MANY of us in the SNP have long suspected that the Labour Party would rather see the Tories in power than work together with Scot Nats ("Sturgeon slates Miliband pledge to sacrifice power", The Herald, May 1).

Hitherto there have been examples of this like the current Lab/Con coalition running Stirling Council (where the SNP form the largest group) to Labour's Better Together alliance with the Conservatives and the lap-dog Liberal Democrats. Last night (April 30) proved our instincts to be valid but even old cynics like myself, or for that matter David Dimbleby, were stunned to hear the Leader of the Labour Party say on national television that he would rather allow the Conservatives back into government if the alternative was to rely on SNP support.

In other words, if the General Election results in a substantial majority for the SNP in Scotland and a hung parliament in the rest of the UK, Mr Miliband would defy the democratic will of the people of Scotland and, presumably, step back as to allow another destructive term of Tory Government. It is all too apparent that only the SNP is pledged to block David Cameron from return to Downing Street but that cannot be done without Mr Miliband's commitment to that cause. Sadly, "Vote Labour - Get Tory" would seem to be an apt slogan for these final days of this bitter campaign.

KM Campbell,

Bank House,

Doune.

ONE thing emerging from the confusion over Ed Miliband's statement that he would rather see a Tory-led alliance in government than an SNP backed Labour one is that he appears to lack the guts to take on the challenge of running the country. Labour and Tory policies apparently now have so much in common that Mr Miliband would rather have the Tory version than negotiate any compromises with another left wing party. Why should anyone vote for a party whose leader appears content to lead the opposition instead of fight to have its policies implemented ?

Maggie Jamieson,

37 Echline Place, South Queensferry, West Lothian.

IN an age when politicians are widely distrusted and accused of always taking facile or expedient positions on public policy it is strange that the First Minister should excoriate the leader of the Labour Party for taking a stand on genuine principle. The SNP's ultimate aim, whatever they say at this election, is the destruction of the UK. That Ed Miliband sees the danger and is not willing to sell out his country for short-term political gain is surely an admirable character trait worthy of praise not blame.

Mr Miliband took on the Daily Mail when it traduced his father. He took on the energy companies when other said it was futile. He took on Rupert Murdoch, something that definitely cannot be said of Nicola Sturgeon, who is in a pact with Mr Murdoch, a mogul whose aim is clearly to deliver a right-wing Tory Government to the UK. Indeed Mr Miliband is committed to a full implementation of the Leveson recommendations (an issue on which the SNP is strangely silent, which is one reason Mr Murdoch wants him to lose.

I suspect the First Minister's rage at Mr Miliband is more to do with the expedient than the principled end of the political scale. The SNP has already ruled out a deal with the Conservatives so Mr Miliband's decision to rule out Labour/SNP co-operation makes the SNP, however many MPs they have, totally impotent at Westminster.

Mr Miliband is right. Country is more important than short-term party advantage. It is ironic indeed that his principles on this, and so many other things, are attacked as weakness by the First Minister and his other political opponents at a time when principle is so sorely lacking in the pursuit and practice of our national politics.

Alex Gallagher,

Labour member, North Ayrshire Council,

12 Phillips Avenue, Largs.

DURING the referendum last year I watched and waited for the Yes vote to win and was so disappointed that we narrowly missed but blamed myself, in part, for not being proactive either orally or in writing.

This time I must speak out and just let you know why this ordinary voter is putting a cross next to the SNP again.

I voted for the minority Scottish SNP government, then again for the current Scottish government and, do you know why? They're good at it!

They have a balance; are not afraid to change their mind and, on the whole, think of the electorate rather than themselves.

Oh, I know the researchers and deep thinkers will pick holes in this generality but free care for the elderly, free prescriptions, free education, subsidised transport for over-60s points to a caring government. A government desperate to improve the health service can't be bad.

A SNP influence at Westminster would not be detrimental to our English neighbours, friends and relatives but pro-active for the whole country.

Perhaps the new Westminster government might cancel the £80 billion rail link from the capital to Birmingham and spread it around a bit; perhaps they might sort out the fat cat bankers and industry chiefs who win the lottery every year without buying a ticket; perhaps they might cancel Trident and spend the £100 billion on the health service.

I think if the entire country had a choice Nicola Sturgeon might easily have been the next Prime Minister, and what a good one.

Ken Mackay,

27 Ormonde Avenue, Netherlee, Glasgow.

GORDON Brown is right to criticise the comments of the Conservative leadership and point out that they are stirring up anti-Scottish feelings among many English voters ("Brown hits out at anti-Scots Tory tactics", Herald 30 April). Some of the recent comments by David Cameron, Theresa May and Boris Johnston were disgraceful and should have no place in a UK-wide General Election debate.

But it IS not just the Tories who have gone beyond the bounds of acceptable political comment - Labour and Liberal Democrat spokesmen are equally guilty. The implication being given by all the Unionist parties is that MPs elected from Scottish constituencies are of inferior status and have no legitimate right to be involved in any way in the government of the whole United Kingdom..

It is nonsense to suggest that it would be undemocratic for Scottish MPs to vote on any matter claimed to apply to England only. This would be especially so if the ban were to apply only to SNP representatives, but not to the three Unionist parties (if there are any after next week's vote). What would be undemocratic and unworkable would be two classes of MP with different voting rights sitting in the same parliament.

And has it not occurred to those proposing this that MPs representing English constituencies - always 80% of the total - have been voting on bills affecting only Scotland for the last 300 years? Why did no one ever suggest that this was unfair? One recent example was the introduction of the hated Poll Tax in Scotland only, and there are many other examples.

Fuelled by a virulently anti-Scottish London media, English voters are being led to believe that SNP MPs at Westminster are somehow illegal intruders, intent only on "breaking up the United Kingdom". Sadly this attitude is being encouraged by recent statements from all three Unionist party leaders. Whatever happened to all those assurances last year that we are a family of nations who are "better together"?

Iain AD Mann,

7 Kelvin Court, Glasgow.

LARRY Cheyne states (Letters April 30) that it seems that I am not prepared to accept the results of referenda if I do not like the outcome. Although I think he was in fact referring in context to the 1997 referendum I would have thought that this charge should be made against many SNP supporters. Is the outcome of one Scottish referendum somehow more sacrosanct and unchallengeable than another one ?

Ever since our nation decided to close the door on independence last September many Union supporters like myself have had our sleep disturbed by the furtive scratching of people trying to pick the lock. We have been conscious of vibrations through our feet of Nationalist tunnellers trying to undermine our UK stronghold. The daily creaking of oak door timbers from the pressing shoulders of a restless army reveals that non-acceptance of the 2014 referendum result is still very much with us.

Is it not therefore in the interests of being even-handed that some of us now believe that if these are the new referenda rules some nationalists want to play by, then the national Scottish referendum of 1997 should also remain an agenda item of challenged decisions? In a rerun I would perhaps vote for a very significantly smaller Scottish Parliament and very much more powerful local authorities and I expect others would too.

The former First Minister provocatively titled his book The Dream Shall Never Die . If the polls are correct and a huge majority of SNP members are elected to the 59 Scottish seats in Westminster I hope that they know their purpose is not to do with dreams. They will not be there to be secret agents of Nicola Sturgeon . They will be there to represent the people, all of the people, in their constituency.

All that is needed to stop this vexed issue of honouring the independence referendum in its tracks is for the First Minister to state categorically that there will be no actions taken by her party to promote the cause of Scottish independence during the average lifespan of those who voted in the 2014 referendum.

Bill Brown,

46 Breadie Drive,

Milngavie.