£750,000 cost of kilts for new regiment soldiers

[davedove]

As far as I'm concerned, soldiers should wear what is issued to them, period.

Actually, that's not really an issue. They are soldiers, and they will wear whatever is required of them. Any that feel strongly enough will leave the service. Now if enough of them threatened to leave, THEN the powers that be might listen to them.

Of course, if the decision has been made, it will happen. It's hard to stop the juggernaut of government. But then, if things happen in the UK anything like the US, another change is only a few years away.

We're facing similar things here in the US with the base closings. Granted, the traditions aren't as established here because we're a lot younger nation. The ridiculous thing is some of the bases on the closing list were just built up in the last round of closings. Now that's a waste of money!

[davedove]

When people stop caring that governments do not care, then we are in trouble. Am I an idealist? You bet. Someone has to believe in something these days when apathy reigns surpreme.

Yes, traditions may not be important to governments, but they are important to those of us who recognize the strong debt that all kilt wearers owe the Highland regiments, and the sacrifices that the men of these regiments made in Burma, Normandy, Hong Kong, the Somme and the Gulf.

750,000 may not be a lot of money to a government, but it is still a WASTE, considering there are already uniforms in use. It is also hypocritcal, since budgetary issues were part of the MoD's justification for the amalgamations in the first place.

Am I an idealist? You bet.

T.

I happen to agree with you Todd. We are the ones who have to keep an eye on the government and voice our opinions. But, sadly, we here in the US won't be able to do anything about what's happening in the UK.

[macwilkin]

Maybe it is a bad decision to change the uniforms, but complaining won't help.

As far as I'm concerned, soldiers should wear what is issued to them, period.

Every change in the military generates complaints. The military does not exist to provide tradition for soldiers, it exists to provide defense. Any officer who does not like a required uniform can resign his commision and join a reenactment group. Any enlisted soldier who does like not like his uniform can bring it up with his sergeant, if he dares!

Looks there will be a lot of ex-MOD kilts on the market, good for us!

Tradition plays a key role in unit morale in the British Army. The past serves as an inspiration for soldiers, officers and other ranks, to perform their duty to protect the nation. These regiments are "family regiments", and it is not uncommon for three generations to serve in the same battalion. The battalion and/or regiment also has a distinct tie to local communities, similar to the relationship many communities in the United States have with their local National Guard or Reserve units. Or the US Marines. They have managed to combine modern-day tactics with a good dose of history & tradition, and it works very well for them.

These units are very much a "family", and their kilts & tartans are symbols of this idea.

T.

[Dreadbelly]

[Alan H]

I'm just at a loss for words.

And that's a rare thing.

[Mike n NC]

LOL, Looks like Don King/Albert Einstein cross at the chalk board... As far as uniforming goes, I was in on what was prolly the greatest boondoggle ever made in military uniforming, the changing of Navy dress blues from the traditional to a "suit" type. No-one wanted it, everyone hated it, we were even forbidden to wear it in some areas (Washington, DC was one of them) yet we had to put up with it for years until it was changed once again. Lord knows what the final tally for that little bit of idiocy was but it left us looking like every other branch of the military and cost us a large piece of our seagoing tradition. (of course you have to remember, this was in a time that the customs and traditions were still taught, learned and honored, not the modern nuclear, disposable, navy)

Did Naval custom or tradition ever enter the discussion, not at any level that ment anything. Did reason ever enter the discussion, I doubt it. It was just the result of a bunch of pols pushing their weight around, pretty much what I suspect is going on here. Over a course of 5, 10, 15 or even 20 years the cost will continue to mount, the displeasure of the enlisted ranks will continue to grown until such time as they see fit to change it back...Again at what cost? It is not just Scotland or the Highland/Lowland Regiments, it happens all over, is always met with resistance and usually ends up going back to what it was before.

BTW, quite a few years later I was once again wearing a suit type uniform with a flat hat but by then I had earned it...you don't have to call me sir, since I work for a living Chief will do just fine.

