Poll: The Scottish Regiments - a definitive poll?

Do you approve or do you not approve of the plan under FIS for the Scottish Regiments?

  • Jock Inf Reg Serving - Approve

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Jock Inf Reg Serving - Do Not Approve

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Jock Inf TA - Approve

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Jock Inf TA - Do Not Approve

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Any Ex Serving or TA - Approve

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Any Ex Serving or TA - Do Not Approve

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Non Jock Serving Inf Reg - Approve

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Non Jock Serving Inf Reg - Do Not Approve

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other - Approve

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other - Do Not Approve

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    0
#1
This forum has demonstrated that many of the posters are very much of the opinion that the changes facing the Scottish regiments are wrong and with enough effort they can be stopped.

I would like to know who is saying what by category - are the serving fraternity in favour or are they against? Are the most extreme voices that have been heard serving, ex serving or have never served?

Consider the options, and please vote - you can only vote once, remember:
 
#2
Barbs, IMHO (as a officer who has served on foot, in armour and on heliborne ops around the world with a wide variety of Inf Bns) I can only offer that the re-structuring of the Jocks will actaully make them better recruited, better cared for and better able to withstand operational pressures.

So what if they aren't 'The Black Watch' anymore? Name one Inf Regiment that has kept it's name since inception; and then prove that retention of its name has led to a qualitatively better output; and I'll agree that the Jocks have been seen off.

This post owes nothing to any feeble-minded parochiality of mine - I only care about military capability - what I'm really asking is 'What's in a name'?
 
#3
The thing is Calypso I can see your point. My personal gripe is that we (and I don't mean the Blackwatch) already have copped for this kind of thing in the past. Two famous regiments (seaforths and camerons) in the sixties formed the queens own. Later this regiment was amalgamated with the Gordons.

I just think it's sh*t that we might be for the chop again.

I understand the current thinking is we become one of the battalions of a super regiment but retain our kilts and cap-badge. question is what will happen. will all the battalions be stationed/posted together in which case the super regiment will be bigger but less mobile/flexible. will the battalions operate independantly and unite if something bigger is required? If the latter is the case there is in effect no change to the way things work now.

It looks like the Royal Scots are going. 1645 I believe. As a keen historian I think that is a f**king shame.
 
#4
I'll put my cards on the table - serving officer in a Scottish Regiment. My intention: salute, turn to the right and get on with it.

I believe that one should do everything in one's power to influence one's commanders right up until he makes his decision - it is your duty to him, yourself and your men that his decision is informed. Once he has made his decision one's duty is to carry out that decision as if it were your own. If you cannot you should resign - and I don't mean threaten to resign, resign.

I agree entirely that it has been effed up in the past. Our duty is to our soldiers and their future.

We should either put our shoulder behind the wheel or get out of the way.
 
#5
Hard question to answer, well not really if you think about it I guess.

My view goes along the lines of - if its purely for efficiency reasons and will lead to a better deployment calendar, a more stable home life for the guys and a more 'useable/flexible' unit then ok, (Unit identities etce can still be retained within a regiment, certainly was in 21 Engr back in the 80's with 1st Fd Sqn, 7 Sqn etce). And times move on, operational requirements change etce as a modern army we have to keep up.

However if the changes are purely for 'cash saving' and other hidden back door political reasons (as is most likely with this superbly enlightened bunch of con merchants in power conning the country lead by Bliar with his poodle TCH passing the warped word to us lot) then it is totally unacceptable.

As its 'cards on the table time' background is 'non' inf, 22 year served, Ex RE, out in 2002. Now well up the ladder in PropMan (EWC).
 
#6
Fair enough. NCO serving, scottish regiment, 11 years. I see your argument Barbs. I have no intention of resigning and of course we have to do as we are told but I cannot help but think that the governments motives are less than honest.

It causes less fuss when a battalion is axed than a regiment. by making us extra battalions even if we do keep up the regimental identities we will be left vulnarable to future cuts. The government will claim that they are not axing anybody - merely reducing the number of battalions. It will probably happen.
 
#7
Some Info on the proposed FAS & FIS proposals. I was Recently at a TA recruiting conference where a TA Colonel Showed us some nice powerpoint and told the truth......Suprised.....I WAS.

