Scotland's Regiments
The final item of business is a members' business debate on motion S2M-1590, in the name of Murdo Fraser, on Scotland's regiments. The debate will be concluded without any question being put.
Motion debated,
That the Parliament notes the outstanding commitment and service of Scotland's six infantry regiments for this country over the centuries; further notes that the recent war in Iraq was the latest conflict which showed Scotland's regiments to be a modern, effective fighting force as well as institutions steeped in history and tradition; condemns the proposed loss of one of Scotland's regiments and the amalgamation of existing regiments into one or two new regiments, with the resultant loss of individual regimental identity and traditions; believes that, in a time of increased commitments across the globe, our armed forces must have the necessary resources and structure to protect our country, deter aggression and safeguard our vital interests in the wider world, and considers that the Scottish Executive should make urgent representations to the Ministry of Defence against these proposals in the interests of the Scottish economy and Scotland's military culture.
I thank members from all different parties who have signed the motion and have come to the chamber this evening to show their support for Scotland's regiments. I welcome to the gallery representatives from the save the Scottish regiments campaign and from the various regimental associations, some of whom have travelled long distances to be here today. That is appreciated.
Members will be aware that General Jackson and the Ministry of Defence are proposing the loss of four infantry battalions from the British Army, which will involve the loss of one of the existing six Scottish battalions. The remaining five Scottish infantry regiments would then be merged into one or possibly two super-regiments, possibly with a Highland regiment and a Lowland regiment, or possibly one Scottish regiment. That proposal has led to a vigorous campaign of opposition throughout Scotland. I pay tribute to the regimental associations and to the save the Scottish regiments campaign for their energy and their vigour in highlighting the issue, and for their success in winning public opinion on to their side in defence of our historic regiments.
I am sure that members will appreciate the fact that serving soldiers have effectively been gagged on the issue by the Ministry of Defence—they are unable to speak out. However, I believe that their views are well represented by the regimental associations and by those who are here with us in the public galleries.
I make no apology for speaking up in particular for the Black Watch, my local regiment, which recruits throughout most of the Mid Scotland and Fife region, which I represent. In so doing, I in no way wish to diminish the importance of the other five Scottish infantry regiments, and I would not wish the Black Watch to be preserved at the expense of any of the others. I am sure that other members who participate in the debate will speak up for their local regiments; I trust that they will forgive me for speaking up for my own.
I pay tribute to the excellent campaign that is being run by local newspapers in my area, including The Courier and the Perthshire Advertiser. The newspapers have helped to galvanise public opinion in defence of the Black Watch, and they have been extremely effective in raising public awareness on the issue.
Defence is, of course, a reserved matter. However, the Scottish regiments are important to the Scottish economy and to the culture of Scotland, with their military traditions and heritage. It is therefore only right that the Parliament should consider these issues.
I believe that there are four principal reasons why the Ministry of Defence's proposals are wrong, and I am sure that members will wish to add to those reasons during the debate. The first reason is that, at a time of increased military commitments, it makes no sense whatever for us to reduce the size of our armed forces. Members will recall the options for change agenda of the 1990s, which resulted in the merger of the Gordon Highlanders and the Queen's Own Highlanders. It is not my purpose to defend the options for change review, but I point out that it took place at a time when the Warsaw pact had collapsed, the iron curtain had come down and the cold war was over. It was felt that we were entitled to a peace dividend from those changes, with less reliance on our armed forces. The review took place against a background of increased use of high-technology weapons, pinpoint bombing from high altitude and so on, as we saw during the first gulf war in particular.
Whatever one's view on options for change, I do not think that anybody could reasonably argue that the same conditions persist today. We live in a world that is as uncertain now as it has been at any point in my lifetime. The present Government has taken on an increased number of military commitments, including those in Afghanistan and Iraq. At the same time, the nature of our commitment has changed. Increasingly, we have to deal with counter-terrorist activities and peacekeeping roles. In such ventures, high-technology weapons are of no use whatever. We require infantry—highly trained and on the ground. As we have seen in the course of the engagement of the Black Watch in Iraq and elsewhere, the British Army is second to none in such roles, and I have no hesitation in saying that Scottish regiments are the best part of the British Army. To seek to reduce the size of our infantry against that background appears to be absolute madness.
The second reason is that, if we cut one of our regiments and merge the others, we will lose an important part of our military tradition and cultural heritage. The regimental system, which is a real strength of the British Army, allows geographical areas to be linked to individual battalions. Strong bonds exist between communities and the battalions from them and that undoubtedly helps recruiting, as different generations of the same family sometimes join their local regiment. In the continuing drive towards modernisation in all aspects of life, some people might think that traditions are unimportant. I believe passionately that traditions are vital, and that they are what bind communities together. The strength of the public response to the save the Scottish regiments campaign shows that the public, too, value those traditions.
The Black Watch has existed since 1739, recruiting from Tayside and Fife. That connection with the local area ensures that the regiment is held in affection, even by those who have no direct military connections. The American and Canadian military forces, which would give their right arms to have the esprit de corps of the British infantry regiments, look on in disbelief as we consider ending our regimental tradition. It must be preserved.
The third reason why we must defend our regiments is that, once the regimental link with particular areas has been broken, it will be much easier for the Ministry of Defence to make cutbacks in the future. I understand that, under one of the scenarios that are being proposed, the new Scottish super-regiment or super-regiments would have battalions identified with some of the existing regiments, so that we would have, for example, the Highland Regiment (First Battalion, the Black Watch). However, experience elsewhere shows that such attempts to preserve regimental identity simply do not stand the passage of time. Once the link between the regiment and its geographical recruiting area is broken, it is only a matter of time before the individual identity of the regiment is lost.
