Here are some of your views online.
Don't forget you can read more letters and the best in news and sports coverage in the Glenrothes Gazette every week.

Serious
discontent

I refer to recent comments from Peter Grant, leader of Fife Council regarding complaints about Council Officials.
It is very obvious that there is serious discontent among the people of Fife to generate such a large amount of complaints/debate about this subject.
These complaints aren't about the principle of speed humps nor the need for roadworks but the mismanagement in the timing and appropriateness of the /location/design in various localities (not to mention the money spent) with little or no consultation with the local populace.
Could I suggest that Mr Grant starts asking questions of his officials as to why we have got to this situation where it is obvious the council are not being seen to be doing the job.
Fife is now recognised as rated as having the 29th worst roads out of 32 Local Authority Regions in Scotland, therefore Mr Grant should be addressing this matter rather than trying to beat down the democratic right of people to voice their opinion.
Colin Nikolic
Pitcairn, Glenrothes

Plenty of cash

With regard to the article entitled 'I will take care fight to the top', would I suggest that the activists working on changing the council's mind on their care policy, take a look at the surroundings of Fife House and they will see that there is no shortage of money in Fife Council.
New grass has been laid, new shrubberies planted and new furniture being taken into Fife House itself.
In the event that Fife Council come away with the reply that the monies allocated to the social work department are ring fenced, could they explain what had happened to the monies allocated by the Scottish Government for the purpose of road maintenance, because there is little evidence that it has been used for this purpose.
Allan Murray
Napier Road, Glenrothes

Road signs easily missed

Regarding the turning onto Cadham Road (Gazette, April 16). The signs are not adequate at all.
I turned right a few weeks ago (I never noticed the signs) and only found out that you can't turn right by reading my Gazette, so thanks Gazette and no thanks to the signs.
They are too far from the turning itself, and, as one driver mentioned, it is quite a fast road and they are easily missed.
I'm sure there are some drivers making the right turn with the knowledge of no right turn. But, in my opinion, the majority of drivers miss the signs.
Why not just write it on the road! It would be quite a simple solution.
And I have also waited quite a time (15 minutes at least) waiting to turn right out of Cadham road.
It needs something done. Roundabout please!

Jo Halsall
Cumbrae Park, Glenrothes

Get in touch

As far back as early March I wrote to Transport Scotland voicing concern about the new arrangements of "No Entry" from the north into Cadham Road, this on behalf of the Glenrothes Area Futures Group (the GAFG), while accepting this in principle.
Your readers should know by this time that the A92 adjacent to Glenrothes is being pursued by the GAFG as a major issue since its inception last September.
Indeed, the joint local community councils have been seeking remedies for several years.
Fife Council is now on record as not supporting the A92 with any need of priority, and the MSP gives only moral support to any campaign the GAFG might take.
I would invite local people who are interested in action to make contact with the Futures Group.
Representatives attend GAFG from local community councils, churches and tenants and residents groupings, hence we are in no doubt that we "express the views of the communities in Glenrothes and surrounding area", as stated in the constitution.
Note the website: www.glenrothesfutures.org.uk.

Ron Page
(Press Officer, GAFG)


Political
posturing
Running scared or what? One week we have Wendy trying to convince us that New Labour is a socialist party and now Gordon is trying to show an interest in Kirkcaldy.
Maybe if he and his colleagues had shown such concern ten years ago the new administration in Fife House wouldn't be in the position of having to replace three major sports facilities at the same time.
Despite his successor's "comprehensive spending review" and the tightest budget settlement for years, the mechanism has been put in place to fund £50million of investment in Kirkcaldy, Glenrothes and Dunfermline.
If Gordon Brown wants Olympic standard multi purpose facilities in Kirkcaldy he has two choices:
1. Come up with a satisfactory way of telling the people of Glenrothes and Dunfermline why they can't have their centres. or
2. Provide funds to build what we would all like, but not at the expense of any of the smaller but much needed facilities in the rest of Fife.
He might find a number of problems with both approaches so what about alternatives? Maybe Lottery funding? As most of us now know, GB's funding package for 2012 is estimated to cost Fife about £12.8 million in grants which will threaten all kinds of worthwhile projects, not just sports.
What about CRT funds? Renewed by the Scottish Government, £4.76million for the next three years which has to be shared with all of Scotland's former mining areas.
The amounts given for CRT funding UK wide is an insult to his own and every other former mining constituency.
This "concern" is nothing more than political posturing. If Mr Brown has anything to contribute he should be talking to the administration at Fife House along with the head of Community Services and the Sports & Leisure Trust in a planned and constructive way.
Instead of that he issues a press statement in advance of a "summons" to Kirkcaldy Area Committee at short notice during Easter holidays, and then runs off back to London to welcome the Olympic Torch.
Sorry Gordon, your lot have had a lifetime in control of most of Fife and you have had 10 years in control of the UK purse strings so you will not be surprised that we are less than impressed by your sudden show of interest.

