“Joe Silva called and offered me three opponents in July- Gleison Tibau, Danny Castillo or Nik Lentz- but said he’d really like me to fight Barboza. Financially, it means it’s six months since my last UFC fight.

“But when Silva said Barboza in Rio, I thought- this is the one for me, this is exactly the kind of career-defining fight I’m looking for. It has entertainment written all over it. It’s a bigger fight, on a bigger card, with more media attention.”

Despite Pearson’s enthusiasm, Barboza is far from an easy opponent. The 25-year-old is a former Brazilian Muay Thai champion and has used his devastating skills to end two fights by leg kicks, including in his UFC debut against Mike Lullo. Barboza is one of Brazil’s biggest rising talents, and certainly one of their most thrilling fighters to watch already.

Ross Pearson is acutely aware of the task facing him: “I’ve noticed Edson is very explosive, powerful and fast-footed. If you let him dictate the pace and take the centre he’ll smash you, but we’ll see him fight on the back foot when I’m smothering him. He’s very flashy, explosive and good with the range. But I have better hands, my boxing is a lot stronger.”

Pearson is just a year older than Barboza, and has won twice as many UFC fights, including a victory over the top-10 ranked Dennis Siver. He also holds the notable distinction of being the Ultimate Fighter season 9 winner. Yet, Barboza has all the hype as the rising star of the lightweight division.

Pearson said:  ‘Yeah, people are definitely forgetting how big a prospect I am. I think I’m a little further forward than Barboza. I’ve been around longer and fought more experienced guys. I’ve fought Siver, Fisher, Miller, Riley. They’ve been in the UFC for 5-8 years. I’m taking nothing away from him, I know he’s talented, but come August 27^th, it’s going to be my time to shine.”

Speaking of the names Pearson has fought and beat, he doesn’t believe Barboza is on their level. He said: “He’s not the best opponent I’ve faced in terms of his all-round MMA game. He has very talented Muay Thai skills but he’s still learning MMA. We haven’t seen him on his back much and don’t know too much about his clinch defence or his takedowns. Siver is the best guy I’ve fought.”

To combat Barboza’s excellence in one area, Pearson aims to go into the fight comfortable in multiple areas. That is a lesson he learned from his loss to Cole Miller at UFC Fight Night 22, his first defeat in the UFC. He said: “I want to stand and trade, that’s always going to be what I want to do. No matter who I fight that will always be the area I train most. But I need a backup plan if that goes wrong. I want to plan for everything, so if I get caught, there is another option. That’s how I’m going into this training camp- I want to be the best everywhere and have a first, second and third plan. I want to have as many tools as possible. “

For this camp Ross trained with Erik Paulson at Alliance MMA. He has also previously trained alongside current champion Frankie Edgar. “Training with Frankie was an experience. He has a great work ethic and is a great guy to train with. If the UFC offered me the fight, I’d jump at it, but my wrestling isn’t near his level. He took me down quite a lot, but I did work my way back to my feet. Would I be able to do enough to beat him in 15 or 25 minutes? I don’t know, but I could catch him, anything can happen in MMA.”

Regardless of how he stacks up to the current champion, Ross is well aware the UK hasn’t got a champion yet, and he plans on being the one to change that. “I definitely think I’m in the best position to be the first, hand on heart. A lot of guys say they want it, but not the way I do. I will literally die trying to be the best. I know I have the belief, the ability and the mentality, I just need to show it.

“I think I’m top 15 just now. There’s a lot in the top 15 I feel I’m better than. It’s a super stacked division, but I think my style matches up well with a lot in the top 10. After this fight, I want to go to a new level and aim for the top 10. In 2012 I want to be on the way to bright lights and stardom.”

For now, Edson Barboza stands in the way of his goals. And while Ross respects him, he certainly doesn’t fear him: “This is a massive opportunity, on the main card. I ‘m going to his home town, in front of his support, his fans. And I’m going to prove I’m better. This is the biggest fight of my life, the kind that defines a career. I want to be the champion, and beating Barboza is the first step to that.”

Scotland commence their Six Nations campaign against France this weekend, hoping to overcome much favoured opposition and thereby win in Paris for the first time since 1999.

For their quest, Scotland coach Andy Robinson has named a mostly familiar side, with some modest changes.

Captain Alastair Kellock returns to lock, forcing a reorganisation of the pack, with Nathan Hines to blind-side flanker, Kelly Brown to number eight and Richie Vernon relegated to the bench. Richie Gray will feature alongside Kellock at lock.

