Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Sunday, 17th August 2008 Change Date

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Scotland On Sunday site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

First Minister marches into row



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 15 June 2008
ALEX Salmond was last night embroiled in a row over the ongoing campaign to restore Scotland's independent regiments.
The First Minister held a reception for members of Restore Our Army Regiments (Roar) at Edinburgh Castle.

But senior figures within the Royal Regiment of Scotland (RRS) – the unit created by amalgamating six independent regiments – said the campai
gn was undermining the morale of soldiers serving in combat zones such as Afghanistan and Iraq. The comments are widely seen as tacit condemnation of the First Minister, whose party remains committed to reforming the regiments as separate bodies.

About 160 Roar supporters, mainly former servicemen, attended the event last night in the castle's historic Great Hall. The castle is also the headquarters of the RRS.

Colonel Stephen Cartwright, the new commander of the Black Watch, 3rd Battalion, RRS, said: "This campaign (Roar] will do nothing to improve recruitment in Scotland. It just creates uncertainty and doesn't allow us to get over the clear message that the Army has moved on.

"The serving soldiers of this country are not being served by this campaign.

"I am trying to improve facilities here at Fort George (the battalion's base near Inverness], provide stability, better manning and improved pay and this is not helpful. No one here is saying to me that I will only serve another two years unless we go back to the old regiments."

Alastair Campbell, regimental secretary to the RRS, said: "Roar are not serving soldiers and they do not speak for serving soldiers. In a way, they are undermining serving soldiers by what they are doing.

"We may not like what happened, but it did happen. Now we need to move on."

One of the concerns of the RRS, whose colonel-in-chief is the Queen, is that the continuation of the campaign will further damage recruitment. Official figures reveal recruitment in Scotland fell from 1,117 in 2005-6 to 741 in 2007-8.

In 2005, under plans to streamline the British infantry, six independent Scottish regiments, with a total of around 3,000 troops, were reduced to five and then amalgamated as under the flag of a new RRS.

The controversial plan, ordered by senior Army commanders, went ahead despite a fiercely fought campaign by former servicemen and opposition politicians. As a concession, the Army said a 'golden thread' – symbolised by keeping the old names for the new battalions – would remain in place to link the old regiments with their past.

But the SNP, then in opposition at Holyrood, pledged to restore the independence of the regiments. Roar spokesman Jeff Duncan said:

"The Army is absolutely terrified because there has been so much effort going on to suppress the old regimental identities."

A spokesperson for the First Minister said that the reception was "one of a range" he had hosted at Edinburgh Castle for veterans and welfare organisations.

"It is part of the process of Scotland's military family coming together again after the argument there has been about maintaining commitments to the golden thread tradition in Scotland."

But a Ministry of Defence source said: "Alex Salmond is in danger of playing politics on this issue."



The full article contains 529 words and appears in Scotland On Sunday newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

Castaway,

15/06/2008 00:36:21
....said the campaign was undermining the morale of soldiers serving in combat zones such as Afghanistan and Iraq."This campaign (Roar] will do nothing to improve recruitment in Scotland.
Are these soldiers and/or families and potential recruits banned from looking at these Restore Our Army Regiments (Roar) websites ?
http://www.r-o-a-r.org/news/
http://www.r-o-a-r.org/
Conservative leader David Cameron yesterday signalled that the controversial amalgamation of the Scottish infantry regiments will be a major issue if there is a snap General Election.- 03 October 2007
2

ThomasP,

15/06/2008 00:53:13
It does not matter what banner our Scottish Infantry are under.

We are one of the best infantries in the entire world and our skills will always be out-matched.
3

Jwil,

15/06/2008 01:03:06
Seeing the trouping of the colour today, you have to ask if any of the traditions of these soldiers have been altered and undermined?
4

Highland Mighty,

15/06/2008 01:03:24
But the SNP, then in opposition at Holyrood, pledged to restore the independence of the regiments. Roar spokesman Jeff Duncan said, "The Army is absolutely terrified because there has been so much effort going on to suppress the old regimental identities."
----------------------------------------------------
What an idiot.

Anyone who has done even the briefest of research will see that the units have actually been merged as part of an ARMY-WIDE scheme (not just Scotland!) to create specialised battalions in either 'armoured', 'mechanised', 'light' or 'air assault' roles.

5

ThomasP,

15/06/2008 01:14:01
Highland Mighty.

The problem was that the old regiments were the soldiers identity and any change would alter their identity and they no longer would be the same.
6

a proud doonhamer,

Dumfries 15/06/2008 01:34:37
It was politics that removed the regiments in the first place, a part of the ongoing campaign to limit Scots indentity and merge it into the British model.

Alex is right to honour the regiments. Well done Lad.
7

2Right,

On Location 15/06/2008 03:00:26
Just look how many jumped ship last year something like 63.000 between all our forces including Navy and RAF.

