# Non-Jumping Paras and Scots Sharing Kilts



## Kirkhill (18 Dec 2006)

And you lot think you have problems............



> No jumps for Paras as MoD cuts £1bn
> By Sean Rayment and Rob Watts, Sunday Telegraph
> 
> Last Updated: 1:28am GMT 17/12/2006
> ...


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/17/nparas17.xml



> Scots troops must share their kilts
> 
> By Kate Devlin
> 
> ...



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/18/nkilts18.xml

Just think of the hygiene issues....... "Ah'm no sharing mah kilt wi' onybuddy.  Hae' ye seen the mess Geordie made on the parade square whan he wuz fu', forbye?"

On the plus side I note that the MOD figures it will only take a year to recover the lost skills..... :


----------



## Old Sweat (18 Dec 2006)

Am I being cynical when I suggest that the majority of savings will be in the costs associated with Hercules flying hours, and that this will ease the strain on the air transport fleet? It will be interesting to see if parachute training does restart in 2012, or if someone declares the capability redundant?

No mention is made - probably because the reporter did not think about it - regarding the effect on parachuting by special forces.


----------



## R933ex (18 Dec 2006)

An "Official Response" is now located on the MND's webpage.

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/DefencePolicyAndBusiness/DefenceNewsDaily.htm


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Dec 2006)

Thanks for that R933ex.

The Parachuting "neither confirm nor deny" doesn't entirely fill one with confidence though does it?

As to the kilts......wait and see.


----------



## R933ex (18 Dec 2006)

No problem Kirkhill,

And in the meantime it doesn't click to me (And I am not an expert here). It seems that if you drop that skillset for 4 years it would probably take longer then 1 year to get it back. Hopefully they won't loose it but then again, a Billion is a Billion.


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Dec 2006)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Just think of the hygiene issues....... "Ah'm no sharing mah kilt wi' onybuddy.  Hae' ye seen the mess Geordie made on the parade square whan he wuz fu', forbye?"



Someone else who's read "The General Danced at Dawn"?


----------



## tomahawk6 (19 Dec 2006)

The Labor government continues to whittle away at Britain's defense establishment.Very sad to see.Socialism doesnt work and unless the UK and Europe move toward a US type economy the budget woes will only get worse.


----------



## Danjanou (19 Dec 2006)

milnewstbay said:
			
		

> Someone else who's read "The General Danced at Dawn"?



Mandatory reading for anyone who's ever served in a kilted regiment. 8)


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Dec 2006)

milnewstbay said:
			
		

> Someone else who's read "The General Danced at Dawn"?



The accent is the one my mother bequeathed me, honed by years of Burns and the Broons.  The anecdote (unfortunately) is drawn from a personal observation on parade (names changed to protect the guilty).  However I plead guilty to being a McAuslan fan - and yes it should be required reading.  ;D

And tomahawk6, couldn't agree with you more.  There is a considerable amount of speculation that some in the UK Treasury, up to and including Brown, have it in for the forces and have been allowed to get away with not supporting the effort necessary for Blair's foreign policy because of a bargain that he and Brown made to stay out of each other's business.   Talk about your dysfunctional government.


----------



## The Rifleman (19 Dec 2006)

the whole area of procurement in the British Army is a joke. We have even reintroduced a vehicle that first saw service on the West German Plain during the Cold war in the 60's - the FV 432! And that replaced the joke called the Saxon - an armoured 4 ton truck!

You Canadians are lucky with the Bison and Grizzly - you might moan but the LAV type of wagon is far superior to the aforementioned


----------



## GO!!! (19 Dec 2006)

It seems the brits are just as intent on gutting a useful capability as Canada was a decade ago.

I would be willing to bet that in four years, they will have such a critical shortage of Jumpmasters, riggers, aircrew and their associated skillsets, that it will cost millions to resurrect the capability, and that itself will be used as justification not to do it.

It will be just like the CFs well thought out plan to sell three useful helo platforms and replace them with one. Ten years later, we're trying to bring back a capability that never should have left us in the first place.

The worst part for us is that there is a distinct possiblity that someone in our government will take notice of this "precedent" and undertake similar lunacy here, especially with our desire to link ourselves more with Europe than our better allies to the south.