The Killer B’s back-row of Kelly Brown, John Barclay and Johnny Beattie, who emerged as a prominent force in last year’s Six Nations, will have to wait to be re-united, as Beattie lacks the match practice to feature in the squad at this stage, having missed the Autumn internationals with injury. The Scotland pack is at full strength, with the exception of Beattie’s omission.

Although, they face a daunting task against the same pack that sealed last year’s Six Nations. The inclusion of the tenacious Hines points to the need to match the French pack’s physicality, also shown by the choice of Kellock and Gray at lock, standing 6ft 9 and 6ft 10 respectively.  Although they hold a distinct height advantage over the French locks Julien Pierre and Lionel Nallet, the line-out will still be a hotly contested affair. The scrum will be more one-sided in the French favour, unless Euan Murray is in first-rate form to aid Ross Ford and Allan Jacobsen cope against the more powerful French front row.

Winning the battle of the forwards will be vital should Scotland hope to kick-start this Six Nations in better fashion than previous years. The Scots have not won their opening fixture since 2006, when they defeated the French 20-16 at Murrayfield. Andy Robinson has identified this problem, and organised a game against players from Glasgow, Edinburgh and Scottish club teams in an attempt to counteract Scotlands often slow start.

In last year’s championship, Scotland played some fantastic rugby, only to lose possession at vital moments. With so much hinging on Scotland’s forwards performance, it is vital that Rory Lawson at scrum-half and Dan Parks at fly-half use any possession they obtain wisely. If Parks can continue his inspirational performances from last year’s tournament and ensure territorial advantage for Scotland, they stand a far better chance of upsetting the odds.

Should the forwards manage to match the French, and Parks keep Scotland in the right half, the onus will fall to the wider backs to find a way to take their opportunities, something they have not excelled at in recent years.

Charged with that task is Nick De Luca, standing in for the injured Graeme Morrison in a forced change. Partnering De Luca in the centre is Joe Ansbro, earning his first appearance in the Six Nations. The duo faces a daunting task in stopping the advances of Perpignan centre Maxime Mermoz, and converted winger Aurelien Rougerie.

Further wide, Max Evans replaces Sean Lamont on the wing, with Nikki Walker and Hugo Southwell completing the back three. If given the opportunity, the trio must grasp it for Scotland to steal a victory against a French side that are favourites despite coming under heavy criticism for recent performances.

It will be curious to see how France regroup after their 59-16 destruction by Australia in November. If they come into this match low on confidence, still licking their wounds from that defeat, this Scotland side has more than enough quality to inflict a similarly discouraging loss on them. Particularly the French forwards must be wary of a Scottish pack that goes to Paris ready for war.

But, as is always the case with the French national rugby team, should they be in the right frame of mind, Scotland could suffer severe retaliation at the hands of a superior squad. It’s the beauty of the Six Nations opening game: no-one can really predict what is going to happen.

Although, ahead of the Six Nations fixture between Ireland and Scotland, both clubs face testing away encounters to the Emerald Isle.

Edinburgh travel to Thomond Park to face league-leaders Munster, while Glasgow will be hoping to defeat Connacht, who are currently tied with the Warriors in 11^th place.

Both suffered narrow home defeats the last time they faced their opponents, as Edinburgh fell 13-16 to Munster, and Glasgow 17-19 to Connacht.

Edinburgh will be bolstered by the returns of Ross Rennie and Scott MacLeod from international duty. Nick De Luca also returns from the Scotland set-up, but will not start the game. The re-introduction of Rennie and MacLeod mark two of four changes to the side from last Saturday’s 30-22 loss to Newport Dragons. The others are James King taking the place of John Houston at inside centre, and Fraser McKenzie moving to the back row from lock. The Gunners will be hoping to record their first victory since dispatching Rob Moffat in favour of Nick Scrivener as interim coach.

Standing in their way is Munster, eight points clear at the top of the table, but having just lost away to Benetton Treviso. Ireland internationals Ronan O’Gara and Denis Leamy return to ensure Edinburgh face a lofty task, where they will need to be far more physically imposing than the Scottish national side have been recently.

For the Scottish national team it is crucial that Rennie and MacLeod put pressure on those ahead of them in the pecking order, and with the Ireland match taking place on a Sunday, a positive performance from Geoff Cross could land him a place in the side, as Euan Murray is unavailable for religious reasons,. David Blair and Ben Cairns could also be contenders with good displays here, given the poor performances of Dan Parks and Nick De Luca.

Even more so than David Blair, Glasgow’s Ruaridh Jackson will be acutely aware that performing well could land him a starting position at fly-half for Scotland. Jackson ousts upcoming youngster Duncan Weir to the bench for the clash with Connacht, knowing many eyes will be eagerly watching to see if he could provide more attacking impetus than Dan Parks. Johnny Beattie also starts for Glasgow, continuing to build his match fitness and aiming for a return to the national team to re-unite the ‘Killer Bs’ of Beattie, Barclay and Brown.