For the proposed labour cost driven cuts to work the TA Must Be fully manned by 2010. otherwise we will have an army that cannot meet any threat and deployments....

Also now that we are doing away with the Battalion Rotations there will be a massive skill fade as no CO will let their good soldiers rotate through their sister Bns.


Thanks for nothing


Blair & Hoon
 
#8
Calypso said:
what I'm really asking is 'What's in a name'?
Yes time for the Horse Artillery to go.

Royal Artillery is good enough
 
#9
Lairdx said:
.....................................
I understand the current thinking is we become one of the battalions of a super regiment but retain our kilts and cap-badge. question is what will happen.
Actually from what has been said, this new Regiment will have new cap badges and uniform.
Bns will have bracketed old names. A few small tokens of old identity will be allowed, until it's decided they are too much bother as individuals are posted from Bn to Bn.

The idea that current Regiments will exist within this new Regiment is a false one.
 
#10
barbs said:
I'll put my cards on the table - serving officer in a Scottish Regiment. My intention: salute, turn to the right and get on with it.

I believe that one should do everything in one's power to influence one's commanders right up until he makes his decision - it is your duty to him, yourself and your men that his decision is informed. Once he has made his decision one's duty is to carry out that decision as if it were your own. If you cannot you should resign - and I don't mean threaten to resign, resign.

I agree entirely that it has been effed up in the past. Our duty is to our soldiers and their future.

We should either put our shoulder behind the wheel or get out of the way.
That's a well stated post. The important part is "one should do everything in one's power to influence one's commanders right up until he makes his decision"

I'd say until the new Regiment is actually formed you are obligated to make this influence.
 
#11
RCSignals said:
Yes time for the Horse Artillery to go.

Royal Artillery is good enough
It's already the Royal Regiment of Artillery, which encompasses the RHA and RA (and HAC for that matter).

Nice try - thanks for coming.
 
#12
Calypso said:
RCSignals said:
Yes time for the Horse Artillery to go.

Royal Artillery is good enough
It's already the Royal Regiment of Artillery, which encompasses the RHA and RA (and HAC for that matter).

Nice try - thanks for coming.
So the Royal Artillery is a regiment made up of lots of other regiments? Doesn't that make it a corps?

(I'm not just trying to bait you; I've never understood this one.)
 
#13
Interceptor said:
So the Royal Artillery is a regiment made up of lots of other regiments? Doesn't that make it a corps?

(I'm not just trying to bait you; I've never understood this one.)
I assume you mean a similar set up to the Royal Engineers? Take this one to the Gunner thread - I hope someone can answer your question there! :D
 
#14
"In 2002 the UK was home to 59.2 million people."

"Scotland's population rose in the year to 30 June 2003 by 2,600 to 5,057,400"


The above is from the General Register Office for Scotland. I know it's unscientific but if Scotland Represents about 8.5% of the population then that should be about 8.5% of the infantry regiments. If we require a total of 36 Inf Bns, even allowing for allegedly better recruiting in Scotland this would suggest a total of 4 Bns - 5 is generous.
 
#15
Calypso said:
RCSignals said:
Yes time for the Horse Artillery to go.

Royal Artillery is good enough
It's already the Royal Regiment of Artillery, which encompasses the RHA and RA (and HAC for that matter).

Nice try - thanks for coming.
No kidding. What's in a name anyway? "Horse" Artillery should be dropped.

The designation serves no practical purpose, other than to keep a few elitists feeling warm and fuzzy.
 
#16
RiojaDOC said:
"In 2002 the UK was home to 59.2 million people."

"Scotland's population rose in the year to 30 June 2003 by 2,600 to 5,057,400"


The above is from the General Register Office for Scotland. I know it's unscientific but if Scotland Represents about 8.5% of the population then that should be about 8.5% of the infantry regiments. If we require a total of 36 Inf Bns, even allowing for allegedly better recruiting in Scotland this would suggest a total of 4 Bns - 5 is generous.
You're correct, it's not scientific.
Just think, little Scotland in the past has had to supply many more than it's share of Infantry Bns.
 
