An open letter to Shelter Scotland

Can’t wait to see Shelter’s reply

A leopard never changes it’s spots. What the new CEO means, in the most left wing area of the country, is landlords will continue to beaten in to submission instead of rewarded. Perhaps she thinks landlords live on another planet not subject to rising running costs and even increased taxes above other working class people.

I would be extremely surprised if Shelter responds at all.

I think it would be interesting (after a suitable period has passed, with the expected zero response) for the article to be published in one of the mainstream papers (if any of them are prepared to do so of course) – maybe that would shame them into responding (faint hope I know !)

Read the room. Nobody in the property industry is. Everyone is tinkering around with policies, announcements and anti-landlord pressure groups that have been carefully choreographed over the past ten years as part of a plan to redistribute property wealth. This is an ideological transformation toward a socialist state, and socialists work on the basis that they must first destroy before they rebuild in their own name and their own way. That is why government and the likes of Shelter will never engage in a genuine economic debate with property owners. They operate from socialist economics, while property owners operate from capitalist economics — and never the twain shall meet.

Property owners remain “owners” in name only, while still carrying the financial and occupational risks. Equity value has been, and continues to be, extracted through taxes and regulation. It is more potent than a CPO, because under a CPO government must pay fair market value and take on the financial and occupational risks itself. Instead, the value is drained first. CPOs will only come later, once the value has already been stripped out. The endgame is a revival of the council estate model at discounted prices, and Kier will claim it as the 1.5 million houses he always planned.

And while we are discussing ideological change, there is another issue nobody seems willing to read. Kier Starmer’s name is already stencilled on the chair of the President of the European Commission when Ursula von der Leyen steps down in 2029 — the same year as the next UK General Election. Starmer the Harmer dragged the UK through the courts after the 2016 Leave vote, repeatedly arguing that the British people did not know what they were voting for and had not voted for how we would leave. He is a consummate European, and ever since that day his mission has been to take the UK back into Europe. The Europeans see him as one of their own — and as a cultural bridge to the United States, a country they do not fully understand but whose wealth and wealth-creation they need.

Starmer’s mission, together with figures such as Miliband — who will be his right-hand man — is to weaken the British economy and loosen the country’s ties with the United States. The argument will then be sold that re-joining Europe is necessary to rescue the British economy, and that sacrificing the pound will simply be the price that must be paid.

Given Starmer’s record, the Conservatives and Reform would normally have ousted him politically by now. But they have been defanged because Starmer has shown them who might take over if he falls — Rayner, Miliband or Burnham. All harder left. All ready with even more confiscatory “wealth redistribution” policies.

This is all being done by stealth. Consider the evidence. Why will the government not allow Britain to use its own gas and coal — under the idiotic banner of CO2 reduction — when the UK contributes barely 1% of global emissions and CO2 recognises no borders? At the same time our energy prices are among the highest in the world, and we are being forced to buy energy from European countries who are becoming richer as a result.

Energy accounts for around 40% of the cost of producing steel. Our energy costs are four times those in the United States. The steel industry has already been crippled, making Britain dependent on European production and European negotiating power in global markets. The UK is being forced to comply with regulatory regimes that no competitive country would accept, because they price British industry out of existence. Then, when the door to Europe is opened again in 2029, we will be told that walking back in is the only rational choice.

Globalists plan in decades. Fifty-year strategies. Hundred-year strategies. Recessions and economic destruction along the way are treated as little more than temporary turbulence on the road to the world they want to build.

Unless land and property owners come together in a large enough and effective coalition, land and property ownership as we have known it will steadily disappear. It will remain in name only while the risks, liabilities and responsibilities stay with the individual owner and the value is progressively extracted by the state. History shows that no industry survives when it stands alone while government policy is systematically reshaped against it. Without organisation, scale and a collective voice capable of matching the forces now aligned against it, property ownership will not be defended — it will simply be managed into decline until it no longer resembles ownership at all.

Mark I must commend you on such a measured and restrained article. Let us hope that Shelter’s response is equally measured and restrained.

And if anybody remains sceptical, ask yourself why a property conference is being held next month for the ‘great and the good’ with the main stage titled: “The Great Repricing.”

They are already saying it openly:

“The question is not whether rates have settled — it’s whether buyers and sellers have realistic expectations of what assets are actually worth now.”

Very happy to respond on behalf of Shelter Scotland. I think Mr Alexander may be confusing us with someone else. Shelter Scotland have never campaigned for or advocated for rent controls and I note he does not cite any statement or report to back up his article. I would hope this clarification is helpful and trust the article can be amended to reflect this fact.