Glasgow are seeking to prevent Connacht beating them twice in one season for the first time in the Magners League, and in the process return some belief to the Scottish national team ahead of the crucial fixture against Ireland at Murrayfield.

However, once that has been resolved, there is another pivotal issue that must be dealt with imminently. For the good of the country, this election has to be the catalyst for electoral reform.

In 2010, it is embarrassing that the percentage of votes cast in favour of a party is often completely disproportionate to the percentage of seats they gain in parliament. As usual, the Liberal Democrats have been denied many seats purely because of the electoral system. While they gained over 20% of the popular vote, that translated into a meagre 57 seats from 649, or roughly 9%  of the total seats.

In addition to this, an estimate by the Electoral Reform Society stated that over 26 million votes will be completely disregarded in this election. How can we be happy with a system that makes so many people’s trip to the polling station pointless?

Then there are the hundreds of seats that were never at any risk of changing hands. In those seats, many voters consistently have no say in who runs their constituency or the country, because of the strength of feeling towards one particular party. It is bad enough having your vote discarded in one election, but in many constituencies it is almost guaranteed to be discarded every single election. For instance, in my home constituency of Inverclyde, while most people did vote for Labour candidate David Cairns (56%), the other 40+% of the electorate in the constituency vote in the vain hope that this time it will count. While it is a good thing that most people agree that David Cairns should be in office, for a significant minority it is disheartening that their vote is consistently worthless.

However, Inverclyde has it better than most. In most constituencies, the majority of the electorate vote against the winner, rather than for him. Can we really consider ourselves a democratic society while we continue to discard the opinions of the majority under the first-past-the-post (FPTP) system?

The worst aspect of all about FPTP is the attitude it spawns. The widely prevalent attitude that a vote for any party other than the Conservatives or Labour is a wasted vote makes a complete mockery of democracy.

A fundamental principle of democracy is free and fair elections where voters have a choice. Under FPTP, much of the population feel denied to this right and feel the need to vote for one of the traditional parties to make their vote count. They are denied a choice, and arguably the right to a fair election. How can an election be deemed fair, when tactical voting is being promoted by politicians to exploit the weaknesses of FPTP? Democracy is about voting for the party or person that you think is best to represent you, not about voting for someone you disagree with to keep someone you disagree with even more from being elected.

FPTP is not about democracy. It’s about maintaining a failing status quo and making sure the same two parties hold most of the power. It denies parties their rightful number of seats in relation to their share of the vote. It promotes voting for someone you don’t necessarily want to represent you. It wastes millions of votes. Politicians are often elected when more people are against than for them.

Democracy means people having a vote that can change things. It means giving a voice to all margins of society and giving small parties their rightful place in parliament, regardless of whether their views are racist, nationalist or otherwise. It’s about voting for who you really want in power, not who you really don’t want. It’s not about discarding the votes of large numbers of the electorate.

We are supposed to be a democratic state. Now it’s time we act like one, and reform our broken voting system.

So why should we be against a hung parliament?

A hung parliament means no party will be able to impose their will and easily push through their own reforms as normally occurs. Considering more people will vote against the party with the most votes than in their favour, this is a good thing. Why should a party impose their beliefs on so many who do not support them? Under a hung parliament, no party would be able to freely enact a policy without approval from another party.

A hung parliament means parties will have to co-operate with one another. At the very least, it will result in a coalition between two parties. In theory, this means more than one major party will be able to enact at least some of their policies, meaning more people will have the policies they desire enacted.

In the past 13 years, Labour has made major mistakes. Before them, the Conservatives made major mistakes. The Liberal Democrats have never gained enough support to make major mistakes.

So why trust just one party to lead the country, when none have prolific records of doing so? Separately, both Labour and the Conservatives can be criticised for their decisions while in power. The Lib Dems may be exempt from this criticism, but the fact they haven’t been able to displace either party in decades is a damning enough indictment.

Choosing a hung parliament means every party has their strengths and weaknesses. It means we want politicians to work together rather than try to gain the upper hand over their rivals. It means we don’t trust any party to lead the country adequately. It means we don’t want to put our faith in just one party.

Democracy isn’t about less than 40% of the population being satisfied. It’s government for the people, not government for less than half the people. Under a hung parliament, everyone’s opinion becomes important, and more people will be satisfied because the party they voted for will have more of a voice in parliament.

It’s not a weak form of government. It’s a strong form of democracy, and it’s nothing to fear.