Margaret Wight
Keir Hardie Street, Methil

Road neglect

With reference to Councillor Grant's letter published in the Glenrothes Gazette of April 9, is this him defending the third poorest performing local authority (Scottish Government figures, not mine) and in particular incompetent officials within the Roads Department, who appeared to be fixated on speed cushions, to the obvious neglect of the road systems in Fife?
I would suggest that your newspaper run an article on this subject.
In their employment adverts, Fife Council exort the benefits of residing in Fife, but their senior officials don't practice what they preach as it is well known that they leave Fife every working evening via one or other of the road bridges.
Could I suggest that the Head of the Roads Department adopt the title of Head of the anti-transportation department.

Allan Murray
Napier Road, Glenrothes

Roller coaster ride for care

It seems that service users and hapless care workers are not alone on that ride which is Fife Council's Home Care Charging Policy.
The council's own documents, culminating in the deliberations of the Social Work Committee meeting of March 4, suggest that many of our councillors have also joined 'the Rides of March.'
At that meeting, the last strands of the safety net of an already depleted home care service were firmly cut. The primary purpose of the policy, is not the care of the elderly and disabled but, and I quote, "to recover the full costs of the service provided." It is against this background that the importance of individual impact assessments must be viewed.
Council officials continually cite a consultation process it claims has been ongoing since 2004. This is gravely misleading.
Between 2004-2007 such consultation as did occur with groups concerned only general principals. The relevant date is October 9, 2007, when specific proposals were first placed in the public arena.
Since then, only five meetings with groups have taken place, with a number of comments from unspecified individuals on a largely unpublicised website.
This is a far cry from a serious examination of how those charges will impact on individuals and is consequently, a flagrant perversion of the intent of Section 49A of the Disability Discrimination Act.
At Thursday's council meeting Councillor Ross asked Councillor Brett the following questions:
1) How many individual impact assessments had been done?
2) How many remained to be done?
3) What would be the average amount a service user would pay?
Councillor Brett, though fully aware of the answers, declined to give figures. Well let me enlighten the good Councillor Ross. The answers are; 1) None 2) All 3) Too much.
Little wonder the public lack confidence in the efficacy of the, yet to be undertaken, financial assessments.

Frances Turnbull
Keith Drive, Tanshall, Glenrothes

Alarmed

I have been following the discussion of traffic calming measures for a number of weeks and I am becoming increasingly alarmed at the way this is developing into a campaign of personal abuse against Fife Council employees.
To the best of my knowledge, councillors have voted in favour of every speed bump, hump, cushion or other speed reduction measure that Fife Council has installed.
I don't know of a single instance when officers have installed them without the approval of the appropriate council committee.
That means councillors are individually and collectively responsible for these decisions.
It's part of our job to satisfy ourselves that the advice we get from officers is sound.
Committees can and sometimes do take decisions that differ from officers' recommendations.
Once we've taken the decisions we are responsible for them.
As a Glenrothes councillor, whether in opposition or in administration, I have supported the action the council is taking to reduce traffic speeds and save lives in the town.
As leader of the council I am not prepared to stand back and watch hard working council employees face public ridicule simply for doing the job we have asked them to do.
It is particularly ironic that many of those who use the letters pages of the local press to identify and vilify named council workers don't have the courage to identify themselves.
It's a sad fact that for some motorists the fear of a speeding ticket or a damaged shock absorber is more likely to slow them down than the knowledge that they might kill a child by driving too fast.

COUNCILLOR PETER GRANT
Leader of Fife Council


Dreaded speed humps

Thought I'd write in in support of your readers from last week regarding the dreaded speed humps.
I reckon if a straw poll was conducted there would be a massive ratio of drivers from practically every small town in Fife against the speed humps.
As for Mr Smith `fae the Cooncil's' claims that they don't damage cars – is he plain daft or does he think we're all buttoned up the back?
The bairns at Thornton primary school could tell that the unnatural forces placed on cars' springs, bearings, ball joints etc are obviously going to reduce the working capacity of those parts.
Another quick question for the man fae the cooncil – would you rather be hit by a 15 ton bus or lorry, which can straddle the humps and therefore do not have to slow down, or a 1.5 ton car?
Speed reducing/traffic calming measures are most definitely needed but surely there should be consultation with drivers to find a better solution than the council's 'easy option' of lumping humps here, there and everywhere!

CLARK LAMB
Hill Terrace, Markinch

Vote out dross

It is easy to agree with Mike Grubb's criticisms of the ineptitude and profligacy involved in the traffic-calming measures for Thornton High Street.
And he will 'strike a chord' with many people with his allusion to 'incompetent officials who are never held accountable' (last week's letters).
However, I would suggest that he misses the real point. In a healthy democracy, officials only make recommendations; it is for elected politicians to actually make the decisions.
Therefore, if some officials have offered inept and/or money-wasting advice, then the relevant politicians should decide to get rid of them. And the same applies to any specific issue (such as Thornton High Street).
The responsibility for implementing bad decisions lies fairly and squarely on the relevant politicians. Therefore, it is up to voters to get rid of them.
This may seem a small point to some people; but I would suggest we should take it more seriously. The ongoing lowering of political standards is mainly caused by apathy of far too many voters who seem to think that 'we can do nothing about it'.
Of course we can: if we took the trouble to exercise our basic right on polling days; and thence invest some energy in bringing elected representatives to account for their actions, then, as if by magic, the political 'dross' would be eliminated; and more competent people would come forward.

