IN the light of the suggestions made in your letters section that our feudal system needs to be overhauled may I bring to your attention the case study of the west coast port of Arisaig - population, 270?

In 1964 a 27-year-old entrepreneur, Murdo Grant, contrived a scheme whereby with the simple addition of a short causeway to an off-beach islet the village would be greatly enriched by a pier, possibly the first, that could be used at all stages of the tide.

By 1972, when Murdo was 35, he had purchased the ground and put a funding package in place which would enable the scheme to proceed but was in his own words ''up against a feu problem''.

This summer with the feu problem only resolved through the death of the superior the now 61-year-old Murdo Grant has at last been able to build the spit of a spit out to his own islet.

This means that the many thousands of people who use his ferryboat to the small isles each summer will now be able to land without either scrabbling over the beach, squelching through the dubs tripping over Scruffs prawn creels, blaspheming, or a combination of all or some of the above.

While it would have been good to hear the side of the late superior it seems that hundreds of thousands of people have been unreasonably inconvenienced through the control of one, unelected, party.

Murdo Grant, who has allowed me to publicise his tale, defines our current feudal system well: ''It's fine when it works''.

Maxwell MacLeod,

The City Croft, Cramond, Edinburgh.

May 13.

R D Williams's suggestion for reform of the feudal system would cause more problems than it solves (May 11). At best the Scottish Parliament would be able to deal with the worst excesses and lay down general guidelines. How then do you determine what is acceptable to the Scottish people in each individual situation? It would be a bonanza for litigation lawyers.

The point about freedom of contract is a red herring. Anyone buying a home in Scotland cannot alter the feudal conditions in their negotiations with the seller. They would have to negotiate separately with the superior, a receipe for confusion, delay, and additional cost.

What possible logical reason is there for being bound by conditions imposed perhaps a century or more ago when the present superior has no real interest in the area? The conditions ceased to be personal contractual conditions as soon as they are included in a title deed. They give a separate interest in land that can be bought and sold just like the land itself, but without the knowledge of the homeowner. The homeowner's position is unlikely to be strengthened by the suggested amendment to the lands tribunal. The uncertainty would remain and he might still be faced with the cost of defending a claim by a determined superior.

The feudal system has clearly had its day. Rather than tinkering about the edges we should be looking at clear alternatives. Let's hope the Scottish Parliament makes it a real priority.

Michael Weir,

8 Latch Road, Brechin.

May 11.

ANDREW Dingwall-Fordyce (May 11) is perfectly correct to point out that my letter was based on what I had read in the press. He was quoted by Dan Buglass in The Herald of April 30 as claiming that ''Sometimes owners need to be away to earn income which is then reinvested in their properties. This helps to sustain fragile rural economies''.

I was merely pointing out that such a defence of absentee landlordism gives a misleading impression of the situation in implying that such persons would normally otherwise be resident. Being ''away'' is normal given that such people originate from outwith the area in which they own land.

Furthermore, by claiming that there are grounds for pursuing absentee crofters where ''there are very good reasons in individual cases,'' the Scottish Landowners' Federation is conceding that absenteeism is an issue. Why then not apply the same standards to those who own tens of thousands of acres of land as are applied to those who hold agricultural tenancies of a few tens of acres?

In Inverness there are 50 civil servants spending around #1.5m regulating 17,000 crofts whose influence extends individually to a few acres of bog and rock. Their ability to assign their croft, sub-let it, decroft it, split it, amalgamate it, even their competence to use it, are governed with what some might argue is an inappropriate and outdated form of paternalism but which, nevertheless, recognises in principle that the regulation of occupancy is in the public interest.

Remarkable then, isn't it, that at the same time the 100 people who for example between them own over half of the entire Highlands and Islands of Scotland are subject to no regulation. There is no Landowners' Commission, no consideration of local needs, of the best interests of the community, or of taking action against absentees.

Endless paperwork can surround the assignation of the tenancy of a few acres of heath above Newtonmore while on the other side of Strathspey 40,000 acres of internationally important land in Glen Feshie are traded between strange people in the VIP lounge at Heathrow Airport with not so much as a cursory glance at any wider public interest.

It is time the SLF recognised that if there are grounds for regulating crofters there is no credible case for opposing some form of regulation for those who own land.

Andy Wightman,

9 Inverleith Terrace, Edinburgh.

May 12.

I NOTE that the Tory Party is endeavouring to alarm the business community regarding the possibility of an independent Scotland.

It is a feature of our local taxation that those in business carry a very high proportion of the community charge for local services. Perhaps the most unjust decision of the last Tory Government was the abolition of rates on sporting estates. These were the last remnants of any taxation on land.

Far from supporting the business community the Tory Party could be regarded as the executive branch of the Scottish Landowners' Federation.

Sandy Lindsay,

3 Manse Road, Kingussie.

May 9.