Agenda: The pros and cons of minority government

While the SNP both times won a larger share of seats than its vote share, it is normal in most proportional representation (PR) systems for the largest parties to have a slight bonus due to the failure of very small parties to win seats. The first-past-the-post system used for the House of Commons distorts results much more, allowing the Conservatives to win 51 per cent of the seats on less than 37 per cent of the vote in 2015 and form a single-party majority government.

The SNP will need to compromise with other parties so they do not block the legislation of Nicola Sturgeon’s minority government. This outcome empowers the Scottish Parliament, making it more like an actual legislature, as in 2007-2011. It remains to be seen how the parties will handle this situation.

Comparative research shows that ideology, policy preferences, electoral incentives and even personality factors can influence the behaviour of politicians. The SNP is fortunate to have parties both to its left and to its right, making it easier to get bills passed. The rhetoric of Conservative leader Ruth Davidson, focusing on opposition, does not bode well for co-operation, though.

Many SNP critics are relieved the party has lost its majority, often thought to be somehow impossible with PR. Yet single-party majority governments are not unknown in democracies with PR: there have been four in Spain and five in Portugal since the 1970s, and every South African election since democratisation has resulted in a majority for the African National Congress.

Much of the commentary on Scottish democracy reveals British parochialism and a lack of comparative awareness.

Critics sometimes complain about the weakness of Holyrood committees, saying they were ineffective at scrutinising SNP legislation during the previous session.

Increasing the number of members would help and could be achieved by electing another one or two members in each region – which would also increase proportionality – though public sentiment might preclude this.

An upper house is sometimes recommended as a potential constraint on the government, but this raises questions over its election (or selection) method and powers, and concerns about its democratic quality as a result.

About 60 per cent of the world’s national legislatures are unicameral, and this includes all five Nordic countries, which perform consistently well in democratic quality assessments.

While it is often criticised, the additional member system has once again reflected how most people voted. Poorly understood, the system’s name does not help matters.

Most political scientists call it the mixed-member proportional (MMP) system after the example of New Zealand, where MMP replaced the first-past-the-post system in 1996 and is based upon the German PR model in use since the late 1940s.

Members of parliament are elected both in single-member constituencies and from party lists, but in a way that makes the overall outcome fairly proportional on a partisan basis to the party vote.

While the method of allocating party seats differs slightly from that of New Zealand and Germany, the Scottish MMP system relies on the regional vote (usually cast for a party list) as the basis for proportionality – it is not a second preference, as some voters believe and as some (mainly small) parties seem to want voters to think.

Despite its shortcomings, Scottish democracy displays significant advantages over its Westminster counterpart. Instead of constantly complaining about politics, Scots should take pride in their democratic system and consider how a few modest alterations could make it even better.

Dr Thomas Lundberg is a politics lecturer at Glasgow University.