Jim Parker
Banchory Green, Collydean, Glenrothes


Complete pig's ear

I would like to reply to the comments made by Ian smith, the lead officer for traffic management.
He claims that, due to residents concerns about motorists straying into the cycle lane to avoid the humps, this was causing a danger to cyclists.
I would like to remind Mr Smith that motorists have every right to move into a cycle lane if need be and obviously no motorist is going to encroach into the cycle lane when there are cyclists using it.
Therefore I suspect Mr Smith is only using this as an excuse to back up his actions.
Laying down three humps only put the inner humps closer to the pavement and the motorists, especially lorries and buses, are straddling the inner humps to minimise the danger of damaging their vehicles or themselves.
The only other alternative is to straddle the middle hump which is situated exactly in the middle of the road. This of course is impossible to do because of the volume of traffic. All in all this exercise is a complete pig's ear.
I also strongly suggest that this was an exercise in using the allotted money up before the new financial year starts and not an exercise in road safety.
He proudly proclaims that the money was not used from the council tax but from the Scottish parliament.
Where does he think they get their money from?
They are not a PLC, they do not create money, they only gather in money from the public which is TAX.
He then goes on to mention the transport research laboratory (TRL) which concluded that speed humps do infact slow down traffic. Speed humps are obstacles so of course they will slow down traffic, the same as any obstacle would.
He failed to mention that the TRL also issued a report on the downside of speed humps which runs into pages long.
There are various independent surveys done which are not government-controlled. They are quite an eye opener.
As to Mr Smith and the TRL stating that the humps do not cause damage to any vehicle, I suggest they have a word with their local garage, who will inform them of all the extra work they are getting because of the humps.
Last year I myself burst a coil on my car. The garage said it was probably caused by a speed hump.
The link below is a list of objections to the speed humps submitted to the London assembly. http://www.bromleytransport.org.uk/Speed%20Hump%20Objections.pdf

NAME and address supplied

Cycling woes

I wish to know why the cycle paths,which are designated "safe" by Fife Council, are in a state of disrepair?
On many sections of cycle paths, trees, bushes and rubbish are in the way. Some of the tree branches encroach by several meters, obviously having been allowed to grow for several years.
These branches, at night, could very easily take an eye out. On one underpass, trees, bushes and a salt bin, force any cyclist onto the path of pedestrians, or, forcing the cyclist to cross a very busy road.
There is also the matter of Fife Council's own vans, tractors etc, using cycle paths as a short cut. I myself have witnessed Fife Council vehicles travelling at speed along cycle paths.
I would like to know whether the "cycle paths" are in fact cycle paths, or simply a road, route, right of way, for any travelling vehicle?
How can a "cycle path" be claimed as "safe" for cyclists of "all ages", when there are so many dangers, which include dangerous dogs off the lead.
On one stretch of "cycle path" just opposite the Territorial Army barracks, a snack wagon sits, and anyone wishing to be served has to stand on the cycle path.
Any cyclist cannot see a person walking out from behind the snack wagon directly into the path of that cyclist. An accident waiting to happen.
The truth of the matter is that Fife Council's claim that the cycle paths are "safe" for cyclists of "all ages" is false.
A family simply cannot cycle from one town to the other via Fife Councils "safe cycle paths", some of which are no more than the gutter, which is full of broken glass, debris of all sorts and not to mention parked cars, all of which force the family to cycle on the roads themselves, or onto the footpaths, which, of course, is against the law.
What exactly is Fife Council doing to protect cyclists (of all ages)?

NAME and address supplied

Why three attempts?

I would like to express my disgust at the latest road calming measures in Thornton Main Street.
Regardless of whether one agrees or disagrees with such measures, one fact is clearly indisputable; our council tax is being frittered away.
Once again Thornton Main Street has been dug up and the 'humps' realigned.
This is the third attempt by the council in recent years to correctly do this job, how could it be so difficult?
Perhaps they should have asked the local primary school for help, I am sure they would have been able to work out how wide an average car is and planned the spacing accordingly.
The sad fact is that, once again, our council tax is being wasted by incompetent officials who are never held accountable for their basic mistakes.
How many attempts do these so called experts take to get it correct?
A few years ago the narrowing of the road over the Ore bridge had to be radically altered within two weeks of the job being finished, and in recent times the famous bollard in the middle of the road at the north end of the village was hit by vehicles so often it was eventually never even repaired.
The arguments for and against road bumps are many, but I am sure that just by observing traffic, it is quite clear that buses, lorries, vans and motor bikes are totally unaffected by such measures.
What is undoubtedly affected is damage to private vehicles, increased bills for tyres, suspension, etc. and probably an increased flow of patients to local chiropractors and osteopaths.
I would like a response from Fife Council as to why this job has taken at least three attempts to get right, who is accountable, and if the person is now in the due process of dismissal for incompetence, and gross misuse of public money.