But then again our Boys in Iraq are lower paid than, say! our Bus Drivers, Road Sweepers, Traffic Wardens etc etc, so time for change on the wages front I would suggest.
This might just save them having to recruit from our Prisons
8

Castaway,

15/06/2008 04:51:08
A shattering of military tradition.Telegraph - 20/09/2007
This morning it is difficult to escape the conclusion that "let down" is precisely what's happened to soldiers - past, present and future - of Scotland's historic infantry regiments as we see how their forced marriage into one super-regiment has fared 16 months after it came into effect.
Alex Salmond, the First Minister, is absolutely correct to raise the issue with Des Browne, the joint Scottish and Defence Secretary, especially, as was noted earlier, there were any number of promises in advance of the merger - concerning cap badges, hackles, kilts, sporrans and other aspects of regimental traditions - that were made and not kept.
In opposition, Mr Salmond opposed the merger and Jack McConnell, the then first minister, laid great stress in maintaining the regional traditions of the units involved.
Mr Browne didn't make any of these promises - they were mostly made by senior Army officers - but as the Cabinet minister responsible, it's his job to see that they're kept, or at least explain why they haven't been.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/09/20/do2005.xml
9

scottish person,

paisley 15/06/2008 05:38:47
I had to sign in again after ticking the remember box. Try and remember me.
The RRS whose commander in chief is the queen, says it all for me.If my sons ever said they wanted to join the army or navy, I would have their heads examined.
Why does anyone want to fight for the q person in iraq or afghanistan, and be ordered about by a person who was born into the favoured classes.Army! I have never seen such absolute crass. The old soldiers must be turning in their graves.
10

Incandescent,

15/06/2008 05:57:04
10 - make sure your browser security settings "allow cookies".
11

glassbenmhor,

15/06/2008 06:20:43
Col. Cartwright took I'm presuming the same oath that I swore 22 years ago,

FOR ME AND ALL THE PEOPLE I KNOW THAT TOOK THE SAME IT WAS

FOR LIFE

THE PRINCIPALS ARE AS RELEVENT TODAY AS THEY WILL BE IN MY LAST DYING BREATH

And this is why they will all return to form again the history of our shortly to be raised nation.

Highland Mighty are you familiar with

NEMO ME IMPUNE LACESSIT!!
12

Geoff,

sa 15/06/2008 07:58:17
The Regimental system and the history behind it is one of the key factors that has made the British Army amongst the best in the world. There is a middle way- i do not believe that the needs of reorganisation and the retention of Regimental identity should be mutually exclusive. Big mistake that should be reversed and this is an opinion shared by Unionists and Nationalists alike
13

Geoff,

sa 15/06/2008 08:03:15
9 Castaway-good post. The fact that the Telegraph has expressed such an opinion shows how totally out of touch Labour is on this issue-another example of NuLabs unnecessary damaging of the Unionists cause and further gifting of rallying points to the Nats!Unbelievable.
14

lulach mac gille coemgain,

15/06/2008 08:16:48
I quite fancy putting a wee regiment together mee-sel’

Rule number one about creating a Nation - have the support of your Military!
15

thinking,

Scotland 15/06/2008 08:45:32
Didn't I read somewhere that if Scotland became independent that the SNP wouldn't be spending on defence?
16

Steve,

15/06/2008 09:06:27
16, but if the SNP didn't spend on defence, how would they manage to build a barbed wire fence along the border, invade England, and then take over ze vorld?

Keep the nonsense posts coming though, I like a laugh on a sunday morning.
17

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 15/06/2008 09:33:53
9 Castaway
It is perfectly understandable and honouable that former soldiers have a sense of loyalty and pride over their former regiments but the merger of the Scottish regiments was part of similar restructuring of the whole of the British army. This was done on recommendations from army chiefs so that the army could organise its functions effectively in terms of logistics, communications etc. and be able to utilise increasingly sophisticated weaponry. The army today is not just about squaddies with rifles it has to be able to deploy complex weapon systems such as Apache helicopters and Javelin anti-tank missiles etc.

Alex Salmond has never been noted for his modesty. Now he appears to feel that his knowledge of how to structure a modern army is superior to that of the army chiefs themselves.
18

sm753,

15/06/2008 09:36:51

Does anyone else find it amusing that "Two Dinners" Salmond claims he wants to "restore the regiments", but his whole raison d'etre is abolishing the British armed forces and leaving us with a tin-pot little Irish-style self-defence force?
19

GM,

15/06/2008 09:57:36
@19

and are you aware or find it amusing that the UK as whole tries to punch above its weight with one of the largest spendings per capita in the world on 'Defence'...

