Blog tags

Inverclyde Council is one of several Scottish local authorities which have agreed to award the Freedom of their area to the Royal Regiment of Scotland in this, its 20th year.

After the Glasgow controversy it was pleasant to learn from the Greenock Telegraph that the Council have now confirmed the date and arrangements for the Regiment's Freedom Ceremony.

We hope everyone has a great day when it happens.

The Freedom will be the first conferred by Inverclyde on any individual or group since the Council was formed in 1996. In contrast to the political divergence in Glasgow, it's worth noting that the Inverclyde decision to award the Freedom was agreed unanimously one year ago.

BAFF is non-politically-partisan, but we also note that the good councillors of Inverclyde comprise 9 Labour (minority administration), 6 SNP, 5 Independent and 2 Conservative.

So it can be done.

The armed forces are set to receive an above-inflation pay award, with an announcement expected in the coming days.

The award, for the current financial year 2026-27, will be backdated to 1st April.

Traditionally recommendations by the Armed Forces Pay Review Body (AFPRB) would be accepted by the Government in time to be implemented on 1st April. This gradually slipped over the years but this time round there was an aspiration for a more timely award. Delay in issuing the award is not ideal, but has at times been claimed to allow a more generous award when it came.

This year's pay recommendations will cover the whole of the Armed Forces including senior officers of two-star rank and above, who had historically had their pay recommended by the Senior Salaries Review Body (SSRB).

I rather dislike the insulting expression "pearl-clutching" - meaning the exaggerated expression of outrage - but a report in The Times suggests a certain amount of pearl-clutching over the proposed merger of King's College London and Cranfield University.

The report by the newspaper's Education Editor (thetimes.com 25th May) quotes various KCL academics who have concerns about the merger. A member of the Faculty of Natural, Mathematical and Engineering Sciences said the merger was a “ploy to generate income from the war effort,” a claim contradicted by other critics claiming that healthy KCL finances would be used to bail out Cranfield.

It would appear that the objectionable "war effort" means the defence of the United Kingdom, and that, underlying many of the criticisms, is the belief that defence activity is inherently "sinister".

The Times' headline "We’re not here to build war drones — King’s College staff angry at merger" conjures up a ludicrous vision of stereotypical professors being set to work on production lines building drones.

Critics fail to mention that both universities are already involved in delivering academic provision at the Defence Academy of the United Kingdom. KCL incorporates multiple departments and research centres connected with defence and security studies and - of particular relevance to BAFF - defence medicine, and personnel welfare.

Whether the proposed merger is indeed the right way to go for the two universities is not for me to say. Matters affecting staff including pay, structures,

The Chair of the Independent Inquiry relating to Afghanistan has granted Core Participant status to five individuals "who held command roles or senior positions within UK Special Forces between mid-2010 and mid-2013."

Lord Justice Haddon-Cave's decision was announced on the Inquiry website on 20 May.

Under the inquiry rules, Core Participant ("CP") status is only granted with consent of the individual, and in this case was applied for by those concerned.

The Ministry of Defence had held CP status from the outset, covering separate legal teams representing the MOD's corporate interest, and the interests of former and current MOD personnel who were witnesses. Applications in 2024 and 2025 for the witnesses to be covered by separate CP status were not successful, but the matter was kept under review and the view has been taken that the situation has now changed.

CP status in an inquiry means that the Chair considers the person or organisation concerned to have a sufficiently direct, important, or potentially criticised role in the matters under investigation.

A CP may receive disclosure of relevant evidence before hearings, subject to national-security restrictions and any restriction orders under the legislation.

In the Afghanistan Inquiry, that could potentially include:

• witness statements,
• operational documents,
• summaries of CLOSED evidence*,
• expert reports,
• and proposed lines of inquiry.

