DAVID Cameron and Ed Miliband would have us believe that each of them has the tactical, strategic and diplomatic qualities required to preside over the government of the UK, with no support of any sort from any other party.

Yet in relation to what is almost certain to be the very first challenge for the next Prime Minister, they both seem fair dumfooner't. Faced with the almost certain phenomenon of 50 or so SNP members taking their pews in the body of the kirk at Westminster, Messrs Cameron and Miliband are like rabbits caught in the headlights. Instead of embracing what could be a rare opportunity for a more enlightened, compassionate and transparent form of government for the whole of the UK, they resort to ridiculing, discrediting and vilifying everything the SNP stands for. Some may think this a risky strategy since it was the same tactics which, while denying Scottish independence last September, led to the SNP's subsequent surge in popularity, and in turn to the very situation which the main parties now perceive as such a threat to democracy.

Nick Clegg, for his part, reveals that the LibDems will do whatever they have to in order to keep enjoying the trappings of vicarious power. They will jump into bed with whichever party has what he terms "the greatest mandate", but it must be an exclusive liaison. Unable to countenance the possibility that his party may cease to be the third largest at Westminster, his approach to the SNP seems to be to demonise the party's former leader and ignore the very existence of its new leader.

With bookmaker William Hill offering odds on an estimated 14 potential election outcomes, the significance of the smaller parties - not just the SNP - has assumed much greater significance than ever before. There is an unprecedented opportunity here for a new style of inclusive consensus politics, to replace the conceited bullying and blustering that so many of us are so scunnered of. But still the main party leaders seem determined to cling to the status quo. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that what matters most to them is their own narrow self-interests, their own lust for power, and not what is best for the country.

Once the votes are counted, the cattle trading will begin. Deals will be done and working alliances formed. Many previously declared fine principles will be reluctantly swallowed. Most of the glittering baubles offered in the party manifestos will fall victim to the pragmatism of funding constraints and the many other political and administrative strictures of government.

Whatever transpires, of one thing I am certain; the energised and enriched political will of Scotland's people following last year's referendum means that politics in the UK will never be quite the same again.

Iain Stuart,

34 Oakbank Crescent, Perth.

SINCE 1935 the SNP have had an aggregate of 52 MPs elected to Westminster from 19 elections. In this single General Election it is possible that the SNP may exceed that 80-year total.

Yet the political scientist/expert David Torrance tells us "that nothing is new under the sun, especially in politics" ("It's the 1970s all over again as a hung parliament looms", The Herald, April 27).

This election is a wholly new political experience.

TM Cross,

18 Needle Green, Carluke.

THE prospect of the SNP holding Labour to ransom in the event of a hung Parliament fills me with horror. The one aim of the SNP is to break up the Union, the aftermath being that Scotland would become a basket-case economy like Greece. The previously unthinkable idea of a coalition between the Conservatives and Labour is one which might bring a measure of stability to the country. The NHS would no longer be used as a political football, and with Mr Putin on our doorstep, Trident would be safe. In respect of many other policies, the differences between the two parties are not as great as sometimes perceived.

I hope that if the polls are at all accurate, David Cameron and Ed Miliband will at least talk to one another. I shall for the first time vote tactically on May 7.

David Miller,

80 Prestonfield, Milngavie.

IT is not unreasonable for people in Scotland ask why the SNP appear to be riding high in the opinion polls given there was a decisive vote against separation in the recent referendum.

For example, do the nationalists have a more ambitious and robust economic policy when compared to the other major parties or is it simply about populism and nationalism?

If you believe Nicola Sturgeon the answer would be that it was the SNP economic policy. After all, according to her, it is only the nationalists who have a plan to end austerity and in order to add conviction to her rhetoric she demanded immediate full fiscal autonomy (FFA).

