COULD the SNP Westminster Group be planning a takeover by stealth of Holyrood? Hot on the heels of Angus McNeil's suggestion that MPs should resign and force by elections and Joanna Cherry's intention to become an MSP it has now been reported that Kirsty Blackman MP is being asked by grassroots activists to stand in the Aberdeen Donside Holyrood seat.

When you factor in the announcements by six MSPs to stand down there does seem to be something brewing. After all, the SNP's 48 MPs are twiddling their thumbs in Westminster, whereas they no doubt see themselves as much better than the current crop of MSPs and he reinforcements required to retain power in Holyrood

Perhaps it is time for the Conservatives, LibDems and Labour to redeploy the many able MPs they lost in December to the battle for Holyrood and Scotland's place in the UK

Allan Sutherland, Stonehaven.

SO Michael Russell, SNP Cabinet Secretary for the Constitution, Europe and External Affairs is to step down at the 2021 election ("Russell joins SNP exodus as MSP to retire at 2021 Scottish ballot", The Herald, March 2) – meaning Joanna Cherry now has both a Holyrood seat and a key role to aim for next year. Lucky her, unlucky us.

Martin Redfern, Edinburgh EH10.

JACKIE Baillie, a candidate for the Labour Party’s Deputy Leader, gives three reasons why the Labour Party must continue with the disastrous policy which has done such damage to the Labour Party in Scotland – denying the right of the Scottish people to have another independence referendum elections ("Favourite to be deputy says Labour must oppose Indyref2", The Herald, March 3).

She claims that it would be against Labour "values" to accept the right of the Scottish people to have such a vote. This claim flies in the face of Scottish Labour history. The Labour Party was put together by people who supported the right of the Scottish people to self-determination, and the Labour Party in Scotland supported the claim of rights.

She also claims that work on a referendum would damage public services and provisions, although she offers not a scrap of evidence for this remarkable assertion which has no rational basis.

She also claims that if "we" do not support the "ends" then "we" should not support the means. Now that is an interesting statement if we can work out exactly what it means.

She does not define who "we" are, she appears to be speaking on behalf of all Labour Party members and supporters, but she can hardly do that since we know that there is not a clear unified position on this in the Labour Party.

By connecting "means" with "ends" in this way her statement could be read as "The ends justify the means". If I do not like the ends, I can reject the means. Well, the "means" in this case is the exercising of democratic rights. The logic of her stated position is "if I do not like the plans and objectives that people want to implement, I will then object to people having an election in order to prevent this".

This is an appalling rejection of democratic principles by someone who has made a living by means of our democratic system.

Andy Anderson, Saltcoats.

PETER A Russell (Letters, March 3) states that he is “fed up with Scotland being represented by a party that we did not vote for”. What I am sure he, along with several other regular Herald correspondents, really means is “a party that I did not vote for”. Fortunately or unfortunately, under the present systems the results of UK and Scottish Parliamentary elections are exactly what “we” voted for. Murdo Fraser’s rather lukewarm response to the Electoral Reform Society’s report indicates that he is all too aware of the pitfalls for the Conservatives in making any changes, so I suspect we should not hold our breath waiting for the reforms that both Mr Russell and I would like to see explored.

As to the role of the Green Party in propping up the current Scottish Government, this appears to the role of minority parties wherever proportional representation is practised, to the extent that their leaders are often dubbed kingmakers. Opposition parties wishing to unseat the incumbents must produce a raft of policies that could suggest to the voters that they might do a better job. Or, in the case of Scottish opposition parties, produce policies.

Robin Irvine, Helensburgh.

WHILE agreeing with Peter A Russell on the principle of electoral reform, I am surprised that he did not provide the fuller detail of the findings of the Electoral Reform Society ("SNP’S 2019 election result was ‘most disproportionate’ in UK", The Herald, March 2). The analysis clearly shows that the Conservative Party, with 43.6 per cent of the UK vote, received 56.2 per cent of the UK seats. This was an award of seats grossly disproportionate to the votes received by them, resulting in a large majority to govern a country where more than half the electorate failed to vote for them.

To paraphrase him, I am fed up with the UK being governed by a party that we did not vote for.

Frank Mechan, Paisley.

Read more: Cherry moves to stop SNP MPs endorsing candidates in selection battle