#17
Calypso said:
Barbs, IMHO (as a officer who has served on foot, in armour and on heliborne ops around the world with a wide variety of Inf Bns) I can only offer that the re-structuring of the Jocks will actaully make them better recruited, better cared for and better able to withstand operational pressures.

So what if they aren't 'The Black Watch' anymore? Name one Inf Regiment that has kept it's name since inception; and then prove that retention of its name has led to a qualitatively better output; and I'll agree that the Jocks have been seen off.

This post owes nothing to any feeble-minded parochiality of mine - I only care about military capability - what I'm really asking is 'What's in a name'?


ALTHOUGH I AM NOT AND NEVER WILL BE AN OFFICER(THANK GOD!), I SERVED WORLDWIDE WITH AN INFANTRY BATTALION, ON FOOT, IN ARMOUR, ON HELI OPS, AND ALSO CEREMONIAL DUTIES.

THE BATTALION I SERVED IN, AND THE REGIMENT AS A WHOLE, HAD A REPUTATION FOR TOUGHNESS, AND A HISTORY AND TRADITION TO RIVAL ANY REGIMENT.THIS ETHOS IT HAS CARRIED FORWARD SINCE ITS FOUNDING . AS RECRUITS WE WERE IMBIBED WITH A SENSE OF WHO WE WERE AND WERE/ARE PROUD OF THAT IDENTITY......THE REGIMENTS NAME? "AM FRIECADAN DUBH" .....WHICH "SIR" WAS THE NAME GIVEN TO THE INDEPENDENT COMPANIES WHO POLICED THE HIGHLANDS BY THE GAELIC SPEAKING PEOPLE OF THE AREA PRIOR TO THE REGIMENT BEING FORMED IN 1739......IN ENGLISH THE REGIMENTS NAME TRANSLATES INTO..."THE BLACK WATCH".....SO NOW YOU KNOW OF A REGIMENT THAT HAS KEPT ITS NAME SINCE INCEPTION!

QUALATIVELY BETTER OUTPUT, THROUGH THE RETENTION OF THE NAME IS OBVIOUSLY SEEN THROUGH 265 YEARS OF SERVICE TO THE CROWN......(YES THE WATCH MAY HAVE BEEN NUMBERED 43RD AND LATTER 42ND,AND AT TIMES ALSO CALLED AFTER COLONELS,OR INDEED BEEN CALLED THE ROYAL HIGHLAND REGIMENT.) ......THE REGIMENT HAS ALWAYS BEEN KNOWN IN SCOTLAND, AND IN THE REGIMENT ITSELF, AS THE BLACK WATCH,THE WATCH OR THE 42nd.

ITS A PITY YOU WEREN`T IN SCOTLAND THE OTHER WEEK TO SEE 1BW MARCHING THROUGH THE TOWNS OF FIFE, ANGUS AND PERTHSHIRE, AS THANK YOU TO THE LOCAL POPULATION, FOR THE SUPPORT GIVEN TO THE BATTALION DURING THE RECENT TOUR IN IRAQ, THEN YOU MIGHT HAVE SOME INCLINATION, OR EVEN AN ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION, OF WHATS IN A NAME?


ONLY TWO WEEKS AGO THE COUNCIL OF SCOTTISH COLONELS SAID THAT THE NEW SCOTTISH REGIMENT WAS NOT YET MARKETABLE.IF ITS NOT MARKETABLE THEN HOW DO YOU/THEY THINK IT WILL BE BETTER RECRUITED?? PRAY TELL,AND THEN SEND YOUR ANSWER ON A POSTCARD TO THE COUNCIL OF SCOTTISH COLONELS OR GEN;SIR MIKE JACKSON!
 
#18
Lairdx said:
Fair enough. NCO serving, scottish regiment, 11 years. I see your argument Barbs. I have no intention of resigning and of course we have to do as we are told but I cannot help but think that the governments motives are less than honest.

It causes less fuss when a battalion is axed than a regiment. by making us extra battalions even if we do keep up the regimental identities we will be left vulnarable to future cuts. The government will claim that they are not axing anybody - merely reducing the number of battalions. It will probably happen.
Sad to say that is what exactly will happen :evil:

An elected Government who does not know its arse from its elbow, a hell of a penalty for future generations.
 