----------



## The Rifleman (19 Dec 2006)

"better" allies to the south? You must mean the Mexicans!


----------



## GO!!! (19 Dec 2006)

The Rifleman said:
			
		

> "better" allies to the south? You must mean the Mexicans!



No, I mean the ones we share a border with, who participate in numerous yearly training events, who have the best military equipment in the world and don't refer to citizens of this great nation as "colonials".


----------



## tomahawk6 (19 Dec 2006)

;D
Well said.


----------



## ArmyRick (19 Dec 2006)

Cutting Para training? What the *&^%? It could be a costly decision should they need to jump into a hot spot in the next four years. Maybe reducing it would be a better compromise.


----------



## The Rifleman (20 Dec 2006)

Don't you think that "our Colonial Cousins" sounds good? Its not an insult - just an affectionate term.

As for the Septics - they do have some excellent kit - but the way they go about business in foreign lands does beg the question "do we copy them or do what is right?" I'm not anti US, far from it, just they don't have the common sense to operate with regard for human life.

I have operated with and trained alongside Canadian forces and believe me - you do not need to lower your standards to keep in with the folks down south!


----------



## geo (20 Dec 2006)

WRT the Kilts, the consolidation of many highland units has brought the creation of a new tartan.  The 350 they currently have are from a test run.  Am certain that members will continue to wear their "old" highland rig until such time as the new gear is delivered.

WRT paras & GO!!!s comments on the "cost cutting" we did in '90.... it was the peace dividend (silly).  The public figured that, with the dissapearance of the big bad red menace, they could spend their money elsewhere & the politicians listened... so we sold off our Chinooks & put an axe to our tactical air capabilities.


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Dec 2006)

The Rifleman said:
			
		

> Don't you think that "our Colonial Cousins" sounds good? Its not an insult - just an affectionate term.
> 
> As for the Septics - they do have some excellent kit - but the way they go about business in foreign lands does beg the question "do we copy them or do what is right?" I'm not anti US, far from it, just they don't have the common sense to operate with regard for human life.
> 
> I have operated with and trained alongside Canadian forces and believe me - you do not need to lower your standards to keep in with the folks down south!



Rifleman, I'm aware that for some folks life isn't complete without a pleasant bit of aggro but we do try and keep things civil round here. Comments about the "Septics" (Septic Tanks = Yanks, my old Ginger?) lacking common sense and lowering standards don't do much to keep the discussion on track.

I gather that a lot of people have a lot of different opinions on how best to conduct operations.  We appear to have those differences in spades within our own infantry Corps amongst those that see the solution in the armoured soldier, those that see it in the infantry (light infantry as it now seems to be known since the armoured infanteer is apparently true infantry), and those that see it in the special forces.  Myself, I am guessing that all capabilities are needed.  The problems lie with those that are making those capabilities available (the politicians) and those that are employing/mis-applying them (senior management).

I look forward to hearing more from you but it would help if you could "mind the tone" a bit.  

Cheers.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (20 Dec 2006)

The Rifleman said:
			
		

> Don't you think that "our Colonial Cousins" sounds good? Its not an insult - just an affectionate term.
> 
> As for the Septics - they do have some excellent kit - but the way they go about business in foreign lands does beg the question "do we copy them or do what is right?" I'm not anti US, far from it, just they don't have the common sense to operate with regard for human life.
> 
> I have operated with and trained alongside Canadian forces and believe me - you do not need to lower your standards to keep in with the folks down south!


Moderator Post,

Actually Rifleman, I will officially tell you to tone it down, that's not the way we operate around army.ca.


----------



## The Rifleman (20 Dec 2006)

Sorry - just telling it how I see it - I will  conform


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Dec 2006)

No worries about telling it like you see it, nor any need to be over-zealous in conforming.  Just a night at the pub with mates.


----------



## Red 6 (20 Dec 2006)

The Rifleman said:
			
		

> Don't you think that "our Colonial Cousins" sounds good? Its not an insult - just an affectionate term.
> 
> As for the Septics - they do have some excellent kit - but the way they go about business in foreign lands does beg the question "do we copy them or do what is right?" I'm not anti US, far from it, just they don't have the common sense to operate with regard for human life.
> 
> I have operated with and trained alongside Canadian forces and believe me - you do not need to lower your standards to keep in with the folks down south!



