I HAVE read and agree with much of Patrick Harvie’s article (Small shift in power is a start for our renters, The National, March 11). The private rental market has had to take up the strain of little or no council building since Thatcher’s days, and it is bulging at the seams.

However, at the risk of sticking my head over the parapet to have it shot at, I thought I would try to give you a taste of the other side of the story.

For most of my working life I have been self-employed and therefore have had to make provision for my own pension.

In part, this is because my National Insurance “contribution” goes to the Treasury, which uses it for many things other than state pensions (and the NHS) so over the years it has preferred to spend on wars, Trident, political cock-ups (John Major and Norman Lamont defending the exchange rate mechanism, for instance), increases in their own pay and that of civil servants and their pensions ... you get my drift.

So the state pension pot – which, if it had been ring-fenced and invested wisely, would have been ample to pay pensions today – is not enough.

I chose Equitable Life to provide my pension. Why not? Well, Thatcher allowed her financial friends to make even more money by deregulating and applying a light touch with the regulations they had left; a course followed by all politicians since. Equitable Life made its own cock-up in the race to make as much money as possible and went bust. My pension pot with it lost value and I received the derisory sum of £500 from the Government for compensation for its spectacular regulatory failing.

My wife and I vowed then that we would not give our money to anyone else to gamble with. Looking about, it seemed that property was the only investment to give even a modest return. We were not wealthy, far from it, but we scraped together the deposit on a cheap flat and took out a second mortgage (you used to be able to do that).

We have always taken the view that we would prefer to have decent tenants rather than more rent. We were in it for the long term, and as long as the rent covered the mortgage payments, we were happy.

We have continued like that for about 20 years now. Most of our tenants have been great, becoming friends and treating us with respect and enjoying our respect and the fact that our rents are affordable. However, there have been one or two that know the system and have become nightmares.

Patrick Harvie states that a landlord can chuck their tenants out just because they feel like it. That is not my experience. I have had tenants who make one monthly payment. It then takes the rest of the six-month rental to evict them, which you can only do through the slow and expensive court process. Just before eviction, they clear off leaving thousands of pounds worth of damage to my property.

Do I have any hope of getting the mortgage payments, rental, court and damage costs back? Not a chance. To this type of tenant, we are fat cats and have everything coming to us.

So why do we continue to rent out property? I am not sure I have any other choice. The bankers and our supine Government have made investment – okay, okay, gambling! – with our money extremely risky. I was burned once and do not want to be again.

Even if I had money to invest, the return from the banks is now pathetic. I hope the balance of power is not tipped too far in the direction of tenants. I have always taken the view that the property they rent from me is their home and treat them accordingly – until, that is, they  decide I am fair game and decide to live free at my expense.

At that point, who would be a landlord?
Name and address supplied


A Scottish honours system would be miles better

I WAS delighted to read that Kirsten Oswald MP is seeking a parliamentary debate about a National Defence Medal to those who have served in the armed forces (Grayling dismissive of SNP call to debate armed forces medals, The National, March 5).

The dismissive response from Westminster's Conservative Chris Grayling was inane and predictable. He said such recognition would demean the system. Grayling could do well to reflect on what his own Government is doing before rejecting such an award.

The Tories and their LibDem friends gave a Queen Elizabeth medal to the pop star Justin Bieber for services rendered. Seriously. While at the same time, because Westminster ran out of these medals, firefighters in Scotland were deprived of an honourable civic recognition. Westminster gives pop stars a medal while those who risk getting burned, shot, stabbed, assaulted in their service and civic duty protecting others – putting themselves in harm's way are not to receive a small thank you from a grateful nation.

Is it not time for Scotland to start unilateral declarations of independence in the way we manage our country? Why do we not just ask Holyrood to create our own Scottish honours system? Who can stop us? Surely we can do a far better job creating a way that Scottish society properly and honourably recognises those who have given service to protect others?

Please can the Scottish Parliament debate the creation of a Scottish honours system, thereby removing the insult that Westminster Tories propagate ad nauseum each time they send the 56 Jock MPs away with a flea in their ear. We already see red-top newspapers making annual awards, but this issue deserves better than that. A formal Scottish Parliamentary solution that respects the wishes of Scotland and this nation's people. A Scottish honours system.
Russ McLean
Carnoustie


YOUR article regarding the Holyrood demo by around 200 people, the majority of whom seemed to have been farmers, was most informative (Lochhead is heckled by angry farmers, The National, March 11).

However, the accompanying photograph raised issues for me. At the front of the crowd were son of the soil Iain Gray, who has shed his nicky-tams for the day, and Ruth Davidson, or "Rural Ruthie " as she is known in bucolic circles.

Taking time out from spreading slurry and mucking out the byre.

Ruthie's attendance was all the more commendable given her constant back-breaking tilling of sour, unforgiving stony ground which, despite continued spreading with dung, remains stubbornly unproductive. Thankfully, she spared us the spectacle of her being photographed astride the bonnet of a Massey Ferguson.

My main issue was the fact that Gray and Davidson, possibly in light of the looming Holyrood elections, displayed a selfish element of self-interest by being pictured flanking a banner bearing the plea: "Save Our Bacon Now!"
Malcolm Cordell
Broughty Ferry, Dundee


HAMISH MacPherson's analysis piece on Friday included the line: "That is largely down to two people – King Edward l of Scotland(sic) etc." (Discovery could shine a light on chunk of our heritage that has been shrouded in mystery for centuries, The National, March 11). Should that not read "King Edward l of England"? Was he also crowned King of Scotland?
Ian M Cockburn
Edinburgh


THE findings by the Competition and Markets Authority into fuel charges/tariffs is very welcome, especially for those who pay for their fuel through a pre-payment meter, whose tariffs are to be capped (Millions of low-income households could see energy bills capped, The National, March 10).

The findings certainly expose the lack of action over many years by the UK Government, which has responsibility to protect customers yet has allowed energy suppliers to run amok and plunge vulnerable customers into fuel poverty.

The findings put strong emphasis on the opportunity to change supplier, a route many have taken in pursuit of lower fuel costs. But is it not time the energy suppliers started rewarding their loyal customers, who have not jumped ship? Do they not deserve a "loyalty" bonus/tariff?
Catriona C Clark
Falkirk