Mike Grubb
Ashbank Court, Glenrothes.

Hypocrisy

I nearly choked on my porridge last Wednesday. It was the two-page article on home care charges that did it – especially the headline "ashamed to be a councillor" by Kay Morrison. Kay said she "would have preferred to see no increases at all".
That's a fair position to have. Except for the slight matter that Cllr Kay Morrison voted in February 2007 to add £500,000 to the income to be generated from home care charges. That is the budget the new administration is working to.
I'm sure most people see the hypocrisy, and the conundrum. How can you vote to raise £500,000 but at the same time say you don't want charges to rise? Beats me.
I have asked Cllrs Kay Morrison and Bill Kay before, in these pages, to tell us how they intended to raise this money.
They ignore the question, but as we saw last week, Cllr Morrison continues to play politics blaming the new administration – despite her own culpability.
Well, I'm asking again, and will continue to do so.

COUNCILLOR David Alexander
Hill Road, Kennoway


Price war

Whilst I am delighted (perhaps like many other Glenrothes residents) to have a new supermarket built in town, I would like to know if other supermarkets placed a bid?
Why was Sainsbury's picked? Who decided on Sainsbury's?
I think it would have been more of a challenge to Morrisons if Tesco or Asda had come to the town of Glenrothes, as it would have been competition between the supermarkets.
By Sainsbury's moving in, this is not going to worry Morrisons (I cannot imagine that Morrisons will have to reduce their prices) as Sainsbury's prices are very expensive in comparison!
Has anyone seen the recent adverts on TV re the difference between Morrisons and Asda prices?
Surely, this tells a story! Asda is far cheaper than Morrisons (as is Tesco) so, why not have an Asda or Tesco supermarket in Glenrothes – this will force Morrisons to reduce their prices! Let the battle begin!
If Sainsbury's move into Glenrothes – it will be a shame and a waste of money!
Who is going to shop in Sainsbury's? I for one will not enter into the store as I am not prepared to pay the price of their goods! Come on Asda and or Tesco – is it too late for you to put bids in?

NAME and address supplied

PO pretence

We read (Gazette, 5/3) that the main post office in Glenrothes is to move to an upstairs location within private grounds on March 27.
Community organisations in the Glenrothes area were asked about this proposed move (as it then was) last September.
Every one that I am concerned with – and all the others I've heard about – were against such a move.
In addition, it seems all the local politicians, regardless of party allegiance, are against the move, both councillors and members of various parliaments.
No doubt, the Post Office got a response from Glenrothes it did not wish to hear – and ignored it.
In other words, the so-called "consultation" last September was a complete, utter and shameless pretence.

John Morton
Bow Butts, Markinch


Please return precious goods

someone came into our house and stole my 21-year-old daughter's work bag, at least seven handbags, her pink Nokia phone, a black and gold satin scarf and her purse with her driver's licence and bank cards.
Most of these things can be replaced but the main thing, which is of no importance at all to anyone other than my daughter, is her red plastic-covered diary.
She is an apprentice gardener with Fife Council, working at Craigtoun Country Park and her diary is full of all the work she has done over the past year, including details of work done when she helped Falkland to again win the Fife in Bloom competition.
She has, on numerous occasions, been praised for her work with flower beds and floral displays throughout the St Andrews area.
I cannot stress enough the importance of this diary. She was constantly being teased about how much work she was putting into the diary, with photographs and countless descriptive notes on every plant under the sun.
We hope that in printing this letter someone might remember seeing a discarded back pack or indeed the red diary.
One thing we know for certain is that there is a group of Glenrothes mums who, this mothers' day, will be receiving gifts of lovely handbags in either black, green/turquoise or brown along with lovely bottles of Mariah Carey perfume and Avon perfume.
I'm writing this in what I hope is not a vain hope that someone will hand things in to the police or return them to us.
My daughter was at home when the robbery took place and was alone when she realised what had happened. I cannot bear her sadness and heartache.

