• Scottish army regiments are to retain their names and badges!
    26 replies, posted
[QUOTE]BBC Scotland has been told that the cap badges and names of the five battalions within the Royal Regiment of Scotland are to be retained. Their identities had been under threat as the UK government reduces the number of armed forces personnel from 102,000 to 82,000. The most significant change will be in the status of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders. It will be reduced to company strength and will undertake "public duties". This could involve guarding high-profile locations such as Edinburgh's Holyrood Palace. The four other battalions are expected to remain intact. They are: the Royal Scots; the Black Watch; the Royal Highland Fusiliers; and the Highlanders. Government sources have indicated that the Royal and Sutherland Highlanders will remain a stand-alone company and will not merge with another battalion. It is believed to be the first time such an arrangement has been used in Scotland. In the past, such companies have been restored to battalion status at a later date. A formal announcement on the Defence Review is expected on Thursday.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-18716375[/url] Brilliant! It would have been terrible if the government just went and removed the regiments complete history and affects.
I'm not sure how I feel about this, since it's obvious that they were spared for political reasons. Scrapping/merging them would be a massive mistake under the circumstances - and for that reason I obviously do agree with the idea. But I feel that English forces will suffer as a result and - potentially - if Scotland does become independent, it will all have been for nought. What further irritates me over all this is that the MoD announced not long ago that it had balanced its books and that no more cuts were necessary. What the flying fuck happened to that? I must admit that when things like this happen even I - a staunch Conservative - am having difficulty maintaining faith in the current government.
The title's a little wrong. There's only one Scottish regiment remaining. The Royal Regiment of Scotland. The Regiments that existed previously, became battalions. And it's the battalions that are keeping their history intact
[QUOTE=David29;36625529]I'm not sure how I feel about this, since it's obvious that they were spared for political reasons. Scrapping/merging them would be a massive mistake under the circumstances - and for that reason I obviously do agree with the idea. But I feel that English forces will suffer as a result and - potentially - if Scotland does become independent, it will all have been for nought. What further irritates me over all this is that the MoD announced not long ago that it had balanced its books and that no more cuts were necessary. What the flying fuck happened to that? I must admit that when things like this happen even I - a staunch Conservative - am having difficulty maintaining faith in the current government.[/QUOTE] Maybe the government decided to knock some more off the military budget so they didn't have to cut as much elsewhere?
[QUOTE=David29;36625529]I'm not sure how I feel about this, since it's obvious that they were spared for political reasons. Scrapping/merging them would be a massive mistake under the circumstances - and for that reason I obviously do agree with the idea. But I feel that English forces will suffer as a result and - potentially - if Scotland does become independent, it will all have been for nought. What further irritates me over all this is that the MoD announced not long ago that it had balanced its books and that no more cuts were necessary. What the flying fuck happened to that? I must admit that when things like this happen even I - a staunch Conservative - am having difficulty maintaining faith in the current government.[/QUOTE] Makes sense though, Britain doesn't need 100,000 soldiers. We have enough technology and allies to defend ourselves without that many boots on the ground.
Britains a regional power now, something it's slowly coming to terms with it seems.
I'm glad they aren't throwing away tradition needlessly. Still disappointed in England for getting rid of Latin in the courts.
[QUOTE=cccritical;36627660]I'm glad they aren't throwing away tradition needlessly. Still disappointed in England for getting rid of Latin in the courts.[/QUOTE] It's the 21st century, not the 4th.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;36627727]It's the 21st century, not the 4th.[/QUOTE] ut est quis vos reputo
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;36627727]It's the 21st century, not the 4th.[/QUOTE] If you're a lawyer and you don't know or can't be bothered to remember what 'modus operandi' means, you're not competent enough to have a job that important.
[QUOTE=cccritical;36627950]If you're a lawyer and you don't know or can't be bothered to remember what 'modus operandi' means, you're not competent enough to have a job that important.[/QUOTE] There's little point to it though. The reason anybody still speaks it is because it has been on life support for well over a thousand years. It's a dead language, and even the original group of people who spoke it no longer exist.