#19
RCSignals said:
RiojaDOC said:
"In 2002 the UK was home to 59.2 million people."

"Scotland's population rose in the year to 30 June 2003 by 2,600 to 5,057,400"


The above is from the General Register Office for Scotland. I know it's unscientific but if Scotland Represents about 8.5% of the population then that should be about 8.5% of the infantry regiments. If we require a total of 36 Inf Bns, even allowing for allegedly better recruiting in Scotland this would suggest a total of 4 Bns - 5 is generous.
You're correct, it's not scientific.
Just think, little Scotland in the past has had to supply many more than it's share of Infantry Bns.

RCSigs: That's my point - it's not the past it's now! I'm not in the infantry, and so I can only imagine what the regimental system means to people. But, the Army IS being cut to 36 Bns so what is the fairest way of doing this based on realistic recruiting footprints for the UK of 2005 - not 1880s when the current regimental system was introduced.

I have no particular axe to grind here. What I draw from regimental history is that it is leadership and belief in what you are doing that makes a unit, the history helps but I suspect it’s not the be-all-and-and-end-all. Some of our most famous regiments broke and ran in 1940 even with their 300 years of history. The Parachute Regt was formed in 1940 or there abouts and look how it was performing by 1944 against SS units – hardly slouches with regimental histories of between 6 months to 10 years max!
 
#20
I HEAR WHAT YOU SAY RiojaDOC,AND AGREE THAT MODERNISATION IS NEEDED.BUT THEY WANT TO REDUCE SINGLE BATTALION REGIMENTS TO BATTALION STATUS WITHIN A NEW REGIMENT,WHAT FOR?? WE WILL END UP LOSING MANY FAMOUS REGIMENTS, AND EVENTUALLY OUR INFANTRY WILL BECOME PART OF A EURO ARMY,AND OF COURSE WE WILL END UP SUPPLYING MOST OF THE MAN POWER.....LOOK AT THE FRENCH AND GERMANS.

THE FUTURE INFANTRY STUCTURE IS UP IN THE AIR.....AND YES THERE WAS AN ARGUMENT TO REDUCE THE SCOTTISH DIVISION FROM 6 TO 4 BATTALIONS. THE WHOLE OF THE INFANTRY IS EFFECTED BY THE FIS/FAS.....FOR HOON TO ANNOUNCE CUTS IN THE INFANTRY ONE DAY AND THEN SAY THE MOD ARE SPENDING MILLIONS ON A EUROFIGHTER THE NEXT IS A DISGRACE AND AN INSULT .....IT SHOWS THAT HE HAS LITTLE REGARD FOR THE INFANTERY. WE DON`T NEED A EUROFIGHTER,LOOK AT THE PRESENT THREAT!

IN AN AGE WHEN WE NEED MEN ON THE GROUND, WOULD IT NOT BE BETTER TO RECRUIT MORE INFANTRYMEN IF POSSIBLE,(RATHER THAN MERGE/DISBAND REGIMENTS)....AND PAY THEM A BETTER WAGE...A RECENT REPORT STATED THAT A PRIVATE SOLDIER IN IRAQ WORKED ALMOST AN 80 HOUR WEEK,THAT EQUATED TO JUST OVER £3.00 AN HOUR!

PRIOR TO 9/11 THE THEN CGS;ADMIRAL SIR MICHAEL BOYCE WANTED TO REDUCE THE INFANTRY BY 4/5 BATTALIONS,THIS TO BUY TROOP CARRIERS FOR MARINES. WHAT WOULD BLAIR HAVE DONE WITHOUT THOSE BATTALIONS, IF SIR MICHAEL HAD GOT HIS WAY!



AS FOR THE PARAS REMEMBER THAT IN THE EARLY YEARS THEY ALL CAME FROM VARIOUS REGIMENTS AND WERE REBADGED LATER,MANY WORE THEIR OWN CAP BADGE ON A MAROON BERET...I KNOW OF ONE INANTRY UNIT WHICH WAS TRAINED/USED AS PARA A BATTALION BUT DID NOT WEAR A MAROON BERET, THIS UPON THE INSISTANCE OF A FIELD MARSHAL.

CHEERS!
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top