* CLOSED and OPEN documents, inquiry sessions, etc are so indicated for emphasis of their status. Because this Inquiry concerns UK Special Forces and classified operations, disclosure

Today, 22nd May 2026, is the fifteenth anniversary of the official end of Operation Telic, the formal name for UK operations in Iraq that began with the 2003 invasion and subsequent removal of the dictator.

UK combat forces, primarily based in the southern city of Basra, had withdrawn from Iraq in July 2009, but, since then, at the request of the Iraqi Government, the Royal Navy had continued to train the Iraqi Navy to defend its territorial waters and offshore oil infrastructure. That mission ended in 2011 but UK defence engagement with Iraq continues to this day.

We remember the 179 British personnel who lost their lives. We honour all who served on Operation Telic and their families. And we think of those who returned injured in body or mind, in some cases catastrophically so.

Some veterans have very mixed memories combining justified pride with pain and anger.

Every BAFF member is either a serving or a former member of the UK Armed Forces.

When the British Armed Forces Federation (BAFF) was formed in 2006, several of the its founding members were veterans of the early stages of Op Telic. Some were Regulars and some were members of the Territorial Army, the predecessor of today's Army reserve.

As time went on, some BAFF members returned to Iraq on further Op Telic rotations. Others returned as civilian contractors or in some other capacity.

Fifteen years later, consequences of the war continue, not

We thought it might assist Glasgow City Council members if they were to see an example of a previous parade in which the Freedom of a council area was formally conferred on the Royal Regiment of Scotland.

Here's a high-quality video of the Freedom Ceremony on 12th October, 2015 conferring on the Regiment the Freedom of the Highlands:

[Thanks to YouTube channel The Big Drum, includes timings and music details]

The Prime Minister said in Parliament today that Glasgow City Council should 'reconsider' its controversial decision last week to reject a motion to grant the Freedom of the City to the Royal Regiment of Scotland in this, its 20th anniversary year.

In Prime Minister's Questions today, Glasgow North East MP Maureen Burke described the rejection as "a shameful snub to our servicemen and women, and a decision that has left many Glaswegians feeling ashamed and embarrassed".

The MP referred to the regiment's "20 years of duty, courage and, for 23 of its soldiers, the ultimate sacrifice in service to our country." More than 20 (out of 32) other Scottish councils had, she said, already recognised the regiment’s service by granting it the freedom of their area.

Kier Starmer said in reply that he joined the MP

"... in paying tribute to the bravery and sacrifice of the Royal Regiment of Scotland. I have had the privilege of meeting Scots serving in our armed forces across the world. They deserve our deepest gratitude. I cannot understand how the SNP and Greens have arrived at this decision, particularly when Glaswegians have contributed so much to the Royal Regiment. It is not too late to do the right thing, and I urge them to reconsider."

BAFF agrees with that call.

One of the reasons cited by SNP Councillors for rejecting the motion being that the Lord Provost and the Council's Armed Forces and Veterans

BAFF has unsurprisingly added its voice to calls for Glasgow City Council to reconsider its refusal of a motion to confer the Freedom of the City upon the Royal Regiment of Scotland.

BAFF also asked me to look further into this.

In a good Scots phrase, it's A Right Fankle.

BAFF is non-partisan in political party terms. My personal view, shared by everyone I've spoken to so far, is that the decision was thoroughly misguided.

But I suspect that the last thing the Regiment would want, in this its 20th anniversary year, is to be treated as a political football by one side or the other in any partisan or constitutional debate.

 What would the grant of the Freedom involve? In Scotland it's purely an honour and a mark of connection with the recipient. Historically the Freedom of Glasgow was said to include the right to graze one's cows on Glasgow Green and to fish on the Clyde, but the legislation simply refers to "honorary freemen" without authority for such rights.

The Freedom scroll traditionally includes wording such as “the right, privilege and honour to march through the streets of [Council area] with bayonets fixed, drums beating, colours flying and bands [or pipes] playing", but this only refers to approved ceremonial parades and has no legal effect.