If we stopped spending completely on defence we could have as many new schools, hospitals etc as we pleased and our current tax rates would be halved.
20

Union is Best,

15/06/2008 10:05:10
19. Quite right there, SM753 - we could never have invaded Iraq or have nuclear weapons on the Clyde with such a tin pot force!
21

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 15/06/2008 10:07:46
20 GM
Please try to gain a proper level of perspective. UK defence expenditure represents only 6 - 7% of total govt expenditure and less than 3% of GDP. It is dwarfed by spending on Social Security, NHS etc.

Your assertion that we could halve taxes and build as many hospitals as we want is well wide of the mark.
22

Geoff,

sa 15/06/2008 10:07:56
20 GM-if we stopped spending on defence-nice thought but totally impractical. Defence spending is a necessary evil.
19 SM 753-no doubt that Alex salmond is using this issue to stoke the Nat fires but then his aim is Scottish Independence so he exploits any opportunity given him. I still believe that the modern structure requirements of the Brit Military can be accomodated without destroying our history and giving godsend grievance issues to those that seek to destroy the UK and British Army
23

Geoff,

sa 15/06/2008 10:14:52
21 Union is Best-you left something out -you should have said" Quite right-we could never have invaded Iraq or have nuclear weapons on the Clyde or have the ABILITY TO DEFEND ourselves with such a Tin Pot force."
24

Union is Best,

15/06/2008 10:22:18
24. Quite right Geoff, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Estonia, Latvia are all defenceless, given that notions of collective security have not been invented.

25

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 15/06/2008 10:22:21
23 geoff
You may well be correct. Alex Salmond may well be attempting to stoke up another grievance. As I pointed out in an earlier post (# 18) his campaign goes against the recommendations of the army chiefs themselves so he is, in effect, saying that he knows better than they. Is he genuinely concerned over the regiments or is he merely indulging in political (and, one must conclude, supremely arrogant) posturing to further his own ambitions. Please feel free to make your own conclusion.
26

Geoff,

sa 15/06/2008 10:23:58
25 Methalions-"Winner of the Most Terse Comment of the Day Award"-:)
27

Union is Best,

15/06/2008 10:24:28
27. Well said, If only we could ban people from commenting at all on the army at all, (after all is not as if it is paid for by tax payers or administered by elected politicians is it?) as we are now doing to stop pesky coroners criticising decisions that relate to the military
28

Geoff,

sa 15/06/2008 10:32:14
26 Union is Best-the notion of collective security ultimately lies on the credibility of its members and the willingness to act collectively. The EU for example, whilst on paper a powerful military grouping has been neither able or willing to act in concert militarily or indeed in any other forum! The countries you cite couldnt punch their way out of a paper bag-they ultimately would depend on the USA.UK and France should the s*it really hit the fan and yes yes I know you are going to say "Who's going to attcak little ol Scotland" but in an increasingly frenetic and dangerous world the future is too difficult to predict. It would be wonderful to achieve a military free world of peace and harmony, but how does one get there? I think mission impossible. So insummary if u want to adopt military policies such as Eire and NZ-essentially leave your countries almost totally dependent on others for defence-thats fine. Just pray though that the ones with the REAL means to defend themselves dont follow your example!
29

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 15/06/2008 10:32:17
#24 Geoff

And when did we last have to defend ourselves?
30

Union is Best,

15/06/2008 10:34:48
31. I think Geoff was referring, rightly, to our policies of illegal invasions and nuclear proliferation, as well as backing and cooperating with US rendition and torture, which are bound to provoke someone into attacking us!
31

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 15/06/2008 10:36:37
29 Union
Commenting on an issue is one thing - telling those in charge that you know how to run the organisation better than they do is another. How far does the Alex Salmond think his expertise in army matters extends. Does he feel that he can instruct a member of the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards on how to drive a tank.
32

MtnKat,

15/06/2008 10:39:37
We are not the only country whose regimental units have a long and glorious history. Why is the British Army the only one that needs to do away with them in the name of efficiency? For example, Google 101st/military.
On a side note, wonderful article in the Herald this morning. Wee Wendy has been found GUILTY by the Electoral Commission.
33

Geoff,

sa 15/06/2008 10:44:50
32 Union is Best(Shurely some mishtake in you name?)-on the same page as you in some respects-agree Iraq was a disaster and agree that the USA and some of her policies under GWB are sinister and hypocritical but you should try to sort the proverbial wheat from the chaff.Many Nations do not conduct themselves peacefully and with reason-you will always have Mugabes,Hitlers,Kims,Husseins etc and you will need to confront them. The answer is not to opt out in ostrich like neutrality in the naive belief that nobody will trouble u if you dont say boo
34

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 15/06/2008 10:45:05
And another thing Geoff, go and see the Black Watch which is showing at the Barbican in July or St Ann's Warehouse in New York in October. This may help you understand the Blair/Hoon politics that led to the amalgamation of the Scottish Regiments and the effect that had on our soldiers' morale whilst then actually serving at Camp Dogwood, Iraq.