The best example of that is what happened with the Royal Anglian Regiment, which was formed more than 30 years ago from local regiments in the east of England. It started off as seven battalions, each of which was identified with a particular area—Lincolnshire, Suffolk and so on—but once the local ties were severed, it became much easier for the Ministry of Defence mandarins to target the regiment for cutbacks. From seven battalions, the Royal Anglian Regiment now has merely two. I fear that that will be the fate of the Scottish regiments if we do not make a stand now.
I do not wish to take up more time, because I know that many members wish to contribute to the debate and have their own points to make. I shall simply close on my fourth and final point, which I feel is the most compelling of all. As we gather here, Scottish soldiers are serving in Iraq, with the Black Watch back in Basra for the second time in a year. Soldiers are putting their lives at risk daily on the orders of politicians in this country. Both the Black Watch and the Royal Highland Fusiliers have already lost young men who have made the supreme sacrifice. It would be an act of the most supreme betrayal for politicians at home to decide to extinguish the very regiments whose men are risking their lives in defence of our interests.
For all the reasons that I have set out, but particularly for that last reason, I believe that we must defend our historic Scottish regiments. The Scottish Executive should make urgent representations to the Ministry of Defence against those proposals, and the Scottish Parliament should say with one voice to Geoff Hoon and to General Jackson, "It's time to go home and think again."
Because of the high number of members who wish to speak in the debate, I must ask all members to stick strictly to the four-minute time limit for speeches. Later, I shall invite a motion to extend the debate, because I want all members to be able to participate.
I thank Murdo Fraser for bringing the debate to Parliament today. Huge numbers of my generation have strong connections with Scottish regiments, having served their country in Scottish regiments during the 1939-45 war. Many of them literally carry the scars of that association, but over and above the signs of physical wounds are the mental trauma and scars that they will carry to their graves, and their memories of comrades and friends who fought and died for their country and for their regiment.
Callous and uncaring number crunchers at Westminster have decided to cut overall costs by such measures as amalgamation and by savagely doing away with proud regiments. Those same regiments are legendary and world renowned, yet faceless bureaucrats can dismiss them as if their great heritage counted for absolutely nothing. They should tell that to the D-day veterans or the Arnhem survivors. Loyalty should never be a one-way corridor; if and when it is given, it is also entitled to be reciprocated. Sadly, past experience tells us that such reciprocity is all too often lacking, at least as far as the aforementioned number crunchers are concerned.
If it is simply a straightforward case of economic cost saving, why do not they take a long hard look at the big picture? We as taxpayers have paid, and are still paying, countless billions of pounds for the stupid luxury of keeping nuclear weapons at Faslane. The only purpose that they serve—we all know that since the end of the cold war there is positively no possible chance of those weapons of mass destruction ever being used in retaliation or anger—
Will Mr Swinburne take an intervention?
Certainly.
Can Mr Swinburne give me a guarantee that there will never be a coup d'état in Russia?
The member may live in his little world—I will live in the real world.
The only purpose that nuclear weapons serve is to prevent Tony Blair from having to go
"naked into the conference chamber",
to quote Aneurin Bevan. Bevan made that famous statement about the British Foreign Secretary 50 years ago. Surely it is time for us to stop hoarding such useless lethal weapons of mass destruction and to plough the money that would be saved into much-needed finance for the proud Scottish regiments, which are second to none in carrying out genuine peacekeeping roles throughout the world. Let us get rid of the weapons of mass destruction at Faslane and let us save the Scottish regiments and use the surplus to improve the situation of pensioners.
I represent Royal Scots territory and my father was a soldier in the King's Own Scottish Borderers. I am totally committed to the crucial role of Scottish servicemen and women in the armed forces of this United Kingdom.
There is a sense of déjà vu about today's debate. I was a member of the Defence Select Committee of the House of Commons when the Gordon Highlanders and the Queen's Own Highlanders were amalgamated under a scheme called options for change and a Secretary of State for Defence called Tom King. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think that he is a member of the Conservative and Unionist Party.
This is an issue that keeps coming back. I am sorry to contradict good rants from either side of the chamber, but the matter has very little to do with politics. There are people in the top brass of the military—we have already heard about General Jackson—who reckon that they could organise a highly specialised modern army more efficiently without the sort of regimental structure that we have inherited from the past. A hell of a lot of us disagree with that point of view, but people keep reopening the issue and we are seeing that again today. It happens under ministers of every Government.
As I represent part of the territory of the first regiment of foot in the British Army—Pontius Pilate's bodyguard, or the Royal Scots—I am acutely aware of the value and ethos of Scotland's great infantry regiments. With the benefit of my brief time in the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I am well aware of the wonderful work that they do, both at home and abroad. I hope that my colleagues at Westminster will prevail against the military top brass, in this case General Jackson. Some of us remember him from a little earlier in his career, when he was affectionately known as the "Prince of Darkness"; I am afraid that he is at it again. I hope that MPs will prevail against him, just as they prevailed against Tom King 10 years ago.
I cannot resist the temptation to make a couple of quick political points. It is a little irresponsible for the Conservative and Unionist Party to raise defence issues in this devolved Parliament. That sort of initiative can only play into the hands of nationalists who want to break up the United Kingdom and take regiments such as the Royal Scots out of the British Army altogether.
I turn now to the nationalists. They are people who never stop criticising the deployment of Britain's armed forces. I remember their imperial leader, who is now based down in London, referring to "unpardonable folly" when our forces liberated the Albanian people of Kosovo. He was wrong: we were right to deploy those troops and, as I see it, they did a wonderful job. The nationalist party would take Scotland's soldiers out of the British Army and probably out of NATO. It would run down our military to a sort of ceremonial gendarmerie, probably manned by kilted conscripts. Notwithstanding that, some nationalists have the brass neck to rally to the colours of our great British regiments, just because they see that there is some political capital to be made. That is not terribly edifying or very convincing. We should return to the big issue. I apologise for digressing.
