Regiment plans to be rushed through

#21
Big_Al said:
Kings, Scots, and PoW Divs have all lost 1. Where does the 4th go from? Will have big implications to some of us... :cry:
Northern England, as someone has said previously they are solid Labour areas so Yorkshire, Lancs & Borders and North Midlands will all loose a Regt/Bn.
 

Mr Happy

LE
Moderator
#22
claymore said:
ViroBono said:
Black Watch squaddie just asked on BBC News whether he thought he'd really be home for Christmas: "I don't know - Tony Blair lies a lot."Quality. 8)
:lol: :lol: :lol: TCH coud do himself and his party a bit of damage north of Hadrian's Wall if he does announce the regimental reorganisations on November 30. It's St Andrew's Day. We might take that as a calculated insult. :twisted:
No scots vote Labour anyway, it's all SNP or Tory so Tony doesn't give a fack./
 
#23
If Bliar and TCH try to push through the changes when BW are still in place then they wil generate a massive amount of "stabbed in the back" flak, even more that has been generated already.

If they make this announcement when BW have returned they could be in even deeper sh!t if the SG are sent out as replacements - although the regiment is not under threat, they would still be associated with the "Scottish" cuts. Bad luck for the English regiments not to have that highly emotive national connection to fall back on.

Good to see the negative commentary from the Jocks (and REME) reported in the press today! The public need to know that our armed forces are not merely Bliar photocall-fodder and that they have strongly-held views of their own.
 

Mr Happy

LE
Moderator
#24
MrPVRd said:
If Bliar and TCH try to push through the changes when BW are still in place then they wil generate a massive amount of "stabbed in the back" flak, even more that has been generated already.

If they make this announcement when BW have returned they could be in even deeper sh!t if the SG are sent out as replacements - although the regiment is not under threat, they would still be associated with the "Scottish" cuts. Bad luck for the English regiments not to have that highly emotive national connection to fall back on.

Good to see the negative commentary from the Jocks (and REME) reported in the press today! The public need to know that our armed forces are not merely Bliar photocall-fodder and that they have strongly-held views of their own.
Your acting as if the average English voter will care...., they DID pick the Scots for a reason you know....
 
#25
:?: lets be clear about the scotish regiments. if the scots wanted them so much why do they all have at least one company made up of soldiers from fiji. the scots have not been joining their much loved and hsitoric regiments for some time. a bit of time and effort spent getting scots to join their own regiments could possibly have saved them from amalgamation , if they had got their act together a few years ago. the writing has been on the wall for the scots for some time and they decided to ignore it.
 
#26
hey country boy,

your entitled to your opinion but is still think your last post is way off.

the reason the jocks (me included) need the fijian may be down to the fact that scotland is a country of 5million people compared to ~55 million in enlgland wales and NI.

When you look at the numbers it shows how dedicated the scots are to the services (army in this example)

Despite this Scotland makes up a hugely disproportionate segment of HM Forces when compared to those south of the border (not a dig at the rest of the UK, just the fact that scots tend to be more enclined to join the services)

If there are 60million brits (with 5 mil of them being jocks @8.33% of uk pop) and the current army strength is 100000 (give or take 1000) then by proportion there should be about 8,300 jock troops. At the present time there are well over 10000 (in all the various regiments and corps) with the 5 scotland based regiments accounting for about 5-6000 (is that correct for 5 regiments).

this proves that the scots ARE dedicated to the services!!

Also the fact that the scottish regiments are some of the most highly decorated and respected regiments in the world should pose even just a small reason not to get rid of them!

PS as a footnote, Hoon et al have IMPOSED a recruiting ban on all the scots regiments at the present time, so even if they wanted to, they couldnt increase their numbers.

Dont diss the jocks.....

We will come and show you what we carry under our kilts (babys arm anyone???)
 
#27
Mr Happy said:
....
No scots vote Labour anyway, it's all SNP or Tory so Tony doesn't give a fack./
Not so, Mr H. Party composition of the Scottish Parliament:
Scottish Labour 50 seats
SNP 26
Scottish Conservative and Unionist 18
Scottish Liberal Democrat 17
Assorted loonies and others 18

Scottish Labour also in the majority in House of Commons, only one Tory at present.
 
#28
[quote="Mr Happ
No scots vote Labour anyway, it's all SNP or Tory so Tony doesn't give a fack./[/quote]

That'll be why Labour control the Scottish Parliament and send back a majority of Labour MPs to Westminster, then. Do your homework if you want to avoid making stupid posts.
 