The Black Watch sounds badass.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;36627424]Britains a regional power now, something it's slowly coming to terms with it seems.[/QUOTE] Yet you guys are always up along side the US troops in American conflicts to a point, anywhere on the globe. With the technological advancement of navies and travel, a developed nation like Britain has no definition of "regional power".
[QUOTE=Amez;36629032]The Black Watch sounds badass.[/QUOTE] definitely [IMG]https://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/c0.0.403.403/p403x403/527740_471871562838249_323978195_n.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE=Not Flapadar;36627376]Makes sense though, Britain doesn't need 100,000 soldiers. We have enough technology and allies to defend ourselves without that many boots on the ground.[/QUOTE] I won't get into an debate about how that is a bad argument. However, you seem to be ignoring the facts that these are people's jobs that we are talking about...
[QUOTE=David29;36630865]I won't get into an debate about how that is a bad argument. However, you seem to be ignoring the facts that these are people's jobs that we are talking about...[/QUOTE] Can't think of that many areas of Government which should be cut more than the MoD.
[QUOTE=erazor;36632530]Can't think of that many areas of Government which should be cut more than the MoD.[/QUOTE] Ministry of Defence =/= the armed forces.
[QUOTE=David29;36632595]Ministry of Defence =/= the armed forces.[/QUOTE] If you cut back on MoD spending, the overwhelming majority of those cuts will come from the armed forces. What is your point?
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;36629055]Yet you guys are always up along side the US troops in American conflicts to a point, anywhere on the globe. With the technological advancement of navies and travel, a developed nation like Britain has no definition of "regional power".[/QUOTE] I say regional as its more of a smaller entity than say the USA. Britain is nowhere near as powerful as it was a century ago.
I'm glad to see that the Black Watch is keeping it's name, a lot of my family have served in it. A shame about some of the others getting reduced in strength though - a lot of Scots have a military history, and I can't see them being happy about losing their jobs.
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;36632973]I say regional as its more of a smaller entity than say the USA. Britain is nowhere near as powerful as it was a century ago.[/QUOTE] Still, it has the power to threaten countries on the other side of the globe. The definition of 'regional power' is that its power goes only as far as their local region, which it does not for the UK.
[QUOTE=David29;36630865]I won't get into an debate about how that is a bad argument. However, you seem to be ignoring the facts that these are people's jobs that we are talking about...[/QUOTE] There's plenty of other jobs. Right now, of those 100,000 people we only need around 50,000. I'm sure the 50,000 that could be phased out would be able to find work elsewhere. Employing people for the sake of employing people is a dumb idea.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;36629258]so badass that you'll never be able to afford them[/QUOTE] (you've never played the game obv) My point was, they are badass enough to be their own unit, along with the brandenburger, etc. Thought it was a joke from the beginning and should be treated as such
[QUOTE=Sobotnik;36632973]I say regional as its more of a smaller entity than say the USA. Britain is nowhere near as powerful as it was a century ago.[/QUOTE] A lot weaker than the USA and her old 19th-20th self, of course. No one questions that. But along with the US and France, Britain still holds military bases and strategic islands dotted throughout the globe, and so her ability to project power is still considered as global instead of regional.
100,000 is too small for a military, but I guess it's different for Europeans.
[QUOTE=David29;36630865]I won't get into an debate about how that is a bad argument. However, you seem to be ignoring the facts that these are people's jobs that we are talking about...[/QUOTE] They are better in civillian jobs. They don't help the GDP, they shrink it. Even on full welfare they're still costing much less then they do as soliders. The entire point behind the typical, conservative jobs argument is that it helps the GDP. That's why conservatives keep laying off so many public sector workers. Why not soliders, if you're already laying off policemen, teachers, firemen and other such people on a government payroll?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.