When faced with Tom King's cuts, we minimised the damage to the Scottish infantry division because our infantry battalions were very well recruited. The problem today is that they are less well recruited. That is a problem of economic success. At a time of near-full employment, a career in the armed forces is a little less attractive. I know that some of our Scottish battalions depend heavily on recruits from the southern hemisphere. Not long ago I met some of them, including Fijians, South Africans, Zimbabweans and Australians.
The message that we ought to put out is that there is a great career to be had in the armed forces: a valuable career, a professional career and an honourable career. I have seen with my own eyes the wonderful peacekeeping operations that are carried out by the British armed forces in Bosnia, Kosovo, Kuwait and other parts of the world. I hope that the whole Parliament will support the Royal Scots, the King's Own Scottish Borderers, the Black Watch and the rest of our Scottish units in the British armed forces both now and in the future.
It is always a considerable pleasure to follow John Home Robertson in debates such as this. I have done so many times in the House of Commons and it is a great privilege to do it in this Parliament.
If his concern is that the issue, which is a reserved matter, has been raised in the Scottish Parliament, I reassure him that my parliamentary colleague, the member of Parliament for North Tayside, secured a debate in Westminster Hall a couple of weeks ago in which the issue was aired and to which the Secretary of State for Defence responded. John Home Robertson will be pleased to know that the nationalist party has been prepared to raise the issue in the House of Commons before it was raised in this Parliament.
I congratulate Murdo Fraser on bringing the debate to the Scottish Parliament. It is a matter of regret for me that the debate is necessary in the first place. As I am sure John Home Robertson will know, I was and remain an opponent of the war in Iraq. That war was illegal and has led to instability in the middle east and to great human suffering. Although I was no supporter of the war in Iraq, I recognise and appreciate what soldiers have to do—in much more dangerous circumstances than I will ever have to face in my life—to pursue the Government's objectives. It is atrocious that while soldiers are in Iraq facing jeopardy, the Government is carrying out a review of the regimental structure and placing great uncertainty over the future of those individuals and regiments.
The Government has raised the certainty of fundamental change, the certainty of the abolition of a regiment and the consequent loss of identity, which has been a very successful device in recruiting many people into our armed forces. What sort of way is that for the Government to treat soldiers who are operating in a very dangerous situation?
We are told that the world is a much less safe place—I agree fundamentally with that view—as a result of some of the actions that have been undertaken in the past few years. Our troops are currently active in Iraq and Afghanistan and there will clearly be a need for further overseas activity for our forces. Therefore, why does the Government believe that this is the time to reduce the number of infantry personnel, who are carrying out the work that the Government requires them to do?
Recruitment to the forces is based on the strength of the local roots of the regiments. In my constituency, the traditional association with the Black Watch has been the source of many recruits. Traditional links with communities are a reliable method of recruitment that will be lost if the Government does not change direction.
In my locality there has been a strong local campaign to protect the regiments. The campaign has been endorsed and enthusiastically supported by our local media: The Courier and the Perthshire Advertiser. I hope that the Government will listen to the campaign by those organisations, the ordinary people and this Parliament in Scotland.
I can express the concerns on the issue no better than by quoting a letter—one of many letters that I have received from serving Black Watch officers and soldiers. In that Letter, a young man from my home village of Burrelton in Perthshire wrote:
"I have been a proud member of the Black Watch for a year, and in that year I have learned some of the best skills and teamwork that people in civvie jobs can dream about."
He asked me to walk past the war memorial in our village and to recall the sacrifice that has been made by his predecessors to make the regiment what it is today. It is essential that in the debate we protect that sentiment and that pride.
The issue affects all of Scotland and all our communities. I urge the Scottish Executive to make the strongest possible representations to the Ministry of Defence. The First Minister said that he would listen to the case—I hope that he is listening now and will make representations.
I will close on the issue of déjà vu, which John Home Robertson brought to the debate. In 1993, when the Conservatives—I presume—were cutting our regiments and the Labour Party was defending them, Dr John Reid, the current member of Parliament for Hamilton North and Bellshill and the best Secretary of State for Defence that we never had, said:
"It is a disgrace and a disservice to our soldiers that we are spending £3,000 million on a new nuclear weapon which is not needed—while we are putting them on the dole, giving them compulsory redundancy and disbanding infantry regiments which are needed to deal with the very threats that we now face."—[Official Report, House of Commons, 24 February 1993; Vol 219, c 908.]
I could not agree more with Dr Reid and I suggest that the Secretary of State for Defence ask him for some advice. [Applause.]
I remind members that they must stick to four-minute speeches and I remind members of the public that it is not appropriate to applaud.
I hope that a former national service gunner may be allowed to speak on behalf of the Scottish infantry regiments. Members have covered many of the points well, but I will stress a few.
First, political pressures might play a part, but the top brass likes to play with toys; it is universal among men to love to play with expensive toys. The worst and most expensive toys are atomic weapons, but there are all sorts of other hardware and it is rather fun to have the latest high-tech thing. The top brass spend lots of money on such hardware, but ultimately the show is run by the men or women who carry guns, whether they are on foot, in a small vehicle, or being dropped by helicopter.
We have to have people on the ground, as is clearly demonstrated by the situation in Afghanistan, where we have failed to capitalise on our initial success and the situation is going to pigs and whistles because there are not enough people to run things. The problem is also demonstrated in different ways in Northern Ireland, the Balkans and Iraq. Everything depends on infantry being well trained in the necessary activities. We need to sort out the people who love to play with expensive hardware and ensure that we invest in real people instead of expensive toys.
The social benefit of the forces is another aspect of the debate. There would be a loss to many communities if we were to stop recruiting from them. If there are to be no barracks in the huge chunk of Scotland that is north of Edinburgh—I believe that that is a possibility—people will just not join up. It will not occur to them to do so, because they will not see the forces. In communities, the forces—the Army in particular—perform a great service. Many young men and women join up and receive good training in skills that they can use in the other world when they leave the forces. They learn to work with other people and to do as they are told, and they learn to take command and to show initiative. In particular, many young men who are perhaps fairly aggressive by nature learn to channel and control their aggression. The Army sorts them out and when they come out they are good, civilised citizens. If they had never joined up, they might have ended up in jail. The Army does a huge amount of good and we must support it.