Shame on them.
35

John PM,

Edinburgh 15/06/2008 10:47:49
British Army recruitment is at an all time low and no wonder. Why would anyone want to die for a state which underpays, under equips and gets them in under false pretences of 'free education'?

A non-imperialist Scottish army which is controlled by our own Government is the way forward. Our soldiers should not have to die in internationally illegal US sponsored military adventures.
36

Union is Best,

15/06/2008 10:48:49
33. Indeed - Geoff Hoon and Des Browne are clearly experts in all matters military, as evidenced by their sending troops to Afghanistan lacking body armour and other vital equipment! It is ridiculous for politicians to comment on the military!
37

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 15/06/2008 10:50:59
#33 Ugly - What made Blair and Hoon so well-qualified to undertake the "re-structuring" in the first place, yet Salmond is not? This seems to fatally damage your argument.

#34 MtnKat - The amalgamation was politically driven. That much is obvious.
38

Geoff,

sa 15/06/2008 10:52:02
36 Connaughtboy-ta for info. Would like to see-also, whilst I am a Unionist I am in total agreement with ROAR on this issue
39

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 15/06/2008 10:58:57
#40 Geoff

You support ROAR? You could have fooled me!
40

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 15/06/2008 11:00:58
39 Connaughtboy
If you read my other posts (18 and 27) you will see that the argument is not fatally dameged - it is alive and well. The restructuring was an initiative from the army which was accepted by Blair and Hoon. Blair and Hoon did not, as Alex Salmond is doing, tell the army how to structure itself.

How, therefore, can you assert that the amalgamation was "politically driven". What political advantage could any party acquire through this move?
41

Geoff,

sa 15/06/2008 11:05:15
41 Connaughtboy-yes I know-sometimes my alleigances are obscure.
42

Geoff,

sa 15/06/2008 11:07:49
41 Connaughtboy-Connaught? West of Ireland-lovely part of the world-have paddled my canoe in Galway Bay. Is that where yr from?
43

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 15/06/2008 11:26:28
#42 Ugly

I beg to differ. Blair and Hoon made the decision and therefore it was political. They may well have consulted with military people and heard the case for and against the amalgamation. At the end of the day, they made the decision. Salmond will have consulted in exactly the same way and is therefore equally well qualified (or unqualified) as Blair/Hoon. You can't really square this circle George.

As for the political advantage in the amalgamation, who knows. One thing is for sure though, Blair has zero respect for history and tradition and it was second nature to him to do what he did.

As for Salmond, the political advantage is very clear. By fighting thid fight he will have the support of a large majority of the Scottish people.
44

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 15/06/2008 11:28:54
#45 Geoff. Alas not. Glasgow by birth, now living in a small fishing village south of Stonehaven.
45

Geoff,

sa 15/06/2008 11:32:40
46 Connaughtboy-"Salmond..will have the support of a large majority of the Scottish people" That is,from all sides of the political divide-thats the point i was trying to make when I revealed the earth shattering news that i supported ROAR. It is not a Unionist-Nationalist issue at all but Salmond is perhaps best placed to make political capital from this.
46

Geoff,

sa 15/06/2008 11:38:32
47 connaughtboy-also a lovely part of the world I hear.I will be on the opposite side in Kintyre in september.
47

shivago8,

livingston 15/06/2008 12:09:51
I was present at the celebration for the Scottish Regiments which was two fold,to praise the regiments for the proud work that they do for us at home and in the two conflicts in Iraq and the Afghan.
Secondly for those veterans who put up a fight and still doing so in trying to restore our Scottish regiments.
AS gave a very good presentation on both of these topics.
It was sad that there were no serving soldiers to hear the first ministers praises for them
We were told that orders from higher echelons forbade them to attend,such a pity.
If we are fighting to put back some pride and fill the ranks of our BN,s and get some identity back,then we stand guilty.
The regimental secretary has recently communicated with me ,and he told me in no uncertain fashion,that I had my day,go away,silly old veteran you mean nothing,that is to a man who recently served with his regiment for 40 years,that near reduced me to tears.
As for Col Cartwright claiming to be the CO of the BW,he is now but he is not BW ,he has been cross posted from the RHF, the stupid system that the the RRS now operate,he does not know the BW and the BW does not know him and it will take the two years that he is in command to really know how the Bn and the regiment tick.
He also comes from a regiment that took no part in trying to restore the regiments,possibly because the top man at that time was Gen Louden and then he was presented with the tattoo job for his efforts in forcing the demise of our regiments loved and revered the world over.
We do not have the same platform to fight our case as these serving officers do but we will not cease in our endeavours to put back what was a wrong order and if you study what is happening now to them,we cant help by praising ourselves by telling them ,"we told you so".
Also a lot of peope are now being enhanced by there stand in talking up the RRS,which we refer to as the BLOB
48

,

15/06/2008 12:12:02
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
49

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 15/06/2008 12:58:54
46 Connaughtboy
You may beg to differ but you cannot rewrite history. The restructuring was an army plan which was agreed by Blair and Hoon. It was not instigated by them. Has Alex Salmond consulted the army chiefs whose plan this was and asked them to explain their reasons? I don't know whether he has or not. Has he studied in detail the logistical problems of running and equippping a modern army so that he can justify his feeling of superior knowledge to army chiefs? If he feels that he can tell them what they should not do can he put forward an alternative structure for the army which takes all these things into account.

