Having previously stood as a Scottish Liberal Democrat constituency candidate and as a list candidate in last Thursday's Scottish election, it was with a great deal of anxiety and trepidation that I sat and watched the results coming in.

It quickly became clear we were heading for a hammering.

I don’t think we are lacking so much in quality of people or policy, although it would be great to have a Charles Kennedy or Menzies Campbell in our Holyrood ranks. While Nick Clegg and co were probably the symptom, I’m not necessarily convinced they were the underlying cause.

Tavish Scott said at the weekend that, unlike the previous coalition at Holyrood, we had been unable to get our message across about the Coalition at Westminster. I question this. Despite getting a number of good policies through at Holyrood we have been effectively treading water since 1999 with 17 seats in 1999, 2003 and 16 in 2007 before the plummet of last Thursday.

I believe our problem has been that the Scottish electorate feels no ownership towards the Scottish Liberal Democrats. The SNP are perceived as a party that makes decisions about Scotland in Scotland. Can the Scottish Liberal Democrats say the same? Michael Moore has debunked the idea of devolving additional fiscal autonomy, beyond the present Scotland Act, to Holyrood. Was this just another case of UK party HQ in Cowley Street, London, making decisions that we in Scotland have to try to justify to the public? Not devolving powers to vary corporation tax may be correct from a UK perspective but not necessarily from a Scottish or Scottish Liberal Democrat viewpoint.

In 2007 I stood on a no referendum manifesto. I now think it is time to look again at this. I remain to be convinced about full independence, but we are more than ready to manage our own internal affairs without interference from Westminster.

Politics in Scotland is entering a new period and we should embrace this rather than be frightened to face up to new ideas and challenges. As a party we should make our own decisions about what is right for Scotland, without fear of embarrassing any Westminster politician. It’s now time for a new Scottish Liberal Democrat Party, wholly responsible to the people of Scotland and without fear of interference at a UK level.

Ruaraidh Ferguson,

Somerled,

Milkinghill,

Tong,

Isle of Lewis.

Dr Alexander Waugh (Letters, May 9) states that “the SNP, with 45.4% of the total constituency vote, has secured the election of 53.5% of MSPs”.

In fact the constituency vote, using first-past-the-post (FPTP) to elect 73 MSPs gave the SNP 53, a percentage of 72.6%, for just 45.4% of the total vote. Labour’s 15 constituency MSPs worked out at 20.6% for 31.7% of the votes, while the Conservatives needed 13.9% to win just three seats (4.1%). So once again FPTP failed to produce an acceptable balance between votes cast and seats won.

The second (regional list) vote was designed to correct the anomalies of the FPTP system, and to produce reasonable but not exact proportionality. I would argue that it succeeded, since after combining the constituency and list votes, the final allocation of the 129 seats at Holyrood was as follows: SNP 69 (53.5%) for 45% of the total votes cast, Labour 37 (29%) for 29% of the votes, Tories 15 ((12%) for 13% and LibDems 5 ((4%) for 6%. Only STV could have produced a more accurate proportion of seats.

The FPTP results in the Scottish election prove conclusively that David Cameron was talking nonsense when claiming it is the best and fairest voting system.

FPTP is satisfactory only when there are just two major parties, and virtually excludes representation for smaller parties. It has grossly distorted House of Commons membership and failed parliamentary democracy by guaranteeing a built-in advantage to one or other of the major parties. It also means that a large majority of MPs are elected with only a minority of support from constituents.

Not one of the 36 nations that become independent parliamentary democracies since the Second World War had adopted FPTP as its preferred method of electing a parliament. Yet because of political duplicity and voter apathy, the UK is now stuck with discredited FPTP for at least one more generation.

Iain AD Mann,

7 Kelvin Court, Glasgow.

My good friend, Alex Neil MSP, coined the phrase “political tsunami” to describe the results of the Holyrood Election last week. In certain respects he was right. The Labour Party suffered devastation that had not been predicted and as the results unfolded, the scale of the damage became apparent.

The significance is now clear as we pick over the debris of what was once considered the impregnable Labour machine that has dominated Scottish political life for 50 years. The party had been deeply in debt and tainted by controversy before last week’s election, but now the tsunami has left it shattered. Much of its human capital has been lost and many of the casualties are unlikely to survive as politicians.

However, it seems fair to pass on from the dismal fate of Labour to apply other epithets to this extraordinary turn of events. The SNP Government blew a breath of fresh air through Scottish politics for four years and the voters have now decided that the parliamentary opponents of this breeze should not be allowed to continue obstructing the Nationalists’ efforts to improve the health, welfare and prosperity of our people. Scotland now has the chance to progress briskly with a fair wind under a majority SNP Government.

Unlike a standard tsunami with its unmitigated destruction, disaster and long painful aftermath of reconstruction, this one has swept away the stultifying dead hand of Labour and suddenly Scotland’s future looks exciting and bright.

Dr Willie Wilson,

57 Gallowhill Road, Lenzie.

Well at least there was one master stroke when setting up the Scottish Parliament .Thank goodness we do not have a second chamber to provide a nice billet for the recently redundant MSPs.

Michael Kelly,

4 Merrick Gardens,

Bearsden.

If Scotland becomes independent from the rest of the United Kingdom there will have to be a separate security service/military force to provide the country with all the functions currently provided by Her Majesty’s Forces.

I do hope that the ruling political party will make careful consideration of that fact. There will be a heavy fiscal impact on areas where there are army, navy and air force bases as many of them will not be required for a small country and knock-on effects on the local communities will be considerable. If, by that time, there is only one police force for Scotland then we could become citizens of a state where the power is in the hands of the president or First Minister.

A political party whose aim is independence should be very aware of the ramifications of that policy and the electorate should be well informed before it is asked to vote on that referendum issue.

Five years is not a long time to make a smooth transition to a new situation and so the thinking should be occurring now.

L Minter,

39 Ledi Drive,

Bearsden.

I can identify with most of the views expressed by Bob Holman (Letters, May 9), albeit my efforts over the same decades were on behalf of the even more beleaguered Scottish Liberal Democrats.

New charismatic leadership is a priority for the opposition parties. More attention to presenting clearer, understandable social needs policies and a cessation to haranguing over voting systems is required.

I disagree with Mr Holman on one fundamental issue, namely that Labour might consider repatriating from Westminster either Margaret Curran or Cathy Jamieson as potential Scottish party leaders. Apart from the propriety of such a move, surely the leader elect is already back at Holyrood in the shape of Hugh Hendry, whose Parliamentary stature and record are already proven.

Allan Steele,

22 Forres Avenue, Giffnock.