So whilst trawling Google News about the reshuffle I found this article on the Telegraph site and one of the bits that jumped out at me was,
Which just struck me as a bit odd. Now I suppose getting rid of the second job goes a fair way to meeting a lot of the criticism he was under for having to divide his time, but why would 'military chiefs' actively lobby to keep him? Is it simply a case of not wanting to risk someone new and worse/not wanting to have to get a completely new boss brought up to speed or has he actually been doing a half decent job of things whilst my backs been turned?
However, The Telegraph has been told that after lobbying by military chiefs Mr Browne will stay in his position, although he is unlikely to remain Scottish Secretary as well.