You're way off base with some of these comments.  Calling American Soldiers and Marines "septics" is just flat-out wrong, especially since they're fighting and dying. There isn't anything I can see in this post that's "affectionate", no matter how you stretch that word.


----------



## The Rifleman (20 Dec 2006)

The term septic for Americans is a slang word used by British Soldiers - Septic Tank = Yank

Its not an assertion as to how we see them

The "affectionate" to calling Canadians colonials - and it was a question - that's why there was a ? at the end of the sentance. I was only asking as I would like to know how you felt for future reference.


Oh, by the way, a "Ginger" is a fellow who would have felt at ease in the company of Oscar Wilde!


----------



## Old Sweat (20 Dec 2006)

Rifleman,

Rhyming slang is not in general use in Canada. Most of us here in the Great White North miss the intent behind it.

Regards

Old Sweat


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Dec 2006)

R6 - Trouble = Wife (Trouble and Strife)
       C*ck = Barrow (Cocksparrow) - a barrow is what the street vendors used to sell from in London
       Apples = Stairs (Apples and Pears)
       My Old Ginger = Queer (Ginger Beer)

Septic falls into the same category.  Unfortunately, unless you're a Brit, it doesn't necessarily play well.  As noted elsewhere we're a culture that has got used to slagging each other in a friendly fashion and having equally friendly punch-ups as a result.  

Edit: Flamin' Nora, the filter won't even let me use the word for a male bird or a tap to describe a barrow.


----------



## The Rifleman (21 Dec 2006)

Rhyming slang is still used in East London, but so is "Mickey Mouse" slang - that is made up slang. The original idea of Cockney rhyming slang was to allow market traders to talk about their dodgy dealings without the Police or their informants understanding a word of what was being said. So, as you mentioned, an effeminate fellow was a Ginger. That is  Ginger Beer = queer. But to throw off the cops only the first part that didn't rhyme with the intended word association was used. Nowadays you can hear people saying that they haven't got a "Scooby Doo" when they haven't got a clue - its not the same but its getting used more often than not, especially from those outside London that never really understood the subtleties of rhyming slang.


----------



## Jungle (21 Dec 2006)

The "Colonials" bit reminds of an incident that happened when Cooperative Best Effort was held in Canada; The Commander of the UK contingent was a Major, and when they rehearsed the opening ceremony, he requested that "God Save The Queen" be played; but the protocol states that only the host-country's anthem be played, so he refused to salute during the "O Canada". In the end, he decided that the UK contingent would not participate in the opening ceremonies. Just goes to show (again) that there are idiots everywhere...

Now regarding the Kilts, frankly in my opinion it is not a priority; we hear a lot of complaints from the Brits about equipment defiencies in their 2 major theater of Ops. When you have to choose between PPE and ceremonial eqpt, the decision is easy.
Now regarding Para trg, my guess is they will limit it to SF.


----------



## Recce41 (21 Dec 2006)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The Labor government continues to whittle away at Britain's defense establishment.Very sad to see.Socialism doesnt work and unless the UK and Europe move toward a US type economy the budget woes will only get worse.



Sorry to say, but your system sucks as well. There has to be a balance between give and take.


----------



## GO!!! (24 Dec 2006)

Jungle said:
			
		

> When you have to choose between PPE and ceremonial eqpt, the decision is easy.



Maybe I'm way off base here, but if I'm not mistaken, in Canada, the ceremonial dress money comes from the Regiments and NPF, correct? So if the unit wants to buy kilts and puttees and pithe helmets, they are more than welcome to, but the CF is not on the hook for it.

Would this system have some use in the UK? Force the individual units to spring for their own ceremonial dress, and let the military concentrate on equipping soldiers for war?

I'm not advocating a complete seperation with tradition here, but it is rather wasteful to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars so that a unit can wear an order of dress with no modern relevance twice a year.


----------



## Recce41 (24 Dec 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Maybe I'm way off base here, but if I'm not mistaken, in Canada, the ceremonial dress money comes from the Regiments and NPF, correct? So if the unit wants to buy kilts and puttees and pithe helmets, they are more than welcome to, but the CF is not on the hook for it.
> 
> Would this system have some use in the UK? Force the individual units to spring for their own ceremonial dress, and let the military concentrate on equipping soldiers for war?
> 
> I'm not advocating a complete seperation with tradition here, but it is rather wasteful to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars so that a unit can wear an order of dress with no modern relevance twice a year.



