What on earth are my former Liberal Democrat colleagues up to?

I hope they will read Iain Macwhirter's excellent column (The Herald, May 7) and think again about the position they appear to be adopting. For the first two Scottish governments, we supported the Labour Party not because we particularly liked it (in fact, we vehemently oppose much of what it stands for) but because the democratic process awarded Labour the majority of seats in the parliament. It was necessary to provide stability while, at the same time, achieve implementation of important parts of the LibDem manifesto.

So, what is different this time? On grounds of consistency, LibDem MSPs have a duty again to respect the wishes of the electorate and join the Nationalists in implementing those policies that both have in common.

The questions of more powers for the parliament, independence and all the rest can be referred to a constitutional convention leaving the SNP, LibDems and the Greens to get on with the business of governing the country. The three are likely to have far more in common than the previous coalition partners.

It is obvious from last week's election that the people of Scotland want to see a new government with fresh ideas. Are the LibDems saying they do not want to play any part? If so, why did we vote for them?

Graeme Pagan, former chairman/convener, Argyll and Bute Liberal Democrats, Neaveton, Rowan Road, Oban.

Until recently the LibDems have been pleased to join the Labour Party in a coalition government for Scotland, during which time the Labour Party took us into an illegal war in Iraq, declared it will spend billions on Trident and build more nuclear power stations. The LibDems and the SNP have both voted against these, yet the LibDems will not co-operate with the SNP despite agreeing with Nationalists on these important matters. They seem to me to be more obvious partners than Labour for the LibDems.

What is their problem? It seems to be the threat of a ballot to break up the UK and become independent. That shouldn't be a problem. If the people of Scotland had a referendum on separation, they would vote against it, as the people of Quebec have done.

Also, for the LibDems to declare that they will not allow the people of Scotland the right to have a say is arrogance of the worst order.

The LibDems' campaign was badly led; having a young, good-looking man playing with his children was not impressive while the problems of old people were almost ignored.

The election was chaotic, as I forecast, but whether the LibDems like it or not, the Scottish Parliament has got to work and they and the SNP must get together rather than acting like petted brats.

Fred McDermid, 8 Boghall Street, Stonehouse.

I agree with every word of Iain Macwhirter's column, and it should be required reading for the LibDem leaders, who seem to have lost the plot. Taking a tough negotiating stance is one thing, but to reject publicly any coalition deal before they even know what is on offer is just plain daft.

To achieve any working coalition, both sides must make concessions, but it is not for the lesser partner to call the tune.

It now looks certain that Alex Salmond will have to drop the SNP's main ambition to have a referendum, even a multi-option one, for the duration of this parliament. Instead he will offer another constitutional convention to review all the options, which is precisely what the LibDems say they want. This makes good sense and is in the best interests of all the Holyrood parties, so why on earth turn it down?

Apart from the referendum, there is hardly a cigarette paper's difference between the manifesto policies of the potential partners.

This is the best chance the LibDems will ever have of getting 90% of their policies enacted, and they would be crazy to throw away such an opportunity.

Nicol Stephen and Tavish Scott (and perhaps the patrician in the background pulling their strings) need reminding that the SNP won three times as many seats as them, and also gained most votes in both the constituency and regional polls. The LibDems are once again only the fourth party at Holyrood, and lucky even to have another chance of being part of the Scottish Executive.

Iain A D Mann, 7 Kelvin Court, Glasgow.

So the LibDems won't form a coalition with the SNP because of the independence referendum stumbling block.

Would it not be a sensible solution for Alex Salmond to delay the referendum obligation until after the next election while, in the meantime, forming a coalition that would allow his party to demonstrate its ability to implement most of its other policies and, hopefully, prove that the SNP can earn the right again to raise the prospect of separation, but from a much stronger position?

Douglas Cardow, 4 Barns Terrace, Maybole.