Poll: The Scottish Regiments - a definitive poll?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by barbs, Mar 12, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Jock Inf Reg Serving - Approve

  2. Jock Inf Reg Serving - Do Not Approve

  3. Jock Inf TA - Approve

  4. Jock Inf TA - Do Not Approve

  5. Any Ex Serving or TA - Approve

  6. Any Ex Serving or TA - Do Not Approve

  7. Non Jock Serving Inf Reg - Approve

  8. Non Jock Serving Inf Reg - Do Not Approve

  9. Other - Approve

  10. Other - Do Not Approve

  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. Yes time for the Horse Artillery to go.

    Royal Artillery is good enough
  9. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.