Kilts are CF supplied, only ceremonial dress is puchased for the Regt by the Regt or Guilds. Each Regt does get some monies for those. But it is very small. Only the Foot Guards, Fort Henrys, RNBRs and some other tourist Regts get theirs paid, as I believe out of a tourism.


----------



## GO!!! (24 Dec 2006)

Recce41 said:
			
		

> Kilts are CF supplied, only ceremonial dress is puchased for the Regt by the Regt or Guilds. Each Regt does get some monies for those. But it is very small. Only the Foot Guards, Fort Henrys, RNBRs and some other tourist Regts *get theirs paid, as I believe out of a tourism*.



Now there's an idea for the brits!

If someone (outside of the UK military) wants a platoon/coy/bn on parade in Kilts, let them pay for it!

Perhaps the cost could be downloaded to a tourism organisation, private industry, or, god forbid, the world's richest woman herself, the queen!


----------



## siky (24 Dec 2006)

Our cerimonial dress is paid from the association, which is scewing the boys I say. But this goes to show that there must be a world shortage of Kilts.


----------



## Recce41 (24 Dec 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Now there's an idea for the brits!
> 
> If someone (outside of the UK military) wants a platoon/coy/bn on parade in Kilts, let them pay for it!
> 
> Perhaps the cost could be downloaded to a tourism organisation, private industry, or, god forbid, the world's richest woman herself, the queen!



 Highland Regts are entitled to kilts bought and payed for by the Goverment. They are not ceramonials, they are just as for our DEUs. I still have my kilt from the E&Ks when I left. I payed extra for the double pleats.


----------



## geo (27 Dec 2006)

I think people are missing the point here.  It's not that the UK Gov't is being "cheap" or insisting that the new "Royal Scots" go "mini".... It is a new regiment and a new tartan has been designed, approved and a test batch has been produced.  More are on order - it just takes time to generate a full blown contract to weave and produce an adequate number of Kilts for all ranks.

Because the UK military is in the process of a major restructuring of it's forces - things are moving a tad bit faster than some traditionalists might prefer but.... they're moving forward.


----------



## ArmyRick (28 Dec 2006)

Another point on the kilt issue is worry about operational equipment and weapons first. Non essential things like new uniforms can wait.

I never heard of a soldier dying in Iraq or Afghanistan because he didn't have a new kilt.


----------



## geo (29 Dec 2006)

though buying a kilt is big bucks to the private individual making a lone purchase, buying 1-2000 kilts is chump change to a gov't willing to cough up MM£ to buy such things as Planes, tracks & armoured cars / Ships, Subs & fancy floating things.

Don't think it's a big issue when the gov't wants to do something..... 
Take a look at what Ottawa did when it finaly decided it wanted C17/C130Js, M777s & more troops... out came the checkbook and voila!!!


----------



## daftandbarmy (2 Jan 2007)

+1


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (2 Jan 2007)

As to the names or handles given to different geographical peoples, e.g, Brits, Tommyknockers colonials etc, If you've spent  some time in the military you would have worked with different militaries and these names are just what they are, "harmelss banter". To take them to seriously, takes politically correctness to a new level. I think most people on this site has or had some affiliation with the military and should have heard most of these terms during their military careers. (If your just starting your career, you'll eventually hear them) 

 Spend a few nights night out on the town with the boys (Brits & Canadians )in jolly old London and you'll hear all kinds of labels for us in North Americans, if you took everyone of them to heart, you take yourself way to seriuosly.

 Rifleman i don't know if you know any of the old boys from the "Royal Glouchester Rgmt", they are our sister regiment to the "Royal Canadian regiment" . When stationed in Baden Germany we had the opertunity to work with them every year in the UK. Great bunch of blokes!! Had many a great night out with these guys in London, they always treated us well and showed us a good time! Some of the best tmes where sitting in a small out of the way pub with a glass of beer singing our fool hearts out and ribbing each other ;D

 If you take yourself to seriously, your missing the point, "Know what i mean, Nudge, Nudge"
 Eric Idle -Monty Python-


----------



## Yrys (2 Jan 2007)

oups!