You seem to be implying that, for some obscure and unknown political reason, Blair and Hoon had it in for the Scottish regiments. Yes they made the decision but that decision was made on the basis of advice from the army chiefs. What were they suppopsed to do? Ignore the advice of the professionals in charge and tell them that they, as politicians, have suprior knowledge on army matters - ie the Alex Salmond approach.
50

subrosa,

15/06/2008 13:03:35
# 7 Doonhammer

Absolutely correct. On the odd occasion I've hobnobbed with the 'elite' of the British Army I have yet to hear any comment other than the amalgamation was purely a political decision. In 2005 the top brass were 'bought' by the Westminster government and sadly there weren't enough Scottish top brass to protest. I've yet to ascertain was the purchase price was but if it was helicopters then these yes men must feel stupid now.

If the regiments were resurrected recruitment would rise. That's a given.

Mind you, who in their right mind would want to be in the British Army these days since they are only used as cannon fodder and shown no respect whatseover for their endeavours. Sadly one of my family is there and cannot afford to leave as he would lose his pension. Considering he could have earned at least 3 times what he earns protecting this country it's a sad state of affairs. Of course there's the fact that he has to pay twice for accommodation. His mortgage on his jointly owned wee flat (an attempt for a 30+ year old to get on the property ladder) and money to the MOD for the 'privilege' of staying in the mess nearest to his place of work. Aye, who would want to join up nowadays?
51

Urban Guerrilla,

Edinburgh 15/06/2008 13:10:33
> But a Ministry of Defence source said: "Alex Salmond is in danger of playing politics on this issue." <

Er... isn't that his job, as First Minister of Scotland?
52

subrosa,

15/06/2008 13:11:56
# 52 'You seem to be implying that, for some obscure and unknown political reason, Blair and Hoon had it in for the Scottish regiments. Yes they made the decision but that decision was made on the basis of advice from the army chiefs. What were they suppopsed to do? Ignore the advice of the professionals in charge and tell them that they, as politicians, have suprior knowledge on army matters - ie the Alex Salmond approach.'

My understanding is that the government approached the military initially.

Alex Salmond and the SNP have given total support to ROAR and at every meeting I attended (quite a few) a senior representative from the SNP spoke. Nobody can say this is just to annoy Westminster. The SNP have been staunch since the first mutterings of the ridiculous policy to do away with our regiments.
53

Reject London,

DUNDEE 15/06/2008 13:14:47
#2 Thomas

It may not matter to YOU but to thousands of former and serving soldiers it DOES matter that they are Black Watch or RHF etc. You only need read their comments in the press to clearly see they are proudly fierce of their regimental identities and despite the likes of Alastair Campbell, regimental secretary to the RRS, who think they are not entitled to an opinion - they do hold one.

Incidentally, ALL serving and MoD personnel were ORDERED NOT TO ATTEND to the reception by the Adjutant General.

It is a small elite clique who hold no respect or love of those who wish to retain Scottish Military Heritage (both current, past and future) i.e. ROAR and have an allegiance to the military establishment in London that should be held in contempt.

The First Minister is quite right to recognise the campaign and serving soldiers. Every snake Labour minister who starve the military of cash, committ them to dangerous, unwinnable and pointless wars, and untimely deaths have no qualms about heaping praise on serving soldiers - they talk they talk but do not do the walk.

Until Scotland is independent and in full control of its Armed Forces we shall be subjected to political interference which has set about diluting the identities of Scotland's Regiments - on purpose.

I welcome the day we see our regiments re-instated.
54

ThomasP,

15/06/2008 13:20:33
56 Reject London,DUNDEE

Of course. I am a Nationalist and once there is an Independent Scotland our regiments will be able to use their original names.

It is more important we continue to keep our reputation as the best infantry in the world and also important that Alex Salmond has the support of the Scottish Army so once we are Independent we will have the Scottish Military the way the darn Scots want their military to be like.
55

Elginloon,

15/06/2008 13:42:12
Ah yes, ROAR the 'organisation' led by ex RAF chappie Jeff Duncan who has no experience of the infantry let alone Scottish infantry. Who is ridiculed by serving and retired Scottish infantry soldiers on the ARSSE forums and elsewhere.....who then slags off serving and retired JOCKS who ask him to stop undermining the regiments. A self appointed champion and ex Labour supporter now mysteriously surfaces as an SNP loon looking for a safe seat.....says it all. He is also not giving the true story from the battalions - ask the regimental associations what is really going on and there are very few who agree with Duncan.

