As a long-term member of the Liberal Democrats, I have been following the party's post-election mental gymnastics with astonishment.

First, if you stand then you should be prepared to serve. The people of Scotland want a working government and I suspect will have little time for those who deny them one. If the Liberal Democrats are not prepared to serve, why on earth should anyone vote for them?

It is, of course, their prerogative not to go into government if they cannot work with another party. However, we don't even know that since they did not even bother to enter into any meaningful discussions. And now we come to the reason why they did not reach that stage - the SNP propose a referendum on independence. No matter that such a proposal is a de facto acceptance that the SNP must govern under the current rules of the game and require a further validation before independence becomes possible, no matter, too, that independence is a legitimate democratic aspiration, nor even that the Liberals have happily supported referendums when it has suited them in the past. Even less matter that on a question of such moment the people of Scotland have a right to be consulted.

The people of Scotland made their views known this May. They wanted change. And my party has failed them. Their current position is intellectually illiterate and politically asinine. It seems to me that Voltaire's famous comment on the Holy Roman Empire: "Neither Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire" might be translated to the current day and applied with equal validity to the Scottish Liberal Democrats.

Hugh Andrew, West Newington House, 10 Newington Road, Edinburgh.

Has it never crossed the minds of my fellow party members in the SNP that the one body that has an indisputable legal right, under the Scotland Act, to hold a referendum on Scottish independence is the parliament at Westminster?

If that organ of the British state wishes to continue holding Scotland within the United Kingdom, it can, and probably will, hold a referendum at a time of its choosing, and on its terms. Given that the SNP seems thirled to a referendum before having a mandate to negotiate terms, no-one in the party could complain.

That is one of the reasons why the people labelled fundamentalists have cautioned against the present line. The British state has not yet started to play in the Scottish question; but it will.

Jim Sillars, 97 Grange Loan, Edinburgh.

As we prepare to enter uncharted territory in Scotland with an SNP minority government, this concept is something our continental neighbours, as well as the likes of Canada and New Zealand, are familiar with.

In the 1950s, political scientists argued that although minority governments were a possible outcome of PR systems, they were seen as unstable, short-lived and producing weak government, largely because they lived under the perpetual threat of a parliamentary vote of no-confidence.

However, comparative academic research hints at other possible outcomes, largely discrediting this traditional line of thinking. In 1991, a study of governments formed in 12 European countries between 1945 and 1987 was undertaken. This found that all the countries under study had experienced minority government. Indeed, of the 218 governments formed in this period, 33% were minority, while a further 21% were "oversized" (with more parties than needed to achieve a bare majority in parliament). The research found that minority governments in Sweden, Denmark and Norway tended to be the most stable type of government coalition. In addition, research has contradicted the conventional wisdom that minority governments are ineffective, finding that not only is there little difference in government performance and policy outcomes between majority and minority governments, but the latter often perform better.

In terms of an SNP-led executive, there is little doubt that the SNP can establish consensus with other parties such as the Greens and Liberal Democrats through "jumping majorities" on an issue-by-issue basis (when a minority government forges different alliances with the opposition, according to the type of legislation under discussion). This would include issues such as the abolition of the graduate endowment and a slimmed-down Scottish Executive.

Minority government per se is not a sign of weakness, but with careful negotiation and compromise can produce effective and stable outcomes.

Alex Orr, Flat 8, 35 Bryson Road, Edinburgh.