It is obvious that some areas are finding it hard to recruit, because people just see that regiments are threatened with closure. When a hospital is threatened with closure nobody applies to work there and the powers that be can close it down—the same tactic is being used now and the bad publicity discourages people. If we made a serious effort to recruit for the regiments throughout Scotland and had a proper system that encouraged local loyalties, we would do much for communities, for the Army and for the countries in which our Army works so well and we would not have so many ridiculous pieces of equipment that we never use.
It is appropriate that the Parliament should debate Murdo Fraser's motion. When people such as John Home Robertson campaigned for devolution, one of the arguments that they put forward was that the Scottish Parliament would be able to lobby the UK Government on issues of importance to Scotland. I sense that when we have the next Conservative UK Government, Mr Home Robertson and his ilk will not be so precious about making known to that UK Government what they claim to be the views of Scotland.
Devolved issues clearly do flow from any decision to cut our regiments—the economic issues to which Murdo Fraser and others have referred. These days, we are all familiar with the formulas produced by DTZ Pieda Consulting, and other organisations, that extrapolate the direct jobs that are lost during such changes and the wider impact on the community. There is no doubt that the closure of barracks and the implied changes will have that kind of economic effect, particularly in parts of rural Scotland.
This Parliament also has a responsibility in relation to cultural matters. During the summer, when my colleague Peter Duncan MP and I gathered signatures for a petition to save the King's Own Scottish Borderers and the Royal Scots, I was struck by the depth of feeling for the regiments in our communities across Scotland. It was not just the usual suspects in the shape of former service people who came forward; it was people from all sections of our community. They value the contribution that has been made by people from their community. Like John Swinney, they have passed by the war memorials in their communities. They know the sacrifice that has been made and they do not want to see it just brushed aside. That is why so many people have signed the many petitions raised by ex-servicemen and politicians. Indeed, 10,000 people have signed our petition, which we will present to 10 Downing Street on 4 October.
It would be good if we were able to get cross-party consensus on the case for Scotland's regiments. However, we must be clear on what the bottom line is of other people who are making the case. Peter Duncan and I have volunteered to sign a petition orchestrated by the Labour MP Russell Brown if he will tell us what his bottom line is. It is clear to me that the bottom line for people who are signing our petition is not a cap-badge arrangement where the name is kept but the entire structure is removed. We must be clear on that, because I agree with John Home Robertson that Labour MPs from Scotland will have a pivotal role in determining the final decision. It will be the strength of their backbone in standing up to the UK Government that will determine the outcome. Let us hope that they have that backbone.
I thank my regional colleague Murdo Fraser for bringing this debate.
We need to cut spending on militarism and defence. We need to do that because we spend more on the military than we do on transport, housing and law and order. However, the priorities for cutting defence spending should start with weapons of mass destruction.
During its lifetime, and including the infrastructure that is required to support it, the Trident nuclear weapons system will cost £50,000 million. Yesterday, we spent four and a half hours in the chamber debating the cost of Holyrood, which is £431 million. We could build Holyrood 116 times over for the cost of Trident.
What then is the role of our conventional troops in the 21st century? Conventional troops make up about one third of the defence budget. Their primary role is peacekeeping, humanitarian work and disaster relief in an uncertain world. I want to see the soldiers of the Black Watch on my television at night. I want to see them performing humanitarian duties. I do not want to see them involved in an illegal war in Iraq. I want to see them proudly wearing their red hackles, but along with the red hackle, I want to see them wearing the blue armband of the United Nations.
Military personnel and civilians share a deep sense of tradition, of commitment to place and community, and of the generational history of service and duty that is connected with the Scottish regiments. I do not rule out, at some future date, some form of amalgamation or streamlining or efficiency savings within the Scottish regiments, but we have to look at two reasons why recruitment is down, and why the viability of the regiments is being called into question. The first is the illegal war and the illegal use of our military forces, which are not backed by the majority of people in this country. If people want reasons why young people do not want to join the military, there is the first one. The second reason is that there has been a breakdown in the link to local recruitment and local tradition, because no local teams—either connected to battalions or to Scottish regiments—are working on local recruitment or have connections with local areas.
We must sort out those two reasons first, regardless of any future changes in structure that are introduced. However, the priority must be to cut weapons of mass destruction, to cut Trident and to cut the spending that is 116 times the cost of this Parliament, because the cold war finished a long time ago.
I am pleased to be called to speak in this debate, and I too congratulate Murdo Fraser on securing it.
I am very proud that for most of my working life I was a soldier. Indeed, on my first tour of duty back in 1980 I was attached to the Scottish infantry division, and I had the privilege of helping to train our infantry soldiers based in Scotland. That training no longer takes place in Scotland. In those days, there were seven infantry regiments in the Scottish division—the magnificent seven. Now, of course, there are only six regiments, and the focus of this debate is on the threat to reduce that figure even further.
I cannot believe that in this day and age, with all the threats that we face from international terrorism, the Government is even considering further cutting the number of Scottish infantry regiments. I could understand its position if, after the cold war ended, we faced a peaceful world, where such numbers of troops were not needed, but that is not the case. Afghanistan, Sierra Leone, Kosovo, Bosnia and now Iraq are all theatres of operations, and have been added to Cyprus, Northern Ireland, the Falklands and many other far-flung places, not to mention our commitment to European co-operation through our troops based in Germany. No, reducing the British Army to such low levels as are currently proposed, and doing away with our single-battalion regiments, is fundamentally flawed.
