Democracy at risk My understanding of the chosen voting system for Holyrood is that it was designed to ensure that no single party would achieve an overall majority and, as a result, the various political parties post-election would be obliged to co-operate to ensure there was some form of stable administration for the good governance of the country. Failure of any party to offer that co-operation runs counter to the designed electoral procedures; and the actions of the Liberal Democrats, in particular, would appear to represent an attempt to subvert this essential underpinning of the administration of Holyrood.

Given that it is likely to have to operate as a minority administration, the SNP is presented with a dilemma. To ensure it continues in government, it could promote policies that are designed to command the support of the other parties. However, it will then be seen to be abandoning its manifesto commitments, with a disastrous impact on its supporters throughout the country. The voters at large will also be unable to distinguish between an SNP administration and the previous one(s), with the inevitable harmful impact on the perceived benefits of nationalism and/or independence at future elections.

On the other hand, the SNP, after an interval of the passage of uncontroversial legislation designed to demonstrate its ability to handle both the executive civil service and the parliament, could then introduce some of the key (and controversial) elements of its manifesto. If the other political parties were then seen consistently to obstruct the implementation of these policies, which the electorate had so recently endorsed, they would be flying in the face of the democratic process. In these circumstances, the SNP should not hesitate to force another election and let those who frustrate the wishes of the electorate pay the price.

If it is countered that the majority of the electorate opposed these key elements of the SNP's programme, does that mean winning most seats in our electoral system carries no significance, and that it is not meant to convey any advantage or benefit in the subsequent parliament? If there is no gain from being the victor, then what is the point; what price democracy? - Bill Stewart, Earnville, Dunning, Perth.