Marie Marnie
Sinclair Avenue, Glenrothes

Heartfelt 'thanks'

Through your paper I would like to say a heartfelt thanks to the thieves who broke into the hut at Collydean Primary School. I am not a teacher or management at the school, I am a parent of four children at the school.
One of the children is autistic, the teachers at the school built him up for three weeks that he was moving to the hut how quiet and peaceful it would be there.
But you, whoever you are, had a different idea, you thought you would break in, steal the computer stuff and projector absolutely no use to you but essential to these young kids and their education.
My son now does not want to go to the hut so, yet again, the teachers and auxiliary staff will have to spend their valuable time telling him that "the bad men", as he calls you, won't come back.
You probably went to this school or know someone who does, what could you possibly get out of this?
Collydean is an excellent school which tries very hard to bring a sense of community back to Collydean.
So perhaps the next time you attempt to break in you will consider those kids that are educated there or, even better, you will stop targeting our school.
Or, then again, this time you may get caught and at long last it wont just be the kids at Collydean suffering.
NAME AND ADDRESS SUPPLIED


No damage was done
with regards to the article in the Glenrothes Gazette (January 30, 2008) titled – "We told you so" – say angry residents – Problems for 999 crews.
Fife Fire and Rescue Service received a call to Frances Path Glenrothes to deal with a fridge leaking refrigerant on 17.01.08 at approximately 0742hrs.
The incident was dealt with and the appliance returned to Glenrothes Fire Station at 0907hrs.
Although access to the street had been restricted by parked vehicles owned by the local residents, the fire appliance was still able to reach its destination uninhibited and without causing damage to the said vehicles.
After returning to the station, a local resident arrived in his vehicle and stated that it had been subject to minor damage and wished to ascertain if the fire appliance had been involved.
However, after discussing this with station personnel, he had accepted that indeed it could not have been possible for the fire appliance to have caused this area of damage.
I therefore refute the allegations made within the article which stated that "...several cars were allegedly damaged as a fire crew tried to reach an incident in the Cadham area", as indeed that had not been the case.
Fife Fire and Rescue Service personnel have strict policies and procedures which they follow should the fire appliance they are driving be involved in a collision, no matter how minor.
I would be grateful if this information could be published in order to better inform the readership of the true account of events.

Calum Bruce
Station Manager
Fife Fire and Rescue Service
Glenrothes Fire Station

l Editor's note: Fife Fire and Rescue Service were offered the opportunity to respond to allegations made by residents before we published our report but, at the time we went to press, no response had been made.

Change needed

I was so angry to read on the front page of the Gazette about the insufferable behaviour of some local youths who have turned their malign eye on the business premises of Riccardo Ghirardello.
I recently visited Riccardo's shop and almost fell into a crater on the pavement I hadn't seen. The local dearies had been out to play and removed the barriers placed there by the workmen to prevent such an occurrence.
I hesitate to attach blame for the failure to deal comprehensively with Riccardo's problem – and other social problems of a criminal nature – solely to the police.
My son is a police officer and sweats blood and tears trying to do his job.
The blame, I feel, lies squarely with the politicians who are failing all of us who become victims of crime most shamefully.
What is the observation that the police `can't do anything' all about? Because they – the miscreants – are teenagers.
Are we to understand from that that teenagers are ethnically exempt from accountability?
Are teenagers somehow licensed to create all kinds of mischief and mayhem? To behave like obnoxious, anti-social brats?
Well, of course, they are! Silly me!
But who gave them all this carte-blanche? Erm....we did. So, let's not worry about it too much eh? They'll grow up and out of it – won't they?
And the movers and shakers have got it all under control so we're over-reacting to normal teenage angst and high spirits. Aren't we? This whole country is a dysfunctional swamp where teenagers can take a life as easily and swiftly and mercilessly as one might swat a fly, and with as little remorse. Is that normal?
It can be argued that Glenrothes is not on the same par as many inner-city sink estates but – does it have to be?
Is it not true that we are, as a society, becoming ever more isolated from the effects of crime on the individual and ever more inured to daily reports of violence and atrocity.
We shake our heads, tut, and move on. The behaviourists and the theorists all have erstwhile opinions as to the causes but the victim is only interested in justice and looks to the state to serve his interests.
Perhaps the antics around the local chippie might be construed as relatively harmless in comparison to stabbings and mob-attacks, but people are still suffering fear and stress because of another person's failure to behave acceptably.
We should all be challenging our politicians to stop all their `hug-a-hoodie' maunderings and implement radical changes to the way our criminal justice system works. Is that not abundantly clear by now?
Is Britain to become one of the most dangerous countries to be `free' in on the planet? I have theories and solutions aplenty but they would not be printable.
I hope Riccardo's problem is soon resolved but it will, I fear, only move to become someone else's.
Perhaps the balance will finally shift for the greater good when judges and politicians learn to feel the stones in another man's shoes!

(Name and address supplied)

Qualified fact

The so-called myth told by 'REAL' miners (Gazette 23.01.08) of water and geological problems at Rothes Colliery leading to its closure, is a qualified fact.
Shaft sinking was extremely slow and so prohibitively expensive.
Development started about 80 fathoms short of the intended depth, a swansong, ensuring the nationalised prestige-pit, produce a sample of coal – just as Howard Hughes' 'Spruce Goose' took to the air – briefly!
Technical expertise during development was for a token production 'horizon' level, the workforce knew too shallow!
At this time unable to sustain ambitious projects begun at the end of its colonial era without Empire profits, it's reasonable to suggest the country had effectively cancelled its extremely deep and difficult mining at Rothes with Dr. Beeching's railways, independent space exploration, nuclear weaponry, the RAF's TSR 2 and the last battleship.
Anthony Eden's Suez blunder of 1956 left Britain too dangerous to be trusted an independent role as world policeman and the rest is a story of selling our old ways at scrap value.
Yet the Rothes shafts sunk to their intended horizon level are likely to have been successful as British design influence was then first rate.
Rothes coal mining hopes today, may be encouraged by the Waverley Railway Line developments.
In seeking venture capital from Australian or American corporate interests having taken the lead, plans once approved are likely to interest politicians, coal remaining a profitable resource beyond the realm of fossil fuels.