Who in their right mind would throw away in this way the military advantage that the regimental system provides? It seems that General Jackson would. He does not come from the single-battalion regimental system, but unfortunately he seeks to get rid of it. The regimental system that we have in Scotland is essential for maintaining public support for our armed forces, and has certainly added value in military operations.
The British Army has always been successful at modernising while retaining important traditions. The regimental system for Scotland is such an important tradition. What the UK Government seems to be proposing would see Scotland treated as simply a region of the United Kingdom, with one regiment for the whole nation of Scotland. While that might be appropriate for the English regions, it fails to recognise the regional dimension within the nation of Scotland. The proposals are fundamentally flawed, and are certainly not being driven by Scottish interests.
To those who say that as MSPs we have no locus in this matter, I respectfully suggest that we have a duty to speak up for the interests of Scotland. The issue is too important to leave to the UK Parliament alone, dominated—as it must be—by those who represent English constituencies. Scotland should speak with one voice, and it should say no to these ridiculous plans.
Under rule 8.14.3, I invite a motion to extend the debate.
Motion moved,
That, under Rule 8.14.3, the debate be extended by 25 minutes.—[Murdo Fraser.]
Motion agreed to.
Given that I am a Conservative member, members may not be surprised to discover that I believe in the success of the long tradition of the United Kingdom, which, with the history of the empire, brings with it a military tradition. As we sit here before many veterans of the armed services in Scotland who have come to the Parliament to demonstrate their views, we must remember the service that they have given the United Kingdom. It is for that reason that I remind members that the United Kingdom has had a role in the past that was more than simply defending its borders and that that role must continue in future. We should keep that clearly in our minds as we decide what will happen with our nation's army.
I come from the north-east of Scotland, which is divided into two parts. The southern part was traditionally a recruiting area for the Black Watch, while the northern part was traditionally for the Gordon Highlanders. The comparison of the two is important and should be done. It has been my pleasure to go out on the streets of Montrose with my good friend Sid Mather, who is in the public gallery today, to collect signatures from people who are genuinely concerned about the future of the Black Watch regiment. A huge campaign has been built around the Black Watch by people such as Murdo Fraser and his colleagues in the Perth area. The Courier newspaper has been great at supporting the campaign.
The area further north used to recruit for the Gordon Highlanders, but that regiment was merged in the recent past and the successor seems to have lost part of the identity and loyalty that the traditional regimental system delivered. We should keep that comparison close to our hearts because if we make the mistake of ending our traditional regiments and dissociating loyal regions from the regiments that recruited there, we will be in grave danger of undermining not only the ability of our regiments, but the traditions that support them.
It would be inappropriate of me not to raise what is perhaps a side issue—that of 45 Commando in Arbroath. In a letter to me, Adam Ingram, the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, made it clear that 45 Commando may be under threat as part of the review. Given that I represent the north-east of Scotland, I think that it is essential that we consider not only the interests of our regiments, but also the tradition that the marines at 45 Commando have had in the area. We must do all that we can to defend their tradition and presence in Scotland in the long term.
It is important to remember that the United Kingdom has responsibilities that involve heavy defence expenditure. It has been mentioned during the debate that some regiments have in the past been threatened by the diversion of funds into important projects and it would be remiss of me not to point out that we are in exactly the same situation today. Decisions must be made about the provision of aircraft for our air force and about aircraft carriers for our navy and aircraft to go on them. Huge amounts of military expenditure have been or will be committed in the not-too-distant future. We must balance that expenditure with the need to maintain in the long term an army that is capable of doing the job that it does today so that it can continue to do so for the good of world peace.
I congratulate Murdo Fraser on securing the debate. I express my unequivocal support for the retention of the identity of the King's Own Scottish Borderers, which recruits from Dumfries and Galloway, the Scottish Borders and Lanarkshire.
Before I say more about the KOSB, I want to put a few facts on the record because there is a bit of misinformation around about the defence review at Whitehall and the UK Government's intentions. This year's UK spending review settlement will provide a 1.4 per cent increase in real terms per annum for the next four years in defence spending, which amounts to £3.7 billion. That will mean that planned defence spending will have increased by 7 per cent between 1997 and 2007-08.
Murdo Fraser has had the good grace to admit that planned defence spending fell by 15 per cent—£4.2 billion—over the last three years of the Tory Government. In 1994, during that period, the Queen's Own Highlanders was merged with the Gordon Highlanders. That was the second merger of regiments under a Tory Government in under 35 years because, in 1961, the Queen's Own Highlanders was formed by the merger of two other regiments. The issue that we are discussing is not one that arises only under Labour Governments; it has arisen under other Governments as well.
The Tories have to bear in mind Oliver Letwin's commitment that all departments should have 0 per cent growth in budget over the first two years of the spending review period. That means that, under the Tories, the MOD would have its budget reduced by £2.6 billion, which would put more pressure on the Scottish regiments rather than less.
The focus is not on defence spending but on the proposal to cut the number of troops.
I know. I am getting on to that. I was merely placing some facts on the record.
I note that Mr Swinney has decided to stay with us rather than go to the SNP conference. Given that, in proportion to its population, Scotland has a higher number of members of the armed forces and a higher number of battalions than elsewhere in the UK, the SNP needs to say whether it has taken that into account in its calculations of the costs of independence.
I know that the defence review is intended to modernise the forces and to replace old or heavy tanks with lighter tanks and helicopters, which are more appropriate to modern warfare. However, I have serious concerns about the plans to reduce the number of people in the armed forces from 103,500 to 102,000. I appreciate that that reduction is only just over 1 per cent of the total number of people in the armed forces and I have been told that it can be achieved through natural wastage and that General Jackson's intention is that retraining should enable all battalions to be deployable rather than only the 26 or 27 that are deployable at the moment. However, at a time when there is much unrest throughout the world and a great need for commitment to peacekeeping, humanitarian activity and so on, I wonder whether any reduction in Army numbers should be considered.