Unfortunately for the SNP the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has just reported that austerity would be deeper and more prolonged under their plans than Labour and with regard to the demand for FFA there was further damaging news for the SNP as a £7.6billion black hole was highlighted - also by the IFS (" IFS places a question mark over SNP's anti-austerity programme", The Herald, April 24). True to form the SNP declared there must have been some misunderstanding with the figures and immediately went into denial mode.

So, rather than acknowledge the disastrous consequences of attaining FFA , Ms Sturgeon went on a rebranding exercise and renamed FFA as "full fiscal responsibility" (FFR) thus digging an even bigger hole for her party by trying to explain that FFR would mean Scotland would only have fiscal control "over time" - again ignoring the IFS report which also stated the "fiscal gap" would widen to a minus £9.7billion by 2019/20. No surprises then for the reason why the SNP won't publish an updated oil and gas report ahead of the General Election as it would make nonsense to her claim for "ending austerity" and that independence would have only required 18 month.

Clearly the reason for the SNP position in the polls cannot be about economic competence but more about a mixture of unashamed populism and nationalism expounded daily by Nicola Sturgeon and her unquestioning supporters.

Ian Lakin,

Pinelands, Murtle Den Road, Milltimber, Aberdeen.

OVER the last few years we have been subjected to various pronouncements from this "respected, independent" Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS). Almost every day its latest projections are rammed down our collective throat.

Over at least the past 20 years the UK economy has proceeded, despite billions of oil money, from one crisis after another leading to the necessity of cutting benefits to the poorest in society and doubling the National Debt - now apparently £1.5 trillion (The mind boggles).

Two questions: Did the IFS forecast and warn about this trend? If it did, why was it not heeded?

If it did not, how can we accept pronouncements from this institution if they missed such glaring economic signals?

Jim Lynch,

42 Corstorphine Hill Crescent, Edinburgh.

I MUST remind Nick Dekker (Letters, April 27) that this is a British election and nothing to do with Scottish Independence, so having a Labour Party leaflet printed in England is perfectly legitimate. Where was Alex Salmond 's latest book printed? It was printed in England by a Rupert Murdoch- owned company. So much for Mr Salmond's much-acclaimed patriotism and support for Scottish printers.

Catherine Taylor,

14 Barra Avenue,

Wishaw.

I AM certain that John McAleer makes a common mistake in thinking that there is " widespread disaffection" with the way Westminster operates (Letters April 27).

I find that his critical analysis that Westminster suffers from a "hidebound attachment to traditions and trappings" rather misses the point. It is surely the very stability which such a display of ritual endorses which provides a secure platform for the established process of political change.

I suggest that if there is a need for parliamentary reform, Mr McAleer should look closer to home. If the First Minister is successful in mustering a huge majority of SNP MPs out of the 59 Scottish members I wonder if the need for a Holyrood parliament is not therefore diluted ? It is difficult to pin anyone down on what has been the net added value of having this expensive and centralisation-obsessed body.

Now we are witnessing wholesale devolution within the UK in the wake of the "vow", would the possible success of the SNP on May 7 not provide the opportunity to reform our Scottish local authorities? I suggest that after the General Election it may be the time to consider that the Holyrood experiment has not worked as some had hoped. Perhaps a solution is an empowered a number of around 12 local authorities, made through amalgamations, with significant financial resources devolved directly from Westminster, economically cutting out the middle man. We could retain a shrunken Holyrood with certain duties.

Since the SNP came to power I have felt as alienated from the Scottish Parliament as John McAleer feels about Westminster. The only reason we may find for retaining the Holyrood building would likely be that it is unsellable. The taxpayer will undoubtedly write off the scandalous £414mconstruction and the only consolation is that the maintenance costs have now spiralled so dramatically that some believe it may be cheaper to demolish it in a few years time.

Bill Brown,

46 Breadie Drive,

Milngavie.

I HAVE just listened to Ed Milliband say on TV: "This election could come down to a few hundred votes in a dozen constituencies". As an indictment of first past the post, I could not have put it better myself.

John Boyle,

11 North Crescent Road,

Ardrossan.