By Our Parliamentary
Correspondent
DEFENCE Minister Archie Hamilton was criticised by MPs yesterday after
he refused to be drawn on why Scottish regiments had been so hard hit by
the recently announced Army cuts.
In an appearance before the Commons Defence Select Committee, the
Minister refused to discuss in detail why the merger of four Scottish
regiments into two was to go ahead despite their excellent recruitment
record.
At one stage the exasperated committee chairman, Tory MP Michael
Mates, told Mr Hamilton: ''As it is clear you are not prepared to come
clean with us about this, there is little point in us going on with it.
It is regrettable.''
Committee member John Home Robertson (East Lothian -- Lab.), who has
been at the forefront of the campaign to save the Scottish regiments,
strongly criticised Mr Hamilton's view that Scots who normally would
join the Scottish division would go to English regiments instead after
the cuts took place in 1994.
He too attacked Mr Hamilton for refusing to give the committee details
of the decisions affecting Scots regiments, and said it was clear the
committee was ''flogging a dead horse.''
The Minister told the MPs: ''These were very hard decisions. As far as
I am concerned, I do not want to comment in detail on why each one was
taken.
''I do not want to reopen this issue . . . the best thing is to get on
with the job.''
Labour MP Bruce George, who has championed the cause of the
Staffordshire Regiment facing merger with the Cheshires, called Mr
Hamilton's behaviour ''an absolute bloody disgrace''.
Mr George, MP for Walsall South, asked the Minister: ''Can't you
appreciate that when you have regiments 300 years old facing merger,
there is every right for MPs to ask what the criteria are?''
During the committee hearing, MPs voiced concern that the cuts --
reducing infantry battalions from 55 to 38 and overall manpower to
116,000 -- would leave Britain unable to respond to the unexpected.
The Government has made clear that it will stick by its decisions on
amalgamation of Scottish regiments unless there is a significant change
in military circumstances which forces a review.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article