Mr Mundell is correct in noting that the King's Own Scottish Borderers is held in great esteem in Dumfries and Galloway. It has an excellent recruitment and retention record and has served with distinction throughout the world, most recently in Iraq. The loss of that regiment's local identity would seriously affect recruitment across the south of Scotland. I concur with Donald Gorrie's view that the threat of disbandment might also affect recruitment.
My friend and colleague Russell Brown, the MP for Dumfries, has spearheaded the campaign for the retention of the King's Own Scottish Borderers. He has collected more than 10,000 signatures on a petition that he is presenting to Geoff Hoon. I can do no better than to conclude by quoting a recent letter that he wrote to the Secretary of State for Defence, which I hope will reassure Mr Mundell about Russell Brown's bottom line:
"What I wish to see at the end of this process, is the continuing opportunity for young men and women from my local area, and further afield, to sign up with the KOSB".
As a member for North East Scotland, I am in no doubt that the Scottish regiments are a vital ingredient of the British Army and that the loss of individual regimental identities would seriously damage recruiting for the infantry in Scotland.
Regiments are close-knit units with their own histories, traditions and local family connections, which would be lost in amalgamated regiments, even were their names to survive. I spoke out against and lived through the demise of the Gordon Highlanders and, although the tartan and other parts of the uniform live on in the Highlanders regiment, there is not the same palpable emotional tie between the new regiment and the people of Aberdeen and the North East Scotland.
In the two years before I became an MSP, I spent some time as a volunteer in the Gordon Highlanders museum in Aberdeen, which was set up to perpetuate the memory of that great regiment and to educate people young and old in its glorious history and achievements. I helped to serve food to the many visitors whom we welcomed there from around the world, including people who had served in the Gordons and people whose husbands, fathers, grandfathers and great-grandfathers had given their service, and sometimes their lives, to the regiment and who had enormous pride in its achievements. Many of their sons and grandsons would have signed up had the Gordons still been in existence. The love and pride were touching to see and brought home to me the power of the regimental system in the British Army.
Today, with the worldwide need for good foot-soldiers, whether to keep the peace in Ireland, Kosovo or Iraq or to defend our nation against aggressors, it is as crucial as it always has been to continue to recruit to the infantry and to retain the dedication and commitment that soldiers feel towards their regimental duties. It is vital that the Army continues to get high levels of support from the public so that people will join up and military expenditure will be accepted without resentment. The close geographical links and bonds between communities and battalions are made possible because of the regimental system in Scotland and to destroy that would result in the loss of a vital recruitment tool. Surely that would be madness in today's troubled world.
I wanted to speak in this debate because I was incensed by the reported remark from some twit in the Ministry of Defence, who said, "If you want to save your Highland regiments, persuade your young people to join them."
In my grandfather's generation, my third cousin was killed in the first world war as a Gordon Highlander. My father fought in France, was captured at St Valery and spent five years as a prisoner of war as a Gordon Highlander. As a cadet in the University of Aberdeen officers training corps I wore the Gordon tartan with pride. When the Gordon Highlanders disappeared, recruitment plummeted in the north-east. Surely to goodness we can learn the lesson of history; instead of combining and destroying the Scottish regiments, the Ministry of Defence should be reinstating them.
I congratulate Murdo Fraser on the timing of the debate, because I gather that the Scottish colonels will meet fairly soon to put their recommendations to the Army board. I think that that will happen in October.
If one mentions the Gordon Highlanders, the Scottish Horse or the Scots Greys, that will often mean a family bond to people. Members of my family served in all those regiments. I live in the north-east and many of my relatives served in the Gordon Highlanders. When they come back to visit Scotland, they proudly go to see the barracks and the places where they trained. They wear the tartan in their regimental associations and socially in other parts of the world. The Scottish Banner is a newspaper that is distributed throughout North America, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, and it is running campaigns in those places to raise awareness of the nonsense that is being proposed and the loss of our regimental tradition.
Earlier in the year, the Parliament kindly sent me to the Falkland Islands—it was not a punishment—and I had the privilege to pay a personal visit to the Royal Highland Fusiliers, which was training out there. The same chaps whom I met are now in Iraq—they were going there the day after my visit. They were up for it. Within their numbers were people from Fiji, Australia and Canada. Why did they join? I got to speak to the troops; I was not just talked at. They joined because of the name of the regiment. They did not just want to be in the British Army. They could identify that they wanted to come and serve in a Scottish regiment. Perhaps some of them saw it as a way out or as something to do, but they saw it as something that would give them long-term benefit, whether that was training, learning how to be disciplined—perhaps one or two had been in trouble—or learning a skill. One can do all that in the Army, but it is the attraction of a regiment that we are arguing about today: the continuing tradition and the esprit de corps that is essential when one is in the front line depending on one's colleagues.
Troops who are trickle posted around do not retain that bond in a time of need. It is a nonsense that Westminster has decided that the regiments will no longer do their own recruiting through their own budgets and that an outside contractor will do that work. I have no objection to contractors, but in this case there is a misapplication of outside contracting. It should be for the regiments to fight for their existence, to select and train the people whom they want and to be the effective force that they are for good in the world.
We hear stories from Westminster, such as, "We don't need extra troops now because we are out of Northern Ireland." What about the commitments that the Prime Minister has taken us into? That involved not only fighting Saddam but keeping the peace and protecting aid workers, and now we have the rise of terrorism. What on earth is going on?
The key to how we survive in the future is not budgeting but the quality of the people, the connections that they have with their regiments and the support that the regiments receive from their locality. The best recruiting tool has always been the local regiment with the local community. Frankly, I am astonished that this is going on.
I hope that everyone understands that those of us in the Scottish Parliament who care want Westminster to listen properly. This issue affects not just Scotland but the world.
Those who choose to serve in our armed services do so out of a commitment to defend our nation and our values. Members of our armed services are bound together not only by a commitment to defend our borders but by a shared concern and pride and by the desire to protect their comrades.
