FROM the contents of Friday’s National it seems the subject of rent controls is again making its way to the top of the Scottish political agenda. On one hand Green MSP Maggie Chapman claims that the SNP’s plan for rent controls falls far short of what is needed. The SNP’s Paul McLennan is proposing a cap in controlled areas. A consultation on this subject will apparently be held in the spring of 2025. It seems the Scottish Government have learnt nothing from their recent attempts to freeze rents, which eventually led to large increases.

READ MORE: Maggie Chapman: Rent control plans fall far short of what’s needed

I used to own four rental properties but have sold three of them as the tenants have left. As I approach retirement I have not the willpower to deal with the ongoing hassles and the increasing costs of, for example, buildings insurance – up 20% this year. I will probably sell the remaining flat some time next year. As long as they have been paid on time I have kept rents below the average rate and have been thanked by my previous tenants for doing so.

There are bad landlords and bad tenants out there but both are in the minority. The other landlords I have met in recent years are increasingly disheartened by the antics of the Scottish Government and their Green allies who seem determined to paint us as evil, money-grabbing and frankly belonging to the pages of a Charles Dickens novel.

READ MORE: Scottish Government confirms plans to cap rent rises

I am fascinated by the ability and determination of the Scottish Government to control the income of private landlords while at the same time being unwilling or unable to control the income of, for example, the major supermarkets, the gas and electricity companies, or any other business trading in this land.

The laws of supply and demand are applicable to housing. Interfering in this market will not lead to one more tenant being housed but may easily lead to many fewer. The Scottish Government itself needs to supply more houses to meet the obvious demand and encourage the private sector to assist in this process.

Name and address supplied

WHY is the Attendance Allowance not as important as any pension or income support and sufficient for recipients to be included for the Winter Fuel Payment?

I am 81 years of age, have use of a blue parking certificate and am now a bona fide invalid. I have to be driven to any NHS appointments or just to get out of the house for a cup of coffee somewhere. Not so long ago I was able to attend the independence marches, or drive myself to a public meeting or into town to do a wee bit shop for myself or both of us in a supermarket. I had my full independence of travel and mobility.

READ MORE: SNP 'considering' reversing Winter Fuel Payment cut, minister says

Now I am house bound, being unable to walk due to an incurable neuropathy; which is the loss of all feelings in my feet. This also affects my balance. Thankfully, my NHS-provided walking stick stops me from falling over – most of the time!

So, I ask again, why, in terms of equality, is the Attendance Allowance so far removed from that of a Pension Credit (to which I am not entitled) or the mis-named Universal Credit etc that excludes me, and others like me, from receiving the Winter Fuel Payment?

I am surely not alone in my situation! I ask the question on behalf of all others affected similarly and on Attendance Allowance.

Alan Magnus-Bennett
Fife

PAT Kane’s column in Saturday’s edition misses (for me) the point about the trans debate.

What individuals wish to identify as is none of my business, and good luck to them. Where it becomes my business is when a government I trusted enshrines in law statutes which are effectively stifling free speech, and potentially criminalising our right to express an opinion. Use of language is curtailed and prescribed by a vociferous lobby with a strange stranglehold on our politicians.

READ MORE: Pat Kane: Critics of Scottish Government’s list of genders have got it wrong again

Deeply worrying, and a disturbing move which probably alienates thousands of independence supporters, as the recent election results might indicate.

It does seem as though the SNP have got their priorities badly wrong.

Jim Butchart
via email

I REFER to the somewhat puerile epistle from Ni Holmes anent the Duke of Rothesay, about whom Holmes makes various unsubstantiated statements. According to Holmes, the Duke is a shameless self-publicist who is apparently unable, by wealth and position, to understand homelessness. Could it be possible that the Duke has studied the problem in some depth, possibly even more depth than Holmes?

Holmes – and here I apologise for using only the surname as I do not know if they are a he or a she – wishes to get rid of the monarchy. Having such a desire is perfectly acceptable but is a distraction from the purpose of this newspaper; independence is its raison d’etre.

READ MORE: Budget brought into sharp focus the need to stop funding rich royals

Republicanism is, in fact, a distraction from what I imagine is the main concern of most of your readers. I doubt very much if many are distracted by thoughts of the monarchy. I would like to suggest that possibly a number of those seeking our country’s independence are well disposed to monarchy and some, at least, could be put off by this republican froth.

R Mill Irving
Gifford, East Lothian