Leary?.........don't you mean lairy?

Lie down now before you hurt yourself.

It's OK Biscuits, looks like you are MacB_ABs from Streatham now, you won't change their minds. May as well get yourself over to the Kilt Tailor thread and get fitted.

No - but it is closer to Scotland Yard

Seriously though, the argument should be - WTF are we losing 4 inf bns at a time they are needed more than ever?

As to filling up units for op tours - when was the last time that any bn deployed purely on their posted strength? This is not a dig but a genuine query.

Couldn't agree more. It's senseless to be chopping anyone, but if we have to.....my post above still stands.

So, even though you agree, you will still chop me?

You will not be whinging in 10 years, doesnt make any difference how many think it is right or wrong, it now a reality.

Units and personnel adapt, once the batch of offrs and soldiers with links to former Regts leave it becomes ancient history. PWRR and other recent inventions have covered themselves in glory recently, possibly you should regard it as an opportunity to improve !

You may be right, but I don't think you are.

Look at the history of any amalgamations of Scottish Regiments.

I am against the amalgamtion of infantry regiments, full stop. It does'nt matter what part of the country they hail from. The British Army is busier than ever, yet we are cutting the infantry.
What makes my blood boil is the excuse that cutting infantry will produce savings that can be used to buy new kit. FFS, the Septics are at least a generation ahead of us in kit and they still can't find Osama or keep Iraq under control. It does'nt matter how much Sci-Fi kit you have, you still ned lots of boots on the ground.
Of course, this issue is close to home for me, but I would feel just as angry if it was English regiments that were being cut. And don't think that won't happen. t would'nt surprise me if Brown tried to amalgamate the RAF and AAC in the next budget.

Recently the Mod annocced that the army was 4000 - 5000 men understrength for the operations it was currently undertaking. So what does the government do cut the the number of infantry battalions smart fc*king move. I was reading that in the FAS the Guards battalions would remain unchanged because they had a long history of service, well what about the Royal Scots the oldest regiment in the army.

As an ex serving soldier, it makes my blood boil to see my regiment amalgamating, but, the world is a changing and we have to and will get used to the idea. The RHF have only been in existence since 1959, and they managed the amalgamation well. Good luck to all our troops, no matter where they serve or in what guise. I am sure those serving today will have a similar frame of mind as we did. Is my life okay? and is the money going into the bank at the end of the month........ Lets face it we have and had regimental pride, but, its a 22 (max) year job then soldier on with some other company in civvie street at the end of the day.

Could you please enlighten me as to how you have come to this conclusion regarding BW.

I'm interested in the story as well.

The 'merging of the 42nd and 73rd Regiments' was a re-joining of what had been separated previously.

Aye - the 73rd were previously the 2nd Battalion of the 42nd Regiment.

However, if you read his post, IMO he was being a tad sarcastic...

Yes I have to agree now, putting the quote back into context. Definitely a tad sarcastic.

Although, he may not go far enough with this part
The Highlanders could easily be reverted to three Regiments.

i·ro·ny (Engl), n. pl. i·ro·nies

1. The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning.

2. An expression or utterance marked by a deliberate contrast between apparent and intended meaning.

3. A literary style employing such contrasts for humorous or rhetorical effect.

i·ro·ny (Scot), n. pl. i·ro·nies

1. A wee iron.