As the youngest member, I have no military background but I am able to take my seat in this democratic Parliament. I can declare my allegiance to the monarch and serve my constituents because we live in a constitutional monarchy and a free democratic society thanks to the sacrifices of Borderers and others. Last year, I had the honour of being the only back bencher to visit the poppy factory in Edinburgh. I saw for myself the physical and mental effects of the commitment of those who are employed in that factory, where they serve others.
Each time I hold an advice surgery in a village hall in my constituency, it is a humbling experience to read the roll of honour and the roll of service. In more than four major conflicts, the Borders towns and villages have sent their young men and women to serve. Davidsons, Nixons, Purvises, Dodds—those are families whose members have served and died. They share the visible emotion that Nora Radcliffe mentioned in her speech.
I was born and brought up in Berwick, which is the home of the United Kingdom's first purpose-built barracks. For generations, Berwickers and Borderers have served across the region. Throughout its 300-year history, the KOSBs have been committed in conflicts. Most recently, they lost one of their fellows in Iraq. One village in the Borders will have its roll of honour updated.
I was a privileged guest at the opening of the war memorial in Peebles, where the Royal Scots has a proud history. I talked to serving officers and new recruits, so I wish to make a point about recruitment in this short speech.
I represent communities that are proud of their history, traditions and social bonds. The Borders regiments reflect that pride and are part of that history. With their presence at common ridings, festivals and gatherings, they recruit in the Borders and are part of that bond. Borderers do not join ignorant of the rolls of honour in which their family names, like mine, appear. My family has served in the KOSBs in the past and people wish to serve today. They want to be part of a professional force that protects our shores and contributes to our peacekeeping commitments around the world.
Elaine Murray mentioned that defence spending is increasing. That is correct. However, our defence policy should not be simply an extension of the Pentagon's procurement policy, which favours electronic command and control at ever-increasing cost but with questionable efficacy. Of course we must have modern fully equipped armed forces that utilise technology that is co-ordinated with that of our allies. I support efficiency, value for money and the modernisation of our services for our commitments around the world, but we must have a commitment to the bond in our local areas.
Michael Moore and Sir Archy Kirkwood, who are my and Euan Robson's Westminster counterparts, lodged a petition last week in the Westminster Parliament. The petition says:
"The Petitioners highlight the proud military traditions of the Kings Own Scottish Borderers, the regiment's successful contributions to historic and recent military conflicts and peace-keeping missions around the world and its strong ties with the communities of the Scottish Borders in particular.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge Her Majesty's government to reconsider proposal which would reduce the number of Scottish battalions, to make provision for the retention of all of the Scottish regiments, and in particular to reject any plan to disband or amalgamate the King's Own Scottish Borderers."
I congratulate Murdo Fraser on securing a debate of such importance.
At a time when Iraq's new ambassador to the United Nations has asked Britain to increase its forces in Iraq, when British troops are still required in Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Afghanistan, the Falklands and Cyprus—to name but a few—and when terrorism threatens peace and the democratic infrastructure all over the world, it is extraordinary that the British Government plans to cut four infantry battalions, including one Scottish regiment. It is outrageous, it defies logic and it is dangerous for the safety of our active service troops and civilians where danger exists. It is the wrong signal to give.
The chancellor, Gordon Brown, a Scotsman, is refusing more cash for defence spending because equipment projects—including the Eurofighter—have gone over budget. One thing that we in this country know is that, although superfighters and stealth bombers can partially win wars, they have to be supported by infantry, who are always needed to cope with the situations on the ground. It is the poor, bloody infantry who have saved our country so many times in the past and who often take the brunt of the casualties, without always getting their fair share of the glory. Those Scottish foot-soldiers, who have always been ferocious in attack and who have formed famous and formidable defences—such as the Argylls' thin red line in the Crimean war—now face the prospect of being wiped out by a thin red line from Chancellor Gordon Brown's pen. That is disgraceful. We have more to fear from Whitehall than from any other potential enemy.
Senior Army officers have been muzzled and prevented from commenting on the proposed cuts in the regiments; nonetheless, Britain's most senior soldier in Iraq has openly criticised the plan. General John McColl, who is deputy commanding general of the multinational force in Iraq, has bluntly and bravely spoken out, saying that the size of the Army should be increased to allow it to cope with its growing number of commitments. That is a practical, front-line soldier speaking. If we are going to keep troops in Iraq until at least 2006—by which time there might, possibly, be Iraqi troops who can cope with the situation—it is vital to our Army's safety that it is at full strength, rather than being overstretched; otherwise, even more lives will be lost. Geoff Hoon must realise that before it is too late.
I will not dwell on the undisputed honours and glories of the past history of our valiant Scottish regiments; Murdo Fraser and others have already done so eloquently. However, the territorial link of the different regiments is an invaluable recruiting tool and we underestimate it at our peril. All the rumbling uncertainty has had an adverse effect on the morale of Scottish servicemen and women.
I end by saying that it is the primary duty of the Government at Westminster to ensure the security of our country and the safety of our civilians and armed forces. A policy of reducing our forces at this time is pretty well a dereliction of that duty and is certainly a disservice to the nation.
It may be stating the obvious, but it is particularly important to start by addressing the big question—which Murdo Fraser addressed at the beginning of the debate—of which aspects of this matter are reserved and which are devolved. Not only are decisions on the future of the British Army decisions for the Ministry of Defence, but it is hard to imagine a rational argument that said that those decisions should be for this Parliament, or for anyone else apart from defence ministers who are answerable to the House of Commons. Even those who wish to disband the United Kingdom would, I suspect, accept that as long as there is a British Army the decisions about how it is structured and run should be taken by a British Government.
