the Westminster system, we will be your allies in seeking to shake up and reform that outdated and discredited system once and for all.

"Westminster needs to change.

"To be more responsive to the needs and demands of ordinary people, wherever they are in the UK."

The SNP has always been supremely skilled in the way it uses language to frame a debate. The First Minister was not really talking about "Westminster" at all in her address but about the UK or the UK government. But of course, if you are taking a swipe why not invoke a word that is tainted by the MPs' expenses scandal specifically and disillusionment with politicians generally? A large proportion of those who voted No last September did so out of fondness for the UK or Britain but even they roll their eyes at the thought of grubby old Westminster.

It was instructive to see Scottish Greens leader Patrick Harvie discussing Westminster last week in its proper context as a parliament, a place where laws are made and governments held to account. And it was highly illuminating to see him compare the place favourably with Holyrood, something that would be heresy for an SNP MSP. Writing in The Herald's Agenda column, Mr Harvie made the point that, for all Westminster's ills, its committee system functions better than the Scottish Parliament's. At Holyrood, he said, proper scrutiny has been whipped into oblivion leaving a situation where the Scottish Government is "marking its own work".

Presiding Officer Tricia Marwick, too, considered the differences between Holyrood and Westminster in a lengthy and thoughtful speech to the David Hume Institute last week. Explaining her proposal to strengthen the committees by putting them under the leadership of elected conveners, she said: "What I am setting out is not different to what is operating within the House of Commons, some would say with some real success."

The Presiding Officer is adamant that electing conveners by a secret ballot of all MSPs (they are party appointees at present) would create a "cultural shift" at Holyrood. More independent-minded MSPs would come to the fore, she believes, setting their own agenda and carving out high profile public roles. She wants "not just politicians but parliamentarians".

Mr Harvie is not opposed to elected conveners but doubts the reform will end the problem of MSPs being so tightly controlled by party whips, with all that that implies for a committee's ability to challenge the government of the day.

For all their differences, though, they and a growing number of MSPs agree on the need for change. After all, it would be tragic if "Holyrood" ended up as a term of abuse to be bandied in conference speeches.