IT seems that Alex Salmond is still whingeing about his defeat in the Scottish Referendum.

Now he is plotting to disrupt the UK political process by aligning with Labour ("Salmond: How I will stop a Conservative Government", The Herald, March 25). This is ludicrous, since in the Scottish Parliament the SNP's main opposition is Labour.

Can Mr Salmond not just accept that he was unsuccessful in his referendum bid to isolate Scotland from the UK? The Yes vote was subscribed to by only 1,617,989 members of the electorate, which represented 39.27 per cent out of a total potential number of voters in Scotland of 4,120,007. The majority of voters opted for Scotland to remain part of the United Kingdom.

Why can he not just accept defeat gracefully, and let Nicola Sturgeon get on with her job as First Minister?

It would be a tragedy if Mr Salmond were to be elected as MP for the Gordon constituency of Aberdeenshire on the retirement of Sir Malcolm Bruce. Surely the voters in the Garioch would be better served by a Member of Parliament whose main task was related to local concerns and needs than by Mr Salmond, whose only priority is his craving for independence from the UK; and for his legacy in the history books.

In the political scene in Scotland today the SNP obviously has a key role to play in administering the additional devolved powers - but Mr Salmond is yesterday's man. Can he not just retire gracefully into the mist?

Robert IG Scott,

Northfield, Ceres, Fife.

I READ with interest the Agenda article by Alex Neil ("We must use new powers to help tackle the scourge of inequality", The Herald, March 25). Mr Neil has allegedly struggled for years to get a train station in the village of Plains on the new Glasgow-Airdrie-Edinburgh line, or even a regular bus service for his constituents to access hospitals and health centres that are changing their out-of-hours services and colleges that have fewer places for the disadvantaged.

If Mr Neil has not been able to do that for just one village in his constituency over all the years he has been our MSP, then I fail to see how he is going to do it for the rest of the country.

Kenneth Stevenson,

132 Main Street, Plains,

Airdrie.

SADLY, I would agree with Ian Cooper's comments (Letters, March 26) on the recent remarks attributed to Paddy Ashdown. Doubtless the once-rumbustious former leader's intention was to uplift and re-invigorate the party. His introduction of expletives instantly negated any inspirational message together with an unnecessary Salmond-baiting jibe.

Perhaps some more informative and realistic words on his perception of the LibDems' future would have been welcome to both members and the electorate.

For example, can we anticipate the party reverting to its pre-2010 General Election stance of being a centre-left party? If so, a ray of light, albeit wane, beckons by way of another coalition, this time with Labour. Based solely on the numbers game, Labour would just scramble home with the added advantage of informal SNP support. If not, the projected return of 20-odd UK LibDem MPs would no longer interest the Conservatives. The latter's role would be that of opposition whilst the LibDems would sadly fade into oblivion.

The choice is obvious. The sooner it is realised the better, especially by the electorate in determining the next UK Government.

Allan C Steele,

22 Forres Avenue,

Giffnock.

AS usual Iain Macwhirter writes insightfully into the machinations of the aftermath of a hung Parliament after the forthcoming General Election ("Why Miliband cannot help becoming prime minister", The Herald, March 26).

However, one scenario has not been discussed. If Labour lost the election and were a smaller party than the Tories but become the government with SNP support, the SNP could demand the resignation of Ed Miliband and Ed Balls as one of the costs of power.

SNP would be better placed with it' own support carrying out this policy as Mr Miliband is not considered Prime Ministerial material by, well, just about everyone in the UK.

Jim Dear.

82 Marketgate,

Arbroath.

JUST over five months ago the leaders of the three main Unionist parties in London were down on bended knee begging us to stay in their Union.

They tried to convince us that we were equal partners across these islands and telling us that our democratic voice mattered to them. But in the last few days the UK press has been awash with shock-horror stories warning of a tartan terror

in the shape of 50 or more SNP Members of Parliament.

How can the Unionist parties expect Scots to vote for them when they show such contempt for our democratic choices? I don't remember a clause in the now infamous Vow that stated "new powers guaranteed but only if you vote for us". These parties had better think and think fast about what they're implying or they will reap a bitter harvest come May.

Andrew Wells

16 Eastfield Crescent,

Dumbarton.

WHEN is a coalition not a coalition? When the SNP is involved - then it is "a deeply sinister threat", and sabotage of "the democratic will of the British people" , according to Conservative HQ.

Jim Lawrie,

6 Donohoe Court,

Bishopbriggs.