Abstract
The paper returns to the research questions specified in the introduction: on approaches to constituency work and the relationships between members over that work. To a considerable extent it confirms the validity of the five hypotheses advanced. Nevertheless, there are variations between Canada, Germany, New Zealand and the UK, the nature of and reasons for which are discussed. Scotland and Wales both converge and diverge from comparative experience. Divergence has its origins in the nature of UK devolution and different approaches to and understanding of MMP, but a key underlying reason for divergence is the party system contexts. The asymmetry both of devolution and commitments to political pluralism is also significant in the UK in producing differences between Scotland and Wales. In all the states, though, devolution and MMP systems have been significant for their impact on openness, equity, proportionality and dissemination in constituency representation. In turn, the experience of constituency representation has generally been an important part of bedding in multi-level and MMP systems. High levels of constituency representation by all types of member indicate their capacity to focus rapidly on the ‘normal’ duties of representation. In Scotland and Wales, despite evident tensions, this has provided a local dimension to devolution in its early years at least as a generally adaptive reform to the UK political tradition.