Ex­pla­na­tion for ‘ghost’?

Rutherglen Reformer - - Reformer View -

The ac­tiv­ity in the house in Stonelaw Road is far more likely to have been caused by a nat­u­ral phe­nom­e­non rather than a su­per­nat­u­ral one.

In the 1970s when I lived in Green­hill Street, Ruther­glen I was wak­ened in the early hours of the morn­ing by the foot of my bed vi­o­lently bang­ing up and down and I shouted “there’s a poltergeist in my room!”

When I got up I was thrown across the hall and mum and dad said all the win­dows had rat­tled in the front of the house where they were.

My brother was driv­ing down East Kil­bride Road at the time and his car veered from side to side with the vi­bra­tion.

It turned out to be a mi­nor earth­quake.

It could be that this prop­erty is on a fault line though you would ex­pect other parts of the area to also be af­fected. Dorothy Con­nor Ruther­glen about the level of re­source many small firms can al­lo­cate to train­ing and de­vel­op­ing ap­pren­tices.

At present, we have a full time ap­pren­tice and he is do­ing a great job – ex­tremely will­ing to learn, keen to in­put to the busi­ness and a bit of a self-starter.

We also hope that by tak­ing him on as an ap­pren­tice that we have nur­tured some loy­alty which might other­wise be lack­ing.

What is galling and dif­fi­cult for us as a busi­ness to jus­tify is the lack of both prac­ti­cal and fi­nan­cial sup­port we need to sus­tain an ap­pren­tice­ship pro­gramme.

The cur­rent po­si­tion is that if we em­ploy an ap­pren­tice, we have to con­tinue to pay a salary whilst the ap­pren­tice at­tends a col­lege course which can some­times be of du­bi­ous qual­ity.

We also need more fi­nan­cial as­sis­tance to jus­tify hav­ing an ap­pren­tice work for us – hav­ing to pay a salary whilst our ap­pren­tice is at col­lege is hugely puni­tive on a small busi­ness where profit mar­gins con­tinue to be tight in an in­creas­ingly com­pet­i­tive mar­ket.

We want to con­tinue to em­brace and train ap­pren­tices but as a small busi­ness, we need pol­icy mak­ers to make it a far sim­pler process and the gov­ern­ment will have to go much fur­ther to sup­port and fi­nan­cially in­cen­tivise small firms if they want more com­pa­nies to take on ap­pren­tices in the fu­ture. Ken­neth Thom, di­rec­tor, Cre­ate Bath­room and Kitchen Stu­dio

I was amazed at the brav­ery of Scott Agnew who has re­vealed he suf­fers from HIV (Reformer, Au­gust 10, 2016).

His de­ci­sion to open up about his con­di­tion will, hope­fully, dis­pel some myths about this dis­ease.

HIV is no longer a death sen­tence and peo­ple liv­ing with it do not de­serve to be treated as pari­ahs.

Hope­fully his words can bring com­fort to oth­ers and per­haps make things a lit­tle eas­ier for those in a sim­i­lar con­di­tion. Anne McLaugh­lin Ruther­glen

an­nounce­ment of a £100mil­lion pack­age of in­vest­ment to stim­u­late the Scot­tish econ­omy in the wake of the EU vote is to be wel­comed.

What how­ever, is deeply alarm­ing is the fail­ure of the UK Gov­ern­ment to say that it will match the more than £5bil­lion in EU funds de­liv­ered in the lat­est fund­ing pro­gramme (2014 to 2020), in fu­ture. This was some­thing I, among oth­ers, warned in the run up to the EU ref­er­en­dum in June.

The vast ma­jor­ity of fund­ing is through the Com­mon Agri­cul­tural Pol­icy, with mas­sive fi­nan­cial gains for farm­ers. They are due to re­ceive 4.6bn eu­ros (£3.9bn) to de­velop food, drink and wider ru­ral busi­ness, es­pe­cially in more re­mote ar­eas.

The Euro­pean Struc­tural Fund in­cludes 941m eu­ros (£808m) of in­vest­ment for com­mu­ni­ties to re­duce poverty and boost skills de­vel­op­ment and eco­nomic ac­tiv­ity. Seafood and marine sec­tors are due to re­ceive 107m eu­ros (£91m).

Pre­vi­ous programmes de­liv­ered around £49m to 1000 projects, gen­er­at­ing around £214m of in­vest­ment and sup­port­ing 8000 jobs.

Scot­tish or­gan­i­sa­tions have se­cured £186mil­lion in re­search and in­no­va­tion fund­ing since 2014.

The ac­tion of the Scot­tish Gov­ern­ment in fund­ing a stim­u­lus pack­age stands in stark con­trast to the lack of a plan from the Tories at West­min­ster.

It is a sim­ple fact that if we ac­cept Brexit and are forced to leave the EU against our will, fund­ing for Scot­land will be left in the hands of a Tory gov­ern­ment in Lon­don who have never had Scot­land’s best in­ter­ests at heart. Alex Orr Ad­dress supplied

Busi­ness­es­need more­help Scot­thas­been­so­brave In­vest­ment­plan­needed We­mustin­vest in­hous­ing

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from UK

© PressReader. All rights reserved.