This is nothing to do with reinstating the regiments - SNP said they'd look at it within 100 days - bit later than 100 days is it not? This is yet another Salmond inspired whinge to cause a fuss down South and distract from his failures. I was in the Black Watch Sgts Mess at Fort George a month ago listening to lads from 3 and 4 SCOTS just back from Iraq and Afghanistan. The JOCKS, not non infantry people like Duncan and his two pals are saying they like the new regiment - they get posted to different places and serve with different battalions. Promotion is better and experience is being gained across armoured, light and specialist infantry roles.

My local regiment was an amalgamation of two fine Highland regiments in 1994, the one before that was an amalgamation of three in 1961, and before that the Seaforths were merged into one battalion. Indeed the ONLY battalions to escape amalgamation in any shape or form were the Royal Scots and the Queen's Own Camerons Highlanders who themselves narrowly escaped in 1881. Amalgamation is not a new thing - it has been going on for hundreds of years!

People won't join because of the socialist nutters saying our soldiers are all murdering thugs, the half wits who spend all their time making wild accusations that make lads think that there isn't a career worth having anymore and so on. As the economy under
56

Elginloon,

15/06/2008 13:44:26
Labour gets worst recruiting goes up! Slagging off the new regiments who are fighting at a harder pace and udner worst conditions than many of the retired or ex RAF like Duncan ever did, is not only disployal to the regiments but undermines the Jocks morale as well.

57

Maxanim,

Passim 15/06/2008 14:06:29
Whatever one may think of the amalgamation of the Scottish regiments, the configuration of the defence forces of all member states of the European Union may conceivably have to be radically overhauled, in any case, before the present UK army structure has had very long to settle down.

Why? Whether the UK government likes it or not and whether the British media choose to let us know much about it or not, the fact of the matter is that defence is becoming an EU issue. What are they talking about on the European mainland while we are busy with our own preoccupations here on the offshore islands? Among other things that may seem alien to us, they are increasingly attached to the idea of "l'Europe de la puissance", one aspect of which is what is commonly referred to as "l'Europe de la défense", which the about-to-be-inaugurated French presidency of the European Union will apparently be prioritizing.

Of course, an EU defence structure could take one of a number of forms, which might have varying degrees of impact on the current configurations of the independent defence structures of the member states. However President Sarkozy's initiative pans out in the short term, and it will, of course, meet with Anglo-Saxon opposition, the senior officers of the Royal Regiment of Scotland and of other regiments in the British army may simply have to accustom themselves to talk of further military restructuring upheaval from the EU level of government just as they will have to put up with speculation and indeed controversy at the Scottish level on the same subject.

As the French initiative may be expected to come to be seen to have implications for politics at the Scottish level as well as the UK one, the SNP and other Scottish political parties and pressure groups can hardly be expected to take a vow of silence on the matter even to soothe the imagined sensitivities of our fighting troops, whom God preserve. One of the UK government's principal if not publicly voiced ob
58

Maxanim,

Passim 15/06/2008 14:09:42
As the French initiative may be expected to come to be seen to have implications for politics at the Scottish level as well as the UK one, the SNP and other Scottish political parties and pressure groups can hardly be expected to take a vow of silence on the matter even to soothe the imagined sensitivities of our fighting troops, whom God preserve. One of the UK government's principal if not publicly voiced objections to an EU defence capability will be, of course, that it would demolish utterly the defence argument against Scottish independence, as it is not infrequently argued that independent Scotland will have difficulty in providing itself with an adequate defence force because of the country's relatively small size, although smaller countries with inferior resources seem to manage.

The president of the French republic, in his capacity as president of the European Union pro tempore, appears to be about to attempt to lead the way to further defence-force reorganization, which may not take effect very soon, but we shall probably be discussing his ideas very soon, not least as an unintended but nonetheless valuable contribution to our debate on the constitutional future of Scotland, whether that pleases the officers of the Royal Regiment of Scotland or not.
59

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 15/06/2008 14:30:41
#52 Ugly George

You have fallen for the old Bliar technique as deployed in the Dodgy Dossier disaster. Bliar's advisers write the script and this is given to the security forces, armed forces etc to obediently support.