IAN DUNCAN
Willow Crescent, Glenrothes

Unit research

I'm researching a unit formed during the early days of WW2.
It was one of the Auxiliary Units, which was a cover name for a resistance network that covered the whole of the UK, mainly in east coast areas.
Members were recruited locally and sworn to secrecy by the official secrets act of the time.
Training consisted of weapon handling, navigation, demolitions, as well as other skills.
Members wore civilian clothes during those early days but as they grew in numbers they were given battledress uniforms and wore Home Guard shoulder titles, they were also given battalion status.
Three battalions were formed, 201 battalion covered Scotland down into Northumberland.
Most members were in a reserved occupation and came from a wide and varied background.
Operating from underground hides known as Operational Bases (OB's) they would work in six or eight man cells and be tasked with causing as much mayhem as possible to the movement of the German occupation force.
Life expectancy for an auxiliary member during the occupation would be approximately two weeks; they were all too aware of this as the threat of invasion got closer by the day in those summer months of 1940.
The units in Scotland covered areas from as far North as Shetlands down to the Borders.
They were commanded at the time by Eustace Maxwell, who had an HQ near to Stirling, he was tasked to set up and organize training for the Scottish Auxiliary units, the east coast being one route that the enemy would likely come from.
Wives/girlfriends and mums would not be aware of the task that lay ahead for their loved one, as even they were not told what they were involved in.
Auxiliary units were stood down in 1944, many went on to volunteer and work with Special Forces as was the extent of the training they received.
My research into this unit is focusing on the part played by Scotland and I would like to be able to record the unknown work done by this organization.
Any information, no matter how trivial it may be to you, could be the missing piece of the jigsaw.
I can be contacted at the address below or email: aux201@btinternet.com

DAVID BLAIR
54 Younger Gardens, St Andrews, Fife, KY16 8AB

Facts about
care charges?
I would like to say something to Bob Taylor about his remarks that the Campaign Against Charges group is responsible for scaremongering on the Fife Council's charges for services.
Firstly, it's a fact that all service users will have to pay for their community alarm and shopping delivery service.
It's true that you will hear councillors Brett, Grant and Riches saying no one will have to pay if they can't afford to.
There is no criteria saying how this will be decided.
People will have to go cap in hand to Stephen Moore, head of social work service, who will decide whether they're poor enough.
In regard to home care, can I just remind Bob that over 6,000 leaflets were sent by Fife Council to all their clients spelling out to them how charges would be calculated. From that, people sat down with calculators and were able to come out with a figure based on the information in the leaflet.
We now know that the leaflet is defunct because there must be more than seven very serious pieces of misinformation (or maybe it's just that they were forced to climb down on some of their meaner proposals).
Here are some examples: they've scrapped the £22 per hour for two carers; they will not take into account a spouse or partner's income; nor will they take into account child benefit or child tax credit; nor will they charge for collecting pensions; nor will they charge for the day care element in direct payments and also they have backtracked so that everyone will start paying for home care at the same time, not from when they are first assessed.
However this information is coming out in dribs and drabs and varies depending on which councillor, or officer you speak to and how recently that was.
You wondered if the council would hold their nerve - doesn't look like it so far but I would venture to suggest that had it not been for the massive work of CAC and the support they galvanised for disabled and older people all over Fife, these concessions would not have been won.
We don't want to stop here we want to put a halt to the charges completely because they're wrong and because the council has failed badly in their duty to complete an impact study before they implemented the charges.
We want to invite everyone who wants to, to come along to the public meeting to discuss the issues on Friday, February 1 at 2pm in Rothes Halls, Glenrothes.
Present will be leader of the council Peter Grant, chair of social work, Tim Brett and the head of social work Stephen Moore - they promise to answer questions and to listen to people's views.

