[Nigel Mace]

This is a separate post in order to deal with a totally separate point.

The Tories' new-found obsession with 'fair' constituency boundaries should fool nobody.
The reasons for odd and numerically non-standard constituency sizes is entirely the product of their own (shared by Labour) attachment to the supposed 'virtues' of MPs as representing particular 'real' communities/places - a concept which, however, they have always been willing to ditch in joint negotiations to 'create' marginals intended to damage third parties, my own constituency being a classic case in point.
IF the basis for First Past The Post (FPTP) is real constituency representation, then all sorts of oddly sized constituencies become an inevitable consequence. To spatchcock that into a system of 'fair and even' sized units on the basis that all votes should have equal value is a dishonest nonsense.
IF, on the other hand, the 'votes of equal value' argument was taken seriously there would have to be a proportional voting system of some kind, for FPTP is well-known to provide the exact opposite of all votes having equal value - most votes have no value at all in a FPTP system.
The Tories' 'reform' is actually a cynical and utterly dishonest jerrymander - and if people, not of my party's persuasion, would like to contemplate how unfair it is, just consider what the make-up of the Holyrood parliament would be if run on FPTP - almost certainly a ludicrous SNP 115 seats, Tories 7, Labour 3, LibDems 4 and Greens 0, instead of the current reality in a semi-proportional system of SNP 63, Greens 6, Tories 31, Labour 24 and LibDems 5 and Independent 1.

Ironically, the Holyrood system - 73 FPTP constituency members and 56 regional list members elected on a d'Hont system - was intended as a jerrymander that would ensure that no one party (and the intended, though carefully unspoken, target was the SNP) would ever get an overall majority. (This makes the SNP's 2011 majority all the more spectacular.) However, despite the system's grubby origins, it has proved to be a remarkably good one - not perfect of course - for encouraging voters to vote only for what they really want, as the system cannot be 'gamed' by manipulations of 'tactical voting' etc. It manages to combine two measures of local responsibility/connection (constituency members and a regional base for list members) with a degree of proportionality. The SNP has always supported proportional voting and in the light of experience over almost two decades is now re-examining its views as to which systems - STV/d'Hont/mixed - it should now press for in an independent Scotland. Personally - and for its encouragement of only positive voting - I will hope to see the Holyrood system, or some adaptation of it, become the democratic standard in our independent nation.