Mr Happy

LE
Moderator
#29
claymore said:
[quote="Mr Happ
No scots vote Labour anyway, it's all SNP or Tory so Tony doesn't give a fack./
That'll be why Labour control the Scottish Parliament and send back a majority of Labour MPs to Westminster, then. Do your homework if you want to avoid making stupid posts.[/quote]

Hmmm, appears I've made a gaff. Really thought all of Scotland was voting SNP in place of Labour, wrong if you say so. Am off to watch that MTV video with all the birds doing aerobics now.

PS. Does it change the fact that Scots will vote L anyway so an easy cut vis a vis an English regt. in the eyes of Westminster?
 
#30
Mr H,
It's an easy cut for Westminster in terms of regiments like the Royal Scots if it's taken on purely recruitment grounds. That's one unit which has had severe manpower problems over a number of years.

It's dangerous for Labour in the respect that there are about a dozen seats where it would only take a swing of between 1800 and 7000 votes to oust the sitting Blairite MPs.

I must admit it's easier for Scotland, with its own unique sense of identity, to mount a campaign against the cuts than for many parts of England and Wales, where that tribal loyalty may be more diluted. It's sad wherever it happens.
 
#31
claymore said:
..... I must admit it's easier for Scotland, with its own unique sense of identity, to mount a campaign against the cuts than for many parts of England and Wales, where that tribal loyalty may be more diluted. It's sad wherever it happens.
Very true, Claymore. Understandable if supporters of some of the other regiments get irritated by the many references here to the Black Watch and other Scottish Regiments.

Yes, some of us do play the Scottish card, but much of the case which the Scottish supporters have been putting forward applies to the whole of the infantry and the whole of the Army. It is not the fault of the Scottish supporters that other regiments have not been making the case so loudly. Anything in the public domain making the case FOR the POD reforms and reductions has also been posted on this site.

Here is another piece worth reading IMO, Brig Garry Barnett demolishing the recent article from TCH: http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=1207&id=1254412004 Brig Barnett is chairman of the Black Watch campaign, but much of what he writes applies equally to the non-Scottish regiments.

The Black Watch are not actually the only Scottish regiment, but the excess publicity for the BW is widely accepted as being for the greater good.
 
#32
apologies for quoting Brig Barnett's article in full, but it deserves to be seen IMO and its hard to know what bits to select:
Hoon's defence of changes to army does not stack up
BRIGADIER GARY BARNETT

IT IS difficult to know where to start in attempting to counter the mixture of inaccuracy, spin and things left unsaid by the Defence Secretary, Geoff Hoon, in his article in The Scotsman on Thursday.

Mr Hoon claims the proposals are not a plan to reduce the army’s strength, yet elsewhere he has agreed the establishment of the army is to be cut from 108,000 to 102,500. He claims the reorganisation applies to "all 19" of the army’s single battalion regiments (implying less than half of the infantry), when in fact there are 24, including the Guards regiments, or 25 with the Royal Irish.

He told the Commons defence committee that his reforms will end the system of moving regiments (I assume Mr Hoon means battalions) every two years, the process known as arms-plotting. In fact, it has been army policy for at least ten years to leave armoured infantry in place for six years, most others for four and only those on public duties and in Cyprus or Northern Ireland for a mere two.

He claims that regiments "struggle to put down roots" when they move, citing the example of the Black Watch being currently based in Wiltshire, not Scotland. This is irrelevant nonsense: his planned restructuring will mean the majority of the Scottish infantry will be permanently based outside Scotland.

When simple facts and figures are inaccurate, how can his other arguments retain any credibility? His article in The Scotsman not only lacks credibility, it actually raises more questions than it answers.

Why were the regiments asked only whether they would prefer two regiments of two or three battalions or one regiment of six battalions? They were not given the option of staying as they are.

What evidence supports the Chief of Defence Staff’s recent claim to the Commons defence committee that "the vast majority of people in the army" are in favour of large regiments?

Mr Hoon says the move to large regiments will improve recruitment and retention. Could he please produce the figures for The Queens Own Highlanders and Gordon Highlanders in the two years before amalgamation and The Highlanders two years after?

How can he ensure that, in a large regiment, battalions based in stations with less- demanding roles will not be seen as second-class postings?

If his answer is "trickle posting" - moving individuals from unit to unit - he must come clean on how the costs of this compare with arms plotting.

Moving as a whole battalion enhances the community spirit within the unit and better serves the welfare needs of young soldiers and their families. Moving the "whole village" with all its support infrastructure must do more for morale than trickle-posting a Dundonian to a Glaswegian battalion in a different area. Trickle posting requires a training organisation for new arrivals and the overall operational capability of a battalion is reduced.

The forces are an arm of government policy and the infantry are the fingers of that arm. Chopping off some of these fingers and tying some together is an extraordinary way of "making the army more effective".

