IN 1981 Labour lost the Gang of Three (later four – Roy Jenkins's party membership had long lapsed whilst European Commission President). Two of them, Dr David Owen and Shirley Williams were highly respected politicians of Cabinet rank leaving on sound principles.

The same cannot be said by any stretch of the imagination for five of the seven Labour defectors today. Whilst every decent citizen sympathises with Luciana Berger and the horrific anti-Semitic abuse she's had to endure, they will have zero for Chuka Umunna, Ann Coffrey, Mike Gapes, Chris Leslie and Angela Smith who have eyes for the main chance, and Ms Berger must appreciate one is known by the company they choose to keep.

Unlike Ms Berger, what these five have in common is that due to boundary changes, all five faced losing their seats at the next General Election – first to deselection for rival branch candidates or fellow MPs, secondly to a rival party – unless given a free hand by the LibDems in an alliance of convenience: which Vince Cable all but promised to any splitting, sitting pro-Remain Labour MP a month ago in his latest rummage for relevance. Coincidence? Hardly.

From the Gang of Four in 1981 we now have 2019's Seven Dwarves.

Mark Boyle,

15 Linn Park Gardens, Johnstone.

IAN Murray states that he will not sign a "loyalty pledge"' to the party's leadership ("MP Murray hits out at 'ridiculous' pledge to Labour", The Herald, February 18). I can readily understand why he takes this position. Such a pledge reminds me of a telling sentence from 1984, the book of Big Brother and the Thought Police – "Nothing was your own except the few cubic centimetres inside your skull."

If the idea of the pledge was designed to discourage disenchanted MPs from leaving the party, it has failed spectacularly with seven MPs, including Chuka Umunna and Luciana Berger, announcing their departure on the same date as the article appeared concerning Mr Murray. While I can, as I said, understand the attitude of the Edinburgh South MP toward the pledge, I find it more difficult to understand why the seven Labour MPs concerned have not at the same time stood down and occasioned by-elections, thus allowing their constituency electorates to determine whether or not they still wish to have their services as Independent MPs.

Ian W Thomson,

38 Kirkintilloch Road, Lenzie.

IT is clear from reading the most recent letters from nationalist supporters published in The Herald (plus views from the heraldscotland.com comments platform) that they and their SNP leaders are in a bind about what to do next regarding how to engineer another way to independence in the knowledge another referendum would be refused (in the foreseeable future) and more importantly know they would lose.

Indeed instead of analysing why their bandwagon is stuck in a rut the SNP’s restless flag bearers are becoming more like barrack-room lawyers desperately seeking ways to try to circumvent a referendum with all sorts of weird and far-fetching ideas.

However if the vote had gone the other way it would be inconceivable to think the Unionists amongst us would have demanded anther vote regardless of the non-existent oil revenues, being outside the EU single market and the UK internal market, shackled to a foreign currency and so on. No, the educated and skilled workers would have done what 500,000 Greeks did in similar economic stress and would have left.

So where does this leave the nationalists? Up the proverbial creek without a paddle in my opinion. In other words unless they can coherently explain the economic case for independence they are going nowhere regardless of what fanciful schemes they conjure up for yet another referendum or whatever they may wish to call it. Now is the time for them to accept the democratic will of the Scottish people and move on and learn from the damage a second referendum did to Quebec 12 years ago, from which they are only now beginning to recover.

Ian Lakin,

Pinelands, Murtle Den Road, Milltimber, Aberdeen.

YOU quote Pamela Nash, chief executive of Scotland in Union, as saying: "There is no such thing as soft independence. Independence would involve breaking up the most successful union the world has seen, building barriers between families, friends and neighbours. Voters won't be fooled by this" ("FM told to go for softest break-up", The Herald, February 15).

I am a Scottish voter who is inclined to vote in favour of independence but I also have friends and family members who live in England with whom I would wish, in the event of Scottish Independence, to remain good friends. I am both concerned and puzzled by that assertion. Why does Ms Nash thinks that a political separation would also involve cross-border social separation? Would the telephone lines be disconnected, the roads dug up and would companies refuse to trade? I can accept that if Scotland opted for independence then when we did cross the border, we might need to show passports, but then I have done that at other borders (for example, Czech Republic/Slovakia, prior to these countries becoming part of the EU) and I did not find it a complicated thing to do. Could it be that Unionists in the UK do not really love us at all – as we were told they do, ad nauseam, during the 2014 referendum?

Perhaps she would also explain why she thinks our joint exploitation of the African/American slave trade and the opium trade in China, constitutes "the most successful union the world has seen"? Currently I hang my head in shame.

Hugh Noble,

Creachan, Portnacroish, Appin, Argyll.

SO obsessed is Keith Howell (Letters, February 16) about his perceived, however delusional, traits in the SNP, that he overlooks virtually identical flaws in the Unionist parties of the UK.

Regarding desperation on Brexit, how else would he describe the antics of the two major parties. Conservative and Labour, with members of each frantically conspiring to rescue some sort of solution by openly meeting together to find common ground for forming a so-called centre ground new party?

His futile attempt to expose a split in the SNP shows sign of desperation; independence does not come as “soft” or “hard” – that is Brexit he is thinking about.

Those such as Mr Howell, determined to undermine independence will have to do better. As a self-confessed financial consultant, who is a relative newcomer to Scotland, would he agree with me that the huge amounts of extra money that successive Westminster governments poured into Scotland in the post-war years, to thwart the SNP, were a bad investment, given that the SNP is now in government at Holyrood?

Douglas R Mayer,

76 Thomson Crescent, Currie, Midlothian.

Read more: Cracks appear in Scottish Labour as MPs quit