QUITE obviously the SNP are on a roll at the moment and party delegates celebrated that at their Glasgow conference.

Membership has passed 100,000. They threaten to put Labour to the sword in Scotland at May's General Election. Mr Salmond cavorts around London salons and posh magazines, quaffing pink champagne and dispensing his acclaimed political wisdom to the gullible metropolitan glitterati, who, as he intends, are behaving like headless chickens.

Here, and in comparison with England, the tribulations of the NHS (with much higher expenditure per head), and the much weaker performance of university entry, education and research under the "no fees straightjacket", leave the Teflon-coated former First Minister unscathed. Even the long-term collapse of oil revenues, and the resulting black hole in Scotland's public finances under both the devo-max2 and independence scenarios, have done the party little harm.

The party should enjoy its success while it can, and before it is found out. It should heed Margaret Thatcher's warning about the SDP 30 years ago: "You cannot make a souffle rise twice." I am not at all surprised that rigorous research has shown that the "Vow'" did not sway the referendum result towards a No vote ("Referendum No voters 'felt British' and had fears for future", The Herald, March 27). At the time, Lord Ashcroft's exit polls revealed the same truth: the majority of Scots, like the English, Welsh and Northern Irish, are British above all, and justifiably proud of it. Contrary to what it likes to pretend, the SNP do not speak for Scotland. That is all bluff and bluster.

And all will become clear in the General Election. As the latest edition of the influential British Social Attitudes Survey makes plain, "Conservative attitudes" and the notions of leaner and less government are taking a stronger hold on the electorate, across the whole UK. Scots are only slightly more left-wing and pro-EU than the English, according to another survey ("Doubt cast on left-wing, pro-Europe identity of Scots people", The Herald, Match 26). It looks like the SNP have been putting all their addled left-wing eggs in the one (wrong) basket.

Everything points to a Conservative administration after May 7. The SNP will not take as many Labour seats as it thinks, but its behaviour will not enamour English and Welsh voters of the prospect of a hobbled Labour administration in hock to Mr Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon. Prepare yourselves for a Cameron government just short of an overall victory, but its majority bolstered by the other Unionist parties: Ukip and Ulster's Democratic Unionists. With Scotland's "official" leftist consensus starting to crumble, what a delicious smack in the face that would be for the SNP, and what fun for the rest of us.

Richard Mowbray,

14 Ancaster Drive,

Glasgow.

IF it wasn't so serious the concocted outrage and panic at the thought of Scots exercising their democratic right to vote for whomsoever they please would be a laughing matter. When the BBC can carry an on-screen banner of "SNP Threat" throughout a flagship UK-wide political programme any doubts of media bias fly out the window and when the SNP are in effect accused of "radicalisation" of schoolchildren any semblance of reason and balance quickly follow it.

The cosy symbiosis enjoyed by the Conservative and Labour parties safe in the knowledge that come what may, the party apparatus will continue to thrive even after the electorate has sacked them from making a dog's breakfast of running the country will hopefully be consigned to the scrapheap. The hysteria from the chattering classes at the thought of the collective will of the people trumping the narrow interests of the established political parties and the Establishment they continue to perpetuate is music to my ears.

Long live democracy, and it is high time we had one.

David J Crawford,

Flat 3/3 131 Shuna Street,

Glasgow.

THE performance of the politicians at First Minister's Questions about the SNP Government's alleged figures regarding full fiscal autonomy shows, on the one side (Conservative and Labour) some numerical illiteracy ("FM seems spooked by cracks over who is boss", The Herald, March 27).

The background is that any extra funding we have comes from money being flooded into Scotland on the comparable, devolved services in the post-war years to thwart the nationalist threat. From 1978-79 Barnett provided that we would receive a straight 10 per cent population ratio of any year-on-year enhancement England received. So, if our block grant provided 20 per cent more per head than England (for example, England: £100; Scotland £120) and if they received 5 per cent enhancement, they would get £5 per head. We would also receive £5 which is worth only £4 to us on our £120. On our block grant of £25bn, that 1 per cent shortfall would amount to £250m annually. Because the Conservative 1979-97 put more in than Barnett allowed, Barnett was applied strictly only with devolution.

Our block grant under Barnett represents the return of Scottish tax proceeds shipped of to the UK exchequer under devolution, plus an element of the extra post-war funding - it is that latter that the English regard as a subsidy from their taxpayers and which is going to prejudice any acceptable settlement of what they regard as further privileges for Scotland through the Smith proposals. So, the more that Labour Shadow First Minister Kezia Dugdale and others continue to shout about our extra cash form Barnett, the more they compromise our situation.

The problem is that they support the £30bn of further cuts in the pipeline in order to balance the books, following the £160bn of deficit Labour left in 2010.

So, if we have a block grant of £25bn that provides us with a 20 per cent per head advantage, then that advantage is about £5bn, which is about the level of Westminster cuts coming our way. So, unwittingly, the Unionist parties are helping reduce our funding to the viable level required for fiscal autonomy. And if fiscal autonomy is not on the cards for four years, then there would be further shortfall in our squeezed Barnet funding of £1bn (ie 4 X £250m).

So, if my figures are correct, that would reduce the Institute for Fiscal Stduies figure of £7.6bn to £1.6bn. The question is: What is the figure calculated by the Unionist parties, or have they simply swallowed the IFS version?

Left to run on, successive Barnett annual shortfalls of £250m (reducing progressively over time) would reduce our block grant funding to parity with that of England, and that comparison would fall by the wayside with the advent of fiscal autonomy.

Douglas R Mayer,

76 Thomson Crescent, Currie,

Midlothian.