Nowhere will you find the evidence that this was anything other than a Bliar/Hoon stitch-up.
60

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 15/06/2008 14:55:19
62 Connaughtboy
You appear to be making this up as you go along. What are you suggesting now - Blair had, for some reason, a secret desire to stuff the Scottish regiments so he hatched a devious plan to make it look like it was the army deciding this. I do not wish to be rude but you appear to be falling into the Al Fayed school of conspiracy theory. Was Prince Philip part of this conspiracy as well.
61

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 15/06/2008 15:23:18
62 Connaghtboy
PS If you check the details you will find that a meeting was held of the Colonels of all 6 former Scottish regiments. This meeting was held under the chairmanship of Gen. Sir Mike Jackson. At the meeting the 6 Colonels discussed the plan written by one of them to carry out the amalgamation. 5 voted in favour and only one against.

Is this what you mean by a "Blair/Hoon stitch up"
This was an army decision. Why don't you accept that and why does Alex Salmond feel that he knows better than the Colonels of the regiments themselves.
62

LEAL,

15/06/2008 15:32:51
Salmond wouldnt have sent troops from scotland to invade iraq.labour did.when is this paper going to tell us the truth about scotland?when is alexander going to tell the truth about her election expenses fraud?when is the electoral commission going to enforce the law?
63

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 15/06/2008 15:56:54
53/55 Subrosa
As I said in post 62 The plan for this "ridiculous" amalgamation was written and voted upon by the chiefs of the regiments themselves. That is a documented and established fact. How can you maintain the comments you have made in these circumstances.
64

Who Dares Wins,

15/06/2008 16:24:37
Salmond is now an expert on the Military is he? He knows more abouteffective organisation of the armed forces than their top brass?

Of course he doesn't, identify reserved power, moan about it, identify reserved power, bicker like a child, identify another reserved power, read out latest wikipedia entry and pretend to be expert.

The wee fat man is a know-nothing and a charlatan.
65

All Politicians are the same,

Scotland 15/06/2008 17:18:20
Salmond has no intention of recreating the 6 Scottish battalions as 3,600 single role Infantry will require a force level for the land element of the SDF to numer between 15-20,00 in order to have the correct force mixture. he will not pay for that and with the massive defections of personnel wanting to stay in the Uk armed forces he will not be able to man it.
66

,

15/06/2008 17:21:28
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
67

,

15/06/2008 17:23:28
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
68

,

15/06/2008 17:25:42
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
69

Geoff,

sa 15/06/2008 17:27:42
68 A Voice=founded by a Scot whose family are avid Unionists!
70

lulach mac gille coemgain,

15/06/2008 17:29:00
When it comes to the big question - ‘War’l it be?’
71

Who Dares Wins,

15/06/2008 17:38:24
68 Voice

How do I hide a comment?

Are you upset because I think your cult leader is a charlatan? I haven't claimed to be anything other than an anonomous poster, so quite how that equates to me being a fantasist is a mystery.

The real message to the military must be that Alex Salmond is a major embarassment to them. Imagine having a first minister that is so full of s*** and minces around farting out his mouth about how the old badges were pretier.

Look at the state of Salmond, he couldn't pass a quarter of the basic military fitness test. It must be sickening to see someone who couldn't even run for bus (or walk 200 yards to a restaraunt) preaching about Scotland's "strength" and how he knows best.
72

ThomasP,

15/06/2008 17:48:53
73 Who Dares Wins

Scotland as a whole as an obiesity problem. To pick on Salmond and Salmond allow has shown the world how pathetic you are.
73

ThomasP,

15/06/2008 17:53:38
67 All Politicians are the same,Scotland

"Salmond has no intention of recreating the 6 Scottish battalions as 3,600 single role Infantry will require a force level for the land element of the SDF to numer between 15-20,00 in order to have the correct force mixture."

Actually with the reports I have saw an Independent Scotland would actually be capable of what you said.

"he will not pay for that and with the massive defections of personnel wanting to stay in the Uk armed forces he will not be able to man it."

I doubt you have evidence to support your point here. Have you been to Iraq or Afganistan? If not, then you would not realise the type of warfare that our soldiers are fighting in.

Given the chance I suspect the Scottish soldiers would leave the UK armed forces to be in an Independent Scottish military.

Afterall, many of these soldiers have families to think about and may not want to risk dying for Labour or what would be England.
74

,

15/06/2008 17:56:18
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
75

All Politicians are the same,

Scotland 15/06/2008 17:57:33
I wear both the TELIC and HERRICK campaign ribbons with pride. Soldiers join to see action, I am not saying thet they would all go but a good percentage would. I also never claimed that an Independent Scotland could not financially support those force levels only thta all indicators imply that Salmond is looking to the Irish model rather than the Norwegian one for an armed forces.
76

Who Dares Wins,

15/06/2008 18:05:56
79 Methalions

I didn't see Jackie Baillie mentioned in the article.

Are you another one of these Alex Salmond fanciers? It's wuite freaky actually the way you take personal offence to someone correctly labelling Salmond as a slob.