Oops! : )

Reply to the comment left by Gordon MacRae at 13/03/2026 – 14:16
Thank you for engaging with the article.

The purpose of the piece was to invite discussion about the policy debate surrounding rent regulation in Scotland.

If Shelter Scotland’s position is that it has never campaigned for rent controls, it would be helpful to clarify how the organisation distinguishes between “rent control” and the various forms of rent regulation that have been proposed in Scotland, including rent caps, rent freezes and rent pressure zones.

If there are specific reports or statements setting out Shelter Scotland’s position on these policies, please feel free to share them here and I will be happy to review them.

What exactly do we mean by rent control?

The phrase is widely used in political discussion, media reporting and housing campaigns. Yet it is rarely defined precisely. Different people often use the same term to describe very different policies.

This matters because debates about housing policy should ultimately be based on evidence. If we are not clear about the policy being discussed, it becomes difficult to evaluate whether that policy works.

Rent control is not a single policy

In economic literature, the phrase “rent control” is often used as an umbrella term covering a range of policies that limit how rents can be set or increased.

These policies vary significantly in both design and impact.

Some of the most common forms include:

Traditional rent control

This is the form most people imagine when they hear the phrase.

Traditional rent control places strict limits on the rent that can be charged for a property, often fixing rents for long periods or allowing only minimal increases.

Historic examples include rent control systems introduced during and after the Second World War in several countries.

Economists have frequently argued that these systems can reduce investment in housing because landlords have little incentive to maintain or improve properties when rents cannot adjust to reflect costs.

Rent stabilisation

Rent stabilisation is a softer form of regulation.

Instead of fixing rents indefinitely, these policies limit how quickly rents can rise. Increases may be linked to inflation, wage growth or a defined annual percentage.

Supporters argue that this approach protects tenants from sudden rent increases while still allowing landlords to adjust rents gradually.

Critics argue that even moderate restrictions on rent increases can discourage new investment in rental housing over time.

Rent freezes

Rent freezes are typically temporary measures introduced during periods of economic stress.

They prevent rent increases for a defined period, often a year or two, while policymakers attempt to address wider economic pressures.

Scotland’s emergency legislation during the cost-of-living crisis is one example of this approach.

These measures are generally presented as short-term protections rather than permanent housing policy.

Rent pressure zones

Rent pressure zones allow governments to limit rent increases within specific geographic areas where rents are rising rapidly.

Scotland introduced powers to create such zones under the Private Housing (Tenancies) (Scotland) Act 2016.

In practice, however, relatively few zones were ever implemented.

Why terminology matters

The reason these distinctions matter is that discussions about housing policy often collapse these different mechanisms into a single phrase.

One group may oppose “rent control” while referring specifically to strict long-term caps.

Another group may support “rent control” while referring only to temporary limits on rent increases.

Both sides may therefore believe they are discussing the same policy when in reality they are not.

This is one reason housing debates can become so polarised.

The Scottish policy debate

Scotland has become one of the most interesting testing grounds for these ideas in the United Kingdom.

In recent years the Scottish Government has introduced emergency tenant protection legislation that included temporary limits on rent increases. At the same time, policymakers have explored the possibility of longer-term mechanisms designed to stabilise rents in high-pressure markets.

Many housing campaign organisations have supported these measures, arguing that stronger tenant protections are necessary during a period of rising living costs.

Critics, including many landlords and housing economists, have raised concerns about the potential impact on housing supply.

Their argument is relatively straightforward.

If landlords and investors believe that future rental income will be heavily restricted, they may be less willing to invest in new housing or maintain existing properties.

If that happens at scale, the long-term supply of rental housing may fall.

The question that really matters

Regardless of the terminology used, the central issue remains the same.

Do policies that limit rent increases improve housing affordability and stability over the long term, or do they reduce housing supply and worsen shortages?

That question cannot be answered through political rhetoric alone.

It requires careful examination of real-world outcomes.

Evidence should guide policy

Housing policy affects millions of households, as well as the finances of landlords, lenders, local authorities and taxpayers.

For that reason it is reasonable to ask for clear evidence about the effects of major policy interventions.

If rent regulation improves housing outcomes, the data should demonstrate that.

If it produces unintended consequences, those should also be acknowledged.

Constructive debate depends on this kind of evidence-based discussion.

Continuing the conversation

The purpose of raising these questions is not to criticise any individual organisation.

Shelter Scotland has played a prominent role in housing debates for many years, and its perspective is an important part of the wider discussion.

But if the housing sector is to work collectively to address the shortage of homes, as Shelter’s leadership has suggested, then that conversation must begin with a shared commitment to examining the evidence.

Housing policy should ultimately be guided by what works in practice, not simply by the labels attached to different policies.