YOU won't often see Sylvester Stallone quoted on these pages, but here goes.

"I know I'm incredibly unpredictable," he once said, "and that's the only thing I'm sure of."

I know how he feels. The only thing I'm sure of - now - is the unpredictability of Herald readers.

I ought to have known that sooner. I wish I had. For in this slot three weeks ago I wrote that the Letters Pages were about to enter the white heat of the General Election debate.

There has, of course, been a fair bit of that. But there has been much heated discussion on topics I just didn't see coming.

I really must learn to ring anniversaries on my calendar. Then I might have known that, with the bicentenary of the battle of Waterloo on the horizon, we would be having lively arguments about battlefield tactics and strategies and the involvement of Scots in the fray.

Similarly, I would have twigged that we were coming up to the 50th anniversary of the death of Winston Churchill, and that the merits and demerits of the life one of the most influential figures of the 20th century would be forensically examined - as would be the fate of the 51st Highland Divison at St Valery.

One thing these two topics have brought home to me is that we have plenty of historians, both professional and amateur, among our readership.

The calendar, however, would not have helped predict some of the other popular issues - the availability (or otherwise) of public toilets, reprehensible aspects of audience behaviour and the perilous state of golf club membership.

That is one of the great joys of this job - no two days are the same, and you never know what's going to be in your mailbag.

The sceptics among you may say that I might not know what is going to be the subject of discussion on any given day, but I ought to have a pretty good idea who will be writing in - we have several frequent correspondents.

That much is true, and we would probably be doing something wrong if we didn't have our share of regulars. However, I as I have been saying in this slot for some time now - since before the independence referendum, in fact - it is gratifying that we have plenty of new names gracing our pages.

I have recently been in correspondence with a couple of frequent correspondents, who were querying why their latest contributions were not used. For the record, no-one is guaranteed to be published. And no-one has a 100 per cent batting average.

Nearly all our contributors communicate by email, but I want to repeat that old-fashioned post is fine. Everything is read, and handwritten letters can be typed into our computer system. I am becoming quite an expert at deciphering idiosyncratic longhand styles.

I do, however, sometimes have trouble with signatures. Please, can those of you who like to sign off with a flourish also print your names? There are too many spelling variations for me to want to second-guess them.

That said, fire up your computers and refill your pens. There is plenty to talk about. I just don't know what yet.