Of course he's not the only disgusting slob in the country, but you'd think he would have more self respect than to just grow and grow year on year.
77

All Politicians are the same,

Scotland 15/06/2008 18:06:03
#79

Very fat
78

ThomasP,

15/06/2008 18:15:21
77 Who Dares Wins.

And why should he exercise?

We live in a country that does not give a f##k about anything, drink, drugs, anti-social behaviour, etc etc
79

Who Dares Wins,

15/06/2008 18:30:04
83 ThomasP

He should excercise because he is a disgusting slob and an embarassment to Scotland and our children. We should not let them be normalised to morbid obesity, seeing people in high office like that is wrong.
80

 Ayrshire Scot™,

15/06/2008 18:33:00
84. Hey Meths - are you aware that you feature in the print and online editions of the Sunday Herald today?

http://www.sundayherald.com/oped/opinion/display.var.2342312.0.alas_journalists_are_no_longer_in_charge_of_the_asylum.php
81

ThomasP,

15/06/2008 18:39:03
83 Who Dares Wins.

But why stop at Alex Salmond?

It just shows you how pathetic you are. Alex Salmond is not the only overweight person in Politics.

How sad to sit in front of a computer screen, making insults to a stranger.

Pathetic.
82

Who Dares Wins,

15/06/2008 18:39:10
86 Methalions

Being a morbidly obese slob is politics. How much taxation for heart wards and by-pass operations?

Equal access, even for fat pigs like Salmond.

Should we have a cowardly fat man who can't even run for a bus lecture our strongest and bravest on why he wants them to be neautral in all wars.

Alex Salmond is an embarassment.
83

brownlie,

15/06/2008 19:03:33
83 Who dares?

Quite right!! The only reason the Second World War was won was because Churchill was skinny as a rake and neither smoked nor drank.
84

Who Dares Wins,

15/06/2008 19:07:18
91

That cowardly fat slob Salmond wouldn't have fought the war, he would cowered in a corner and claimed neutrality.

The war was won by troops who were fighting fit btw. Not disgusting pigs who can't even be bothered walking 200 yards for their nightly banqet courtesy of you and me.

Salmond is a fat coward and shouldn't speak to our fine troops, he embarasses them and Scotland with his weak, cowardly outlook.
85

ThomasP,

15/06/2008 19:10:46
Who Dares Wins.

Jeez. You are such a loser, how you can sit and type trash all day is really sad.
86

ThomasP,

15/06/2008 19:12:49
Methalions.

But what if we are facing Japan where size is important?
87

brownlie,

15/06/2008 19:13:21
92 Who dares

Did I see you in Little Britain in a fetching blue outfit and sporting a fake tan?
88

A Better Way,

Edinburgh 15/06/2008 19:28:13
There is a real stench of traitors who support the Union on this page this morning.

The realities of why the Regiments were scrapped was in the News over the last couple of days and its called the EU.

Brown the bottler and Browne the rat wanted the regimental system dismantled so they could join with the New World order traitors who want Nato as the European Army. You cant possibly be some form of wogs soldier while being a proud member of a Scottish Regiment who have a history of stopping Dictators taking over the rights of the people. The European Union is just another form of NAZI's taking over and the so called elite running roughshod over the peasant class.

The average soldier in Afghanistan or Iraq gets a 15 pound a day bonus for being in a war zone. The average little pipsqueek Westminster Civil Servant gets 100 pounds a day and doesnt ever have to pick up a gun to defend his mates. Why is Scottish Recruitment Down by so many. Firstly the above example of some little nyaff getting 100 quid a day is the first reason. The second reason is that there is absolutely nothing noble about working for British and US politicians who killed 1 million Iraqi men women and children in the name of capturing their oil assets. BP, the company our taxes built now run the biggest refinery in Iraq and assist the Brown Government to strip the wealth of the poor Iraqi People.

The third reason is that Scottish Soldiers owe nothing to Britain. They are Scots and are very proud of that fact. Why serve in a foreign army when you can soon serve in the Scottish Defence Force. You gutless Unionist Traitors cant see beyond your own self interest, and are Anglified betrayers of the Scottish Nation. Go and live in the Country Your Hearts ache for and leave Scotland for Scots. English Lackies is what you are now, and after Independance the English them selves will try to throw you out, and quite rightly too. The English People dont like snifling little traitors either.
89

Thistledhu,

15/06/2008 19:37:48
Ugly George the changes came about due to a demand of "cost cutting " by the then chancelor who was that yes u guesed it Broon. this then prompted the guards/ para mafia in whitehall to start plotting they have long ressented the distinctive appearence and worldwide reputation for fighting spirit that the scotish infantry regiments have.
i for years would look at the manning figures of guards and para battalions and wonder how they could be justified.

the changes were an exercise of self preservation by the guards/para's all done with the complicit support of Brown and his backbiters