LOUISE MCLEARY
C/O Campaign Against Charges

Rothes 'myth'

I wonder if you would let me counter an ongoing myth in Mike Delaney's article on Glenrothes (last week's Gazette).
The trouble with myths is that if they go unquestioned long enough, then people come to accept they are true.
For instance, many people still believe you can see the Great Wall of China from outer space.
Mike refers to an interview with Sir George Sharp ten years ago, in which he quotes local miners having doubts about where Rothes pit was sunk.
No REAL miner had any such doubts. The pit was sunk in exactly the right place in relation to the vast reserves of coal lying to the east.
And it is reasonable to suggest that if the operational management had been as competent as the technical expertise during development, then Rothes would still be going today.
And the same applies to his reference about flooding.
It is true there were difficulties during shaft-sinking, but during its brief period in production, they pumped lower hourly quantities of water than did comparable pits, such as Seafield, Monktonhall and Bilston Glen.
We have good reasons for confronting these damaging myths.
Although we are currently concentrating on the need to re-open Longannet, we still see a long-term future for a Rothes/ Frances mining complex in which existing shafts and tunnels can still access those huge reserves of high quality coal.
Anyone who advocates nuclear power with current technology is, in our opinion, a traitor to future generations.
And on that basis, we have to start using the 'c-word' again, as they are finding all over the world,
Coal will play a long-term role in meeting increased demand for energy and we in Scotland are lucky in still having so much of it readily available.

JIM PARKER
Scottish Mineworkers' Consortium
Banchory Green
Collyean
Glenrothes

Can we afford
MPs' salaries?
Although the recommendation for the proposed increase in MPs' pay is made by an independent body it does not take into account its affordability.
In industry, even where a survey indicates an increase in staff salaries, consideration is then given to the ability of the organisation to afford to pay.
This factor, of course, does not enter into it with proposals to increase the salaries of politicians.
No doubt when this comes before the House there will be no three line whip to ensure that government gets the decision which is fairest for the employer, ie the electorate. Apart from a few mavericks there will be a majority vote for its implementation. In this respect we can justifiably regard all abstentions as being in favour of the motion.
It might help to arrest the widening gulf between the electorate and the political classes if the Prime Minister/Chancellor were to adopt a strategy of seeking some form of self-financing to meet the costs of the increase. Those in industry will be thoroughly familiar with this concept.
Fertile ground exists for this kind of action in the area of the super-gold-plated pensions enjoyed by politicians.
In this area there is an ever-widening gulf between the electorate at large and MPs developing into a very much 'them and us' situation. There is room for much cost-saving within the Parliament building where tea bars, restaurants and bars abound and all of them running at a loss – what an example of leadership for the wealth-creating private sector.
There can be no better time for the government to tackle the anomaly of very well-paid politicians enjoying a host of heavily subsidised benefits on top of salaries of many times the average earnings of their constituents.
Some of these thoughts might be felt to be small-minded but their purpose is not just to save taxpayers funds but to try to change the minds of politicians to a constant mindset that the poorest pensioners have no choice but to contribute to their extremely generous compensation packages.
How often do they remind themselves that both central and local government do not produce one penny of surplus other than from the electorate's pockets?
George Russell
Vardon Drive, Glenrothes

Political football

It will be interesting to see whether the SNP/LibDem coalition on Fife Council holds its nerve over the plan to increase home care fees and introduce a charge for shopping delivery and community alarms.
Certainly its public relations over the entire matter has been woeful. Fife Labour Group leader Alex Rowley may be chuckling with glee over the administration's difficulties, but he should pause for reflection over Labour's record on this crucial social work issue.
In trying budgetary times under a Conservative government in the mid 1990s the Labour council he then led in Fife was forced to introduce a system of charges for home care.
In the run-up to the last local authority elections his colleagues in the old Labour administration did not prove up to the task of controlling the always volatile social work budget. The question of an increase in charges was something they shirked with a marked degree of political cowardice.
It is only fair to point out that charging on the scales proposed have been introduced by many Labour controlled local authorities throughout Scotland. It's equally valid to say that something has to be done to put social work finances in Fife on a stable footing.
Maureen Closs and the Campaign against Charges have the right to highlight genuine cases of distress. But their cause is not helped by exaggeration, scaremongering and the use of the elderly and disabled as a political football.
Bob Taylor
Shiel Court, Glenrothes

Nuclear debate

The Scottish Government setting out its clear opposition to nuclear power has the potential to leave a substantial legacy for Scotland and Fife for decades to come.
John Swinney, minister for finance and sustainable growth stated: "Our agenda is clear – Scotland does not want or need new nuclear power. We have massive potential for alternative clean, green energy.
"The installed renewables generating capacity already exceeds that of nuclear. In 2006, overall electricity generation in Scotland increased by nearly a tenth, while electricity generated from nuclear power in Scotland decreased by a quarter."
Nuclear power is regarded as uneconomically viable, of interest only to emerging nations like China and Iran with strategic ambitions. Nobody has built a nuclear plant in Europe for over 10 years.
As little as four years ago the Westminster government's energy white paper ruled out nuclear power as uneconomic and irrelevant to tackling climate change – so why the change of heart?
The Nuclear Decommissioning Agency is spending £100 billion dismantling the last generation of nuclear power stations, and still doesn't have a long-term solution to disposing of nuclear waste.
There are also new cost implications, coastal defences to keep storage sites dry, increased security on site and during transport. Mr Swinney concluded: "nuclear will not only come at a cost to the development of new technologies, it will hit consumers in the pocket. Scots now face the prospect of increased electricity prices to fund the decommissioning of English nuclear power stations. Charges on suppliers to pay for future decommissioning will be passed on to consumers – Scotland will pay for this folly, despite our clear position on resisting new nuclear power."
Against a backdrop of rising energy prices and global warming we all must play our part in making sure our leaders focus their thoughts on energy resources that are as safe, clean and sustainable as possible.
Scotland's natural resource base for renewables is extraordinary by European, and even global, standards. In addition to an existing installed capacity of 1.3 Gigawatts (GW) of hydro-electric schemes, Scotland has an estimated potential of 36.5 GW of wind and 7.5 GW of tidal power, 25% of the estimated total capacity for the European Union and up to 14 GW of wave power potential, 10% of EU capacity.
The Scottish government's commitment to renewable energy above nuclear power has direct implications for Fife. In Fife Energy Park based in Methil we have a massive project that has national importance in the development and manufacture of renewable energy technology and the prospect many 100's of skilled engineering, supply industries and research jobs.
I am glad to see that my personal optimism for the future is being matched by the government's commitment to the best interests of Scotland and her people.
Cllr Alistair Hunter
Ward 22, SNP Group Fife Council