However, important aspects of such decisions impact on Scotland, as members have said. Because of that, I congratulate Murdo Fraser on securing the debate. Not only is the defence of the United Kingdom essential for our safety and security, but it has significant impacts on the Scottish economy. In the past four years, the Ministry of Defence has placed almost 2,500 contracts in Scotland at a total value of approximately £2 billion. Many of those contracts sustain vital jobs in manufacturing, and many of those jobs involve high-value research and technology.
There are more than 14,000 service personnel and 7,000 civilian personnel in Scotland. With some 50 core defence sites, and many minor units, Scotland has one of the largest defence footprints of any part of the United Kingdom. Nearly 50,000 are employed in defence and related jobs. It is, in part, because of that context that Scottish ministers take an active interest in the Ministry of Defence proposals. Other UK Government departments also take an active interest in the economic aspects of defence policy; only a couple of weeks ago, I accompanied Jacqui Smith, a minister from the Department of Trade and Industry, on a visit to the BAE Systems naval shipyards on the Clyde. Like me, she was interested to ensure the best possible economic benefits for British companies from meeting our defence requirements.
The minister talks about the important economic footprint of the Army and the Ministry of Defence in Scotland. Where in Scotland is the Scottish infantry trained?
The member raises an important point, but the issue that I think will be of concern to members is that although many Scottish infantry regiments are based outside Scotland—Dreghorn in Edinburgh is the only place in Scotland where a Scottish regiment is based in a training role—they should not, and cannot, be seen separately from the rest of the British Army. They are part of the British Army and the policies that we are debating tonight are UK-wide policies. That is the basis on which we should have the debate.
I am pleased to hear the minister's comments in respect of the wider implications for recruitment and retention in Scotland. Will the minister also consider the social aspects and acknowledge that family life in the services is all important, and that the current levels of deployment are totally out of context?
We will come back to that, because we need to understand that the issue of families is part of what lies behind the Ministry of Defence proposals.
I want to move quickly to the main issue. John Home Robertson made the point that the issue of Britain's regimental structures has been raised before.
Before the minister moves on, I want to pick up on the comment that he made about the Scottish Government taking an active interest in the proposals. Will he tell us a bit more about what an active interest amounts to? Does it go as far as making a statement to the Ministry of Defence that the Scottish Government is opposed to the proposals that the Secretary of State for Defence is making?
I ask the member to have patience, because I will come to that very point.
As a result of the issue having been raised before, half our infantry regiments in the UK are already regiments of two or more battalions. A number of members have made the point that it is only 10 years ago that the Gordon Highlanders and the Queen's Own Highlanders were merged as a result of a similar set of proposals. Infantry structure is just one of the issues that are raised in the MOD's proposals this year. There is an important debate to be had about how the British Army should be structured in the future, but it is important to be clear about what is proposed and why.
I respond in particular to the suggestion that it is wrong to address such issues at a time when British soldiers are putting their lives at risk, not just in Iraq, but in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Those who know the history of the British Army will know that British soldiers have been in dangerous positions and conflict situations almost continuously for the past 60 years. It is precisely because of the risks that our soldiers take and the need to support them that the Government would be failing in its duty if it did not constantly keep in sight the need for reform and modernisation. However, any such proposals for change must be well considered and fully debated. They must take into account the strength of Scotland's infantry regiments, each of which has a strong base in its local area, has a reputation in the field that is second to none, commands local loyalties, confers identity on local areas and has a record down the centuries that is second to none.
It is important to recognise that a key part of what the MOD proposes is to end the arms plot. It proposes to do that partly on the basis of an argument that keeping regiments in a single location, rather than re-rolling them and redeploying them as has been done under the arms plot, will be better for Army families and the full utilisation of Army strength. There is a good argument to be had there, but again, it is important to stress the nature of the MOD proposals. The MOD is proposing not to divert resources from the infantry into heavy armour or high technology, but to divert those resources into logistics, engineers, signallers and intelligence in order to support the infantry.
There is a valid and important argument to be had between trickle movement of troops and the arms plot, and between additional infantry battalions and additional support for the support units. We recognise that we have a role in that debate and we want to play it. That role is to exercise our stewardship of the economy and of Scotland's culture and to ensure that ministers at Westminster are fully aware of the role and importance of Scotland's regiments.
On the arms plot, does the minister accept that the strength of the current single-battalion regimental system is that the regiment is treated as a family and that the families of those serving have strong social ties across the regiment? Does he also accept that the advantage of moving the regiment en masse is that the whole social network moves and people move with their friends? Does he further accept that, if we move to trickle posting, we will lose the social networks that make the regiments such powerful fighting units?
I can see the strength of that argument. However, Nicholas Soames and Peter Duncan at Westminster have said that they support the ending of the arms plot, so Murdo Fraser might want to talk to his colleagues at Westminster about which view his party wishes to take. The basis of the proposals is to end the arms plot and replace it with trickle posting, and the consequences of that would be as Murdo Fraser has indicated.
We want to ensure that the MOD ministers are aware of our views and those that are held in Scotland. That is why the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister have, as John Swinney asked, made representations to the Ministry of Defence stressing the importance of the identities of all six of Scotland's regiments. We recognise that the MOD ministers will have decisions to take on those matters and we are keen that they should understand how significant those regiments are considered to be in Scotland.
I was interested to see the recent reports of the appearance of the Secretary of State for Defence before the Select Committee on Defence; I have also read his comments from the Westminster debate that was held a week or two ago. I was encouraged to see his view that the existing regiments might retain their identity even under a slightly different regimental structure, but the key question of how that identity should be maintained remains on the table and requires to be settled.
We recognise that modernisation and reform of the Army are issues for Westminster and that it would be negligent of the British Government ever to cease to consider how best the British Army should be organised, but we believe that the Army has gained great strength over the years from the regimental system as it is currently constituted and from the local and family loyalties that many members have mentioned. Therefore, we will continue to maintain the dialogue with the Ministry of Defence to ensure that the views that have been expressed clearly in the Parliament are fully considered when final decisions are made.
Meeting closed at 18:13.