Mike

[macwilkin]

LOL, Looks like Don King/Albert Einstein cross at the chalk board... As far as uniforming goes, I was in on what was prolly the greatest boondoggle ever made in military uniforming, the changing of Navy dress blues from the traditional to a "suit" type. No-one wanted it, everyone hated it, we were even forbidden to wear it in some areas (Washington, DC was one of them) yet we had to put up with it for years until it was changed once again. Lord knows what the final tally for that little bit of idiocy was but it left us looking like every other branch of the military and cost us a large piece of our seagoing tradition. (of course you have to remember, this was in a time that the customs and traditions were still taught, learned and honored, not the modern nuclear, disposable, navy)

Did Naval custom or tradition ever enter the discussion, not at any level that ment anything. Did reason ever enter the discussion, I doubt it. It was just the result of a bunch of pols pushing their weight around, pretty much what I suspect is going on here. Over a course of 5, 10, 15 or even 20 years the cost will continue to mount, the displeasure of the enlisted ranks will continue to grown until such time as they see fit to change it back...Again at what cost? It is not just Scotland or the Highland/Lowland Regiments, it happens all over, is always met with resistance and usually ends up going back to what it was before.

BTW, quite a few years later I was once again wearing a suit type uniform with a flat hat but by then I had earned it...you don't have to call me sir, since I work for a living Chief will do just fine.

Mike

Mike, your story reminds me of the infamous "Crucified Moose" incident. During the 1960's, the British Army attempted to force serving members of regiments to wear a Brigade-level badge instead of their regimental insignia. The Highland Brigade had as it's badge, a stag's head (similar to the old Seaforth Highlanders badge) imposed on a St. Andrew's Cross with the Seaforth motto, "Help the King" -- Cuidich'n Righ (the only Regimental motto in the Gaelic, btw) -- The Argyll & Sutherland Highlanders, along with the rest of the Highland Brigade, were made to wear the new badge. The Argylls were deployed to Aden at that time to put down a rebellion by insurgents, and the Argylls soon referred to their new insignia as "The Crucified Moose", since it looked like the stag's head was nailed to the cross. When word reached the MoD and back home of the unofficial name of the new badge, the idea of Brigade level badges replacing regimental ones was on the scap-heap.

Cheers,

Todd

[Archangel]

Okay, so there's a new regiment based in Scotland so there's a new uniform that is kilt based, that makes some sense. However, as I understand it, British regiments are not necessarily localized so troops can be from anywhere in Britain so back to it's based in Scotland. But then some of the units have strong traditions that have nothing to do with the highlands, or even Scotland. Now, it starts making less sense.
I like the idea of a new regiment with new highland uniforms but I think that the MoD should have found a way to preserve the old traditions. You know the soldiers will.

[An t-Ileach]

I've always been in two minds about the Scottish regiments, even though we have a family tie to the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders and to the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards - and I suppose that includes the Lowlanders, and even the First of Foot, Pontius Pilate's Bodyguard - as the companies of the Freiceadan Dubh (Black Watch) were raised to suppress the Highlands after the '45, and unfortunately that included Highlanders who weren't Jacobites.

But it's history, and the British Army regiments are held together by their history - it has served us well in the stresses of warfare. Look at the Aussies in Vietnam - the RAIR had much less severe incidences of PTSD than the US Army.

The government will bitch about the cost of the regiments, and then throw away a billion on the Dome and a couple of billion on the carbuncle at Holyrood: but then those serve their vanity, I suppose, whereas the regiments serve the Queen (this must annoy Tony Blair to distraction).

Anyway, I served in the Light Division - I bet they've got their sights on that too.

As for small sized kilts, though: what about those made for all those "portly" NCOs?

[bubba]

As for small sized kilts, though: what about those made for all those "portly" NCOs?

I've been kinda watching for surplus and I've never seen a kilt near my size listed. The biggest I've seen was a 36