Is this not hypocritical?
SWEET 16! When you are 16 you can: join the military, fire a rifle, be trained to kill the enemies and die for your country.
You can get married, have sex legally, rent your first house and get a licence to drive a moped.
The labour government must be struggling for votes if they want to lower the voting age to 16.
What I cannot figure out is why give the 16 year olds all this when they find that at 16 they are not 'mature' enough to know that smoking is bad for them so they are now not allowed to buy cigarettes and are not allowed to buy alcohol.
I do not agree with selling alcohol to under 18s but is it not a bit hypocritical of this government to say that 16 year olds are mature enough for some things but not for others?
They are now planning to stop under 18s using sunbeds, but you are okay, you may get to vote at 16.
According to this government you should be mature and responsible enough for that so you can get the chance to vote these hypocrites out.
Ian Robertson
Solway Place, Glenrothes

Issue clouded

A lot of deliberate misinformation and sensationalist headlines (not by the Gazette, I should add) has clouded the home care charge issue but I can recognise that the concerns expressed by Ian and Patricia Robertson were genuine.
There are 2 issues.
One – why is the increase required?
Two – how does the new system work?
The increases are required because the councillors in the last administration passed on a budget to the new administration that had an additional £500,000 added on to home care income.
No reserves exist to absorb this because the last administration spent every penny.
The only alternative is to cut something else in the social work budget but that whole area is already overspending.
These are the hard facts that can't be ignored. It's interesting to note that no alternative has been put forward by opposition parties as to how this £500,000 can be dealt with.
The councillors who left us this financial midden walked away with £20,000 tax free. I will accept the criticism from those who feel let down but their reaction is exactly the reaction that the previous administration wanted when they left us with this totally inadequate budget. Cynical isn't the word for it.
The new system is operated by all councils in Scotland bar one. It is the system approved by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.
The concept of full cost charging plus concessions was actually approved by the previous administration in December 05.
The huge confusion comes from the misplaced belief that clients are going to be charged at £11 per hour of care. I don't blame people for thinking that but it's just not true.
People will pay depending how their assessed income varies from the minimum income guarantee. Most people will continue to pay nothing or very little.
Each case will be different. Once the assessments have taken place there is still the chance to appeal. And, contrary to what William Paterson said last week, failure to pay will not result in withdrawal of the service.
I don't know what was expected by Mr and Mrs Roberston and the other protestors at the Council meeting they attended. The decision has been taken.
The motion put forward by the opposition was meaningless – but it did allow a few more headlines to be directed at the new administration which was obviously the only intention.
When I walked into Fife House the objectors outside were listening to a speech by Alec Rowley, Labour leader. I found this the height of hypocrisy.
Ten years ago, Alec Rowley, as Labour Leader, introduced home care charges to Fife. The budgeted income in that first year was £2.2 million – equivalent to over £3 million today.
Or in other words, more than six times the £500,000 that has to be recovered in the budget that we have inherited from these same Labour politicians.
COUNCILLOR David Alexander
Hill Road, Kennoway

More cuts

I share Patricia Robertson's concerns about the significant sums of our money wasted on over-blown salaries (and perks) for part-time councillors (last week's Gazette letters).
However, I don't think she goes far enough.
The latest annual accounts show that the council now employs more than 250 people on annual salaries ranging from £50,000 to more than £100,000.
If those numbers are considered in more detail; and if other employment costs are added, then we can deduce that, as taxpayers, we fork out more than £20 million per year on that small group.
And some of those costs are ongoing, because we also read that pension payments to our local public 'servants' now cost a whopping 25% of our Council Tax.
So, although Patricia Robertson is on the right track, we should be looking for more stringent cuts.
I don't think it is outrageous to suggest that a 50% reduction in the above senior managers is feasible; and at a stroke, the finances would benefit to the tune of around £10 million annually.

Jim Parker
(Senior Citizens' Unity Party)
Banchory Green, Collydean, Glenrothes,