Mr Hoon’s airy generalisations about greater operational efficiency simply do not stack up. We should stop this headlong rush to cut and restructure now, while our armed forces are so committed, take time out to consult properly with those serving and do nothing until our commitments in Iraq and elsewhere become clearer.
 

Mr Happy

LE
Moderator
#33
hackle said:
apologies for quoting Brig Barnett's article in full, but it deserves to be seen IMO and its hard to know what bits to select:
An excellent article. I'd personally only add that the entire reason for moving Bn's is lost on me these days. I'm sure there is a third way out there somewhere.
 
#34
My guess is 1st Bn (RS/KOSB Lowland) Scottish Regiment, 2nd Bn (RHF/A&SH Lowland) Scottish Regiment and 3rd Bn (BW/Highland) Scottish Regiment.

A mate of mine read it on PoD's desk so it must be true. :twisted:
 
#35
PoisonDwarf said:
My guess is 1st Bn (RS/KOSB Lowland) Scottish Regiment, 2nd Bn (RHF/A&SH Lowland) Scottish Regiment and 3rd Bn (BW/Highland) Scottish Regiment. A mate of mine read it on PoD's desk so it must be true. :twisted:
Tell your mate to head for Specsavers. It's to be five battalions(including the amalgamated RS/KOSB)of the "Royal Scottish Regiment". That's kosher. Clocked from an ECAB memo confirming that the parliamentary announcement is to be brought forward to November 30. You're right in the respect that it's to be 1st battalion(Black Watch) of the RSR, 2nd battalion(Royal highland Fusiliers) of the RSR etc. 8)
 
#36
claymore said:
... You're right in the respect that it's to be 1st battalion(Black Watch) of the RSR, 2nd battalion(Royal highland Fusiliers) of the RSR etc. 8)
Claymore, is this another windup? Regimental seniorities being changed? (might as well, though) :twisted:

Or were those just examples?
 
#37
hackle said:
claymore said:
... You're right in the respect that it's to be 1st battalion(Black Watch) of the RSR, 2nd battalion(Royal highland Fusiliers) of the RSR etc. 8)
Claymore, is this another windup? Regimental seniorities being changed? (might as well, though) :twisted:

Or were those just examples?
Just examples. No slight on seniority intended. :D
 
#39
tomahawk6 said:
http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1254342004?

The Royals dont seem to be too happy about this.
Unnamed royals. Their influence on this government is next to zilch anyway, even if it's true.
 
#40
ARMY REFORMS BLASTED

By

OPPOSITION politicians continued their calls this week for proposed army reforms to be blocked.

As part of wide-ranging reforms to the armed forces, the Council of Scottish Colonels recommended earlier this month that Scotland’s six infantry regiments, including the Stirling Castle-based Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, should be merged into one super-regiment.

Although they also recommended retention of local links, this was not enough to calm the fears of many politicians and members of the public who turned out at a rally in Dundee last weekend to voice their opposition.

Among those in attendance were local Tory MSP Brian Monteith and his party colleague Stephen Kerr, who will contest the Stirling seat at the next Westminster election.

Following a story in last week’s Observer, Mr Kerr attacked Labour MP Anne McGuire for claiming that the reforms were a purely military rather than a political matter.

“The government is cutting the number of troops at a time when we have never needed them more,” he said.

“And Mrs McGuire has let the cat out of the bag. She says she has asked her friend Mr Hoon to make Stirling the national HQ for the new super-regiment.

“Then she tries to tell us that it’s all up to the army – Mrs McGuire says that it is all the army’s idea in the first place.

“Mrs McGuire is insulting our intelligence. These are Labour’s cuts and they are not on.”

And in response to a motion passed recently by Stirling Council, which backed the reform proposals, he said: “Stirling Labour, the Labour Provost and the Labour member of Parliament are a disgrace.

“Politicians and civic leaders of all parties all across Scotland have protested against these cuts, but Stirling Labour welcomed them. They are beyond the pale.”

Mr Monteith, meanwhile, called on both Mrs McGuire and MSP Sylvia Jackson to follow the lead of Dundee Labour MP Iain Luke who attended the rally and backed the campaign to retain local regiments.

“They are the constituency MP and MSP respectively for the home of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, yet they seem content to sit back and let Geoff Hoon and Gordon Brown do what the Russians at Balaclava couldn’t – destroy the thin red line,” he said.

But Mrs McGuire responded: “It is sad that this attack owes more to saving the Tories than it does to saving the regiment.

“The current consultation is to ensure the continuing operational effectiveness of our armed forces in the modern world.

“Like most Scots, I cherish the history and tradition of our regiments and in the same way that the history and values of both the former Argylls regiment and that of the Sutherland Highlanders have been honoured since their merger into one regiment in 1881, these traditions will not be lost, no matter what the outcome of the current review.”
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top