I CAN well understand why there should be so much trust in Nicola Sturgeon ("Voters trust Sturgeon the most to deliver new powers", The Herald, October 17).

In the post-referendum stramash, she has shown creditable dignity and restraint in the face of the apparent dissembling of Westminster politicians. At the final Yes Campaign rally in Perth on the eve of the referendum vote, her demeanour and interaction with the crowd convinced me that she is an unassuming, compassionate and inclusive politician who will be a very effective leader of her party, and First Minister of Scotland.

By contrast, the behaviour of the Unionist politicians at Westminster following the referendum seems to me more reminiscent of a scene from Through the Looking Glass than a serious attempt at government. Supported by a pack of players that appears to contain only knaves and jokers, a motley selection of Humpty Dumpty-like characters declare that a vow means just what they choose it to mean - neither more nor less. Meanwhile, like the fairy atop the Christmas tree, a dusty old jack-in-the-box keeps popping up to declare that only he has the answer. If it wasn't so serious, it would be funny.

Given the opportunity of a referendum, Scotland has chosen not to become an independent country. We therefore remain dependent on, and subservient to, the decisions and actions of the UK Government. That Scotland's future is being treated with such disdain by the Unionist parties at Westminster should not, of course, surprise us. Many Yes voters predicted that, given a No vote, we would be made to stand in the naughty corner until our political masters decided on the appropriate punishment; and that is precisely what seems to be happening. To try to collect on the promises we think were made to us is therefore pointless, like nailing jelly to the ceiling.

Anent this apparently depressing prospect, I believe that Ms Sturgeon represents real hope for Scotland by working honestly and inclusively with all those, of whatever political hue, who truly want what is best for the Scottish people.

Iain Stuart,

34 Oakbank Crescent, Perth.

I HAVE a notion, based on Peter A Russell's previous letters to the Herald, that he is not an SNP voter or sympathiser. That being the case, there is little for Nicola Sturgeon to gain from obeying his edict that she must abandon a long-held conviction just because he says so (Letters, October 17).

When Ms Sturgeon first joined the party she is about to lead, it was very much in the minority, outvoted and outnumbered by the vast numbers of Labour voters in Scotland. That didn't make her jump ship or aban­don her beliefs to seek political or personal advancement elsewhere, nor should it now. My own advice to Ms Sturgeon (a woman completely lacking in grandeur or formality), is stick with it hen, your time will come.

David C Purdie,

12 Mayburn Vale, Loanhead.

"DEMOCRACY is essentially government by amateurs," says Bill Brown (Letters, October 17). His statement implies that government is too important to be left in the hands of the people.

The beauty of democracy is that it holds within itself a self-fulfilling prophecy: you will get the government you deserve. When I woke up on September 19 to the (to me) sad news that 55 per cent of us had voted No, I thought, fair enough, it means we are not yet ready to take on the responsibility of self-determination.

I wasn't in the least surprised when David Cameron immediately, even before the last votes were counted, came out of No 10 effectively with a unilateral declaration of independence for Greater England that would debar Scottish MPs from having influence on most of the affairs of 90 per cent of the UK's population. This would seal Scotland's fate as a vassal state for a generation, a lifetime. The UK's three main party leaders didn't bother to attend the post-referendum debate in the House of Commons which was hijacked by the Tory back benches and during which Scottish MPs were contemptuously ignored by gossiping parliament­arians preoccupied with their mobile phones. Meanwhile the SNP were told to accept the referendum outcome and shut up about their "idee fixe".

Already it's looking as if the SNP, the third-biggest political party in the UK, will have no representation in the televised debates leading up to the 2015 General Election ("SNP in legal threat over inclusion of Farage in TV debate", The Herald, October 15). That's not very democratic. But then, neither was Mr Cameron's refusal to debate with Alex Salmond, and neither was the absurd "vow" cobbled together by the No campaign two days before the referendum in what should have been a time of campaign policy-making purdah.

Project Fear's greatest fear has always been the fear of democracy. Mr Brown is perplexed by the idea that the SNP should hold such political power in Holyrood when the majority of the electorate voted No. He thinks it's an anomaly. He doesn't say: "That's democracy for you." He says: "The structure of represen­tation should perhaps be reviewed."

I fervently hope and believe the SNP will continue to render the leitmotiv that is the party's raison d'etre, and that people will gradually come to realise that there is a very simple solution to the West Lothian question: it's called independence.

Dr Hamish Maclaren,

1 Grays Loan,

Thornhill, Stirling.

I CANNOT let the letter from James Mills (October 17) pass without comment. What has the present SNP Government done to help end child poverty? Here are some of its actions since 2007:

Mr Mills mentions "poor educational attainment" as one of the reasons for child poverty. Between 2007 and 2011, 3,000 teaching posts were lost and since 2007 130,000 further education places have also been lost. On a recent Scotland 2014 programme an expert said that the problem of inequality was very much due to the low skills of the workforce and what was needed was upskilling. How do the actions of the SNP Government help improve educational attainment?

However, the biggest con by the SNP is the "free" university education for all. Nothing is "free" in government spending. Every penny has to be raised by taxes. The correct term is "taxpayer-funded". Those who attend state schools will get taxpayer- funded school and university education. However, those who attend private schools with parents paying anything from £8,000-£40,000 per year will save that amount of money for their parents when they go to university, as well as having a much better chance of gaining entry. Thus we have taxpayers' money going to the richer elements of society who could afford to pay university fees of £5,000 per year. This would raise about £100 million every year. The SNP Government could do this if it were serious about tackling inequality. This saving could then be invested in state schools. Then perhaps the SNP Government could carry out the conveniently-forgotten policy pledge of maximum class sizes of 18 in P1-3, or even reintroduce the maintenance grant for the poorest students attending university.

Continuing the theme of taxpayers' money going to the rich, £57m per year is to be spent paying for the prescriptions of the 13 per cent of the population well able to afford them.

Once again the mantra of this SNP Government is "to those that have shall be given".

This Government is reincarnating the days of 1979 when the SNP's 11 MPs fell in line with Margaret Thatcher to give us 18 years of Thatcherism. We are witnessing the return of the tartan Tories.

The statement that "no British government, including Labour, has genuinely seen this (child poverty reduction) as a priority" is untrue. Mr Mills is suffering from selective amnesia. Tony Blair, for all his alleged faults, introduced the minimum wage and working tax credits, to mention two actions, which took millions of people out of poverty at the time. Can I also remind him that Alex Salmond recently refused to implement the living wage for a number of workers within his control?

It is therefore with good reason that Catherine MacLeod berates the SNP Government for not doing more to end endemic child poverty ("When more powers talk should take a back seat", The Herald, October 16).

Gordon Taylor,

14 Barra Avenue, Wishaw.