In the run up to the last general election, a huge play was made about the risk a Labour government would effectively mean an SNP government.
Miliband tried to reassure us non-Scots that if we trusted him with the reins of the UK, Labour would not allow the SNP influence they didn't deserve.
The public didn't believe him, and the public as it turns out, were absolutely right.
Whether you are a tree-hugging, organic falafel eating vegan, a blood thirsty rampaging toff who wants to rip foxes apart, or somewhere in between, you probably like me, hope that there is fairness in the mechanism of how laws are made in the country.
Democracy means that you'll win some, you'll lose some, but at least the decision will be made by those whose constituents are effected by the outcome. That is the only way there can be democratic accountability. If those that have the final say can be voted out when they decide things the majority doesn't like.
It was a crucially important announcement when Labour assured voters Labour would not go into coalition or do a deal with the SNP, but their recent letter to Sturgeon on the matter of the Fox Hunting Bill prove they were lying.
For reasons best known to him, Cameron wants to repeal the half-baked ban on hunting with dogs. Following their backing for many of the welfare cuts proposed by Osborne, Labour have decided fox hunting is one of the only things they can show to be different from the Tories, and are opposing the current 'non-ban'.
The bill has no relevance in Scotland and will not affect hunting in Scotland one jot, yet Labour are asking the SNP to back them on this issue. They are specifically asking the SNP to vote with Labour on this issue even though it is an English and Wales only matter.
Tuesday is Emmeline Pankhurst Day, and whilst I am not going to throw myself in front of a horse to make my point about British democracy on this occasion, this is a vitally important constitutional matter and perhaps we should throw Sturgeon in front of a hunt horse as part of the commemorations.
On this occasion you may feel that the end justifies the means, that if you are against fox hunting it doesn't matter how the ban gets kept, as long as it does.
But if we allow this to go unchecked, if we allow the Scottish MPs to be the decision makers on this issue, what happens when they take a stance you disagree with? What happens if they disagree with you on Trident, on immigration, on our membership of the EU?