----------



## Yrys (2 Jan 2007)

Small hijack



			
				GO!!! said:
			
		

> the world's richest woman herself, the queen!



Sorry, GO!!!, but the queen isn't even the richest woman in UK, JK Rowling is  !



> JK Rowling has become the world's richest author and the richest woman in the UK.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/arts/4672971.stm

But even before JK, the queen wasn't the richest...



> The richest woman in Britain is Lady Grantchester, whose fortune of one-point-five-billion-pounds
> more than two billion dollars is reported to make her some six times wealthier than the Queen.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/316498.stm

I presumed that they put a distinction in between the Queen's owns and the Crown possessions


----------



## The Rifleman (2 Jan 2007)

Sadly I never met anyone from the Glorious Glosters. I did serve with a few RGBW (Royal Gloucestershire, Berkshire and Wiltshire regiment - merged in 1994) in Bosnia - good lads.

Now the Royal Gloucestershire, Berkshire and Wiltshire Light Infantry (LI added as an honour) are to form the 1st Bn the Rifles, along with the Devon & Dorset LI. The remaining battalions (2 - 5) will be made up by the Royal Green jackets and Light Infantry. Two TA battalions, 6 & 7, will be made up by the Rifle Volunteers (currently in the Stan) and the Royal Rifle Volunteers (just back from the Stan).

I haven't seen the new list of affiliations, but I know the PPLI were a sister regiment to the RGJ. Maybe the new regiment will be affiliated to both?


----------



## niner domestic (2 Jan 2007)

Geo is correct on the issue of the kilt production.  A regimental kilt will have no less than 8 yards of 16-17 oz worsted wool that is hand sewn.  (I can only hope that the MOD procurement has not tendered for a 10 oz fabric and machine made kilt - a machine made kilt for a Highland Regt is just so wrong).  For a 2000 odd kilt order that is a lot of fabric to weave and make into kilts.  And let's not forget that there is a shortage of kiltmakers that have the capacity to produce that many kilts in a short time frame (Perhaps Cohen's could handle the order but they would be producing machined kilts - they are the main manufacturers for Marks and Sparks).  The average time frame for a man's 17 oz hand sewn kilt with an average waist size of 40" and approx 21 - 11 cm set in pleats (that amount is usually for a casual kilt, not a regt one - the pleats tend to be closer together and in some kilts they are actually box pleats - those ones don't tend to wrinkle as much - it does take more fabric to make a box pleat kilt), is approx two weeks - if it's worked on 8 hours a day.  Then there is the design, spinning and knitting of the hose, all 4000 odd little sockies. That will keep some knitters busy for a while. Again, there is a proper weight to the wool and knitting technique (depending upon the final pattern chosen) Just a bit of cool kilt trivia, there is actually formula sets for setting in a pleat followed by all kilt makers.  

When I order a kilt, I am governed by the SOBHD regulatory criteria on weight, length, number of pleats and amount of fabric and it has to be hand sewn.  All my kilts are hand sewn and even in a rush order, I still can expect to wait 3 weeks for mine.  I was chatting to my kiltmaker over the holidays and on this issue, he said a fair number of kiltmakers are hesitant to bid for the contract as it would alienate them from their regular customers (dancers, pipebands, pipers and tourists/Hollywood celebs) by tying up their resources.  He didn't know if the contract also included repairs and maintenance which would further tie up their resources and make then an "all eggs in one basket kilt maker."    He also mentioned that there would be "bloody blue murder to pay" if the contract for making a Scottish Regt's kilts went outside of Scotland.  I doubt as Geo does, that the delays have anything to do with the lack of purchasing will but rather the lack of kiltmakers and readily available raw materials.  

(Little bit of history, I have my great grandfather's kilt that he wore in WWI - other than a small hole in the apron (which he would not allow to be repaired as it was a bullet hole which he was purported to be quite proud of it not hitting him - just the kilt) and a mud stain that won't come out,  it's in great condition.  I also have his child's kilt that he wore when he was 4.  My grandson now is wearing it.  A kilt that is properly made and cared for will last for decades (and in my case, a century and a bit)


----------



## The Rifleman (2 Jan 2007)

Niner-D,

I can't see the whole of the Royal Regiment of Scotland being issued kilts - unless they are part purchased by the regiment and sold through the PRI (unit based shop selling kit). The cost for what is just 1 garment is astronomical compared to trews. I think that in future you will see the regiment wearing tartan trews as did the Highland Light Infantry and just the band wearing kilts. All will get No2s though.

My regiment, the Royal Green Jackets were never issued No1 dress - Rifle Green uniforms - they were instead issued No2s - khaki uniforms. Only the band had No1s. I think this will be the same for the Rifles when they form next year, and for all the other new "large" regiments.

Lets face it - what would you prefer - a new kilt or better body armour? There is only a finite budget and I know what I would want considering the amount of operations the British Army is committed to (Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, N Ireland, Cyprus and the Falklands - yes, we still have a presence down south - just in case!)


----------



## niner domestic (2 Jan 2007)

Rifleman, I can just hear them collectlively going ewwww over the trews.  Now many a man, bandy knees and all, can look somewhat good in a kilt - unless he has really bandy knees,  but tartan trews on the wrong body type can look like a fashion road kill. LOL...(or a bad imitation of the Bay City Rollers ) 

I tend to agree with you on the mass issuing of kilts, especially when they are Ceries and maybe trotted out 2-3 times a year.  I hope they get the bands sorted out soon with the proper kit.  The lack of kiltmakers is still going to be an issue irrespective of how many are to be made in the second run.  A good kiltmaker can at best produce, 26 kilts per kiltmaker per year.  Most kilt makers only have 3-4 employees max and not all employees are qualifed to make a kilt.   (this is assuming that these kilts will be hand sewn and not machined)

Rifleman is it still NP8901 down there?


----------



## geo (2 Jan 2007)

From my side of the house I would venture to say that a highland regiment.... THE REGIMENT OF SCOTLAND, not wearing kilts?...... the population would be up in arms & tradition would demand that the Kilt be produced "pronto" as a matter of national (regional) pride.

I hear you Rifleman but.... it just doesn't compute on a political ammunition level.


----------



## ArmyRick (3 Jan 2007)

Geo, I disagree with you. Operations take priority. Looking good in a uniform can wait.


----------



## geo (3 Jan 2007)

Rick,
If you refer to my response (#35) you will see what my views are on the subject.

Kilts for all the troops are "chump change" to an army.  As stated by others, producing kilts is more a question of time than money.  With respect to troop morale, a highlander without a kilt is not a happy camper... and his humour at the prospect of having to borrow a kilt would bring his morale down a couple of more notches.

I do not think that the purchase of new kilts will hamper the UK govt's fiscal ability to purchase new C17s, CC130Js, Warrior AFVs. Balistic protection, ammuniton or weapons of any type.


----------



## GO!!! (3 Jan 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> With respect to troop morale, a highlander without a kilt is not a happy camper... and his humour at the prospect of having to borrow a kilt would bring his morale down a couple of more notches.



I'll call on that one!

I know very few soldiers who look forward to wearing their dress uniforms - the prospect of a few hours of ironing, polishing, de-linting and standing still on a parade square make few jump for joy.

Personally, if I was told that all parades would be in cbts for a year or two - due to a lack of hot, itchy dress uniforms - my morale would see a notable rise!  ;D


----------



## geo (3 Jan 2007)

Go...
That's for you & me - but those Scots are a weird lot to begin with.

I still think that money is NOT an issue with respect to the Kilts.


----------



## daftandbarmy (3 Jan 2007)

I have to agree with geo on this one. 

Militaries can spend any amount on anything they want to. Good example: the recent purchase of billions of dollars of new aircraft here in Canada. Poor planning frequently gets in the way though, and I think that's what we're seeing here with the parachuting (nixed due to over demand on limited airframes) and the kilts (probably the last thing on their minds when trying to blend umpteen Scottish/ Highland units together).


----------



## daftandbarmy (12 Jan 2007)

I like one of the comments here "What's next? Taking boats away from the Royal Marines?"

If you think the Govt’s plan to cease parachute training until 2011 is INSANE then support the petition at:

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Military-Madness/?signed=1


----------