I will return to the legal position and other aspects of this fankle.

regards, Douglas Young 

It was a perfect news story for a Monday morning. Potentially comic (depending on your sense of humour), defence spending involved, and plenty opporunity for harrumphing; with extra points for getting the word 'woke' into reader comments and the twittersphere.

Yes, according to a story first reported by The Times' Defence Editor and widely shared, the Royal Navy is planning to spend up to £200,000 on a new uniform for female officers because the present design is believed to have 'inappropriately placed buttons'.

Specifically, according to a RN internal document the position of the top two "decorative" buttons on the current female officer’s No 1 jacket (in other words, dress uniform) are deemed to be "inappropriately placed".

I  admit that the thought never occurred to me and I'm a bloke, but according to the story's obligatory Royal Navy source -

'The button placement on the jacket has always been a bit of a joke within the service, but ...'

If that's so, that sounds like there could have been potential embarrassment for some, if not the end of the world.

Importantly, the Times story does say that "Some female sailors are believed to be infuriated by the decision..."

The Royal Navy source (who, just guessing, is male) went on to say that

... at a time when the navy has been tasked with gearing up to a warfighting readiness, surely there are more urgent matters for the navy to focus on and

Congratulations to the whole team involved in getting medical assistance and supplies to the remote British Overseas Territory of Tristan da Cunha to help a British national with suspected hantavirus.

The UK Health Security Agency had confirmed on Friday that a British national had disembarked from the cruise ship MV Hondius to the South Atlantic island of Tristan da Cunha, where they live, with a suspected case of hantavirus.

Six paratroopers, a Royal Air Force (RAF) consultant doctor and an army nurse from 16 Air Assault Brigade were parachuted to the island, followed by oxygen and medical supplies.

An RAF A400M transport aircraft made the 9-10 hour 4,200 mile flight from RAF Brize Norton to Ascension Island, supported by an RAF Voyager tanker aircraft. This was followed by a 2000-mile flight to Tristan da Cunha.

One of several unusual features of the mission is that both the doctor and nurse reportedly made a tandem jump attached to a parachutist, an activity more usually associated with sponsored charity jumps and 'bucket lists'.

At one time there would have been no difficulty in sourcing current parachute-trained medical personnel. All the same, tandem jumping is an interesting capability for which there could be other occasions in emergency.

As well as providing vital humanitarian support this well-conducted operation was a timely reminder of a capability rapidly to reinforce British overseas territory.

Thanks BAFF for the ongoing coverage of the Troubles Bill and related muddles. As the Federation's original chairman and currently assisting with the ongoing BAFF restructuring, I thought it would be worth reminding ourselves of the Federation's position over the years on the applicability of law to military operations - and especially on so-called 'legacy investigations' taking place years after the alleged events. 

Other organisations will have their own points of view, but the basic priorities for a representative membership body like BAFF are the legitimate interests of our members and, by extension, the generality of armed forces serving personnel and veterans.

It's common enough on social media and news-media reader pages to see comments like 'I have never been in the military so it's not for me to judge their actions' - while in effect actually making a judgement.

For our part, we have never argued that while troops are on operations, 'anything goes'.

A BAFF spokesman made these comments to the BBC Today programme in June 2011 about the Iraq Historic Allegations Inquiry (IHAT) :

The people making these accusations have to put up or shut up. It is almost impossible to imagine that justice can be done after the amount of time that has passed. Our members are wondering about the motivation of this inquiry. Is it a sop to 'Human Rights' opinion, or is it actually aimed towards reaching a conclusion?

 [BAFF link]

And in

With a significant procedural motion concerning the NI Troubles Bill expected on Monday (27 April), the picture is supposedly complicated by the expected absence of the Armed Forces Minister Al Carns, who is believed to be visiting troops engaged in defensive missions against Iran in the Gulf.

His absence from a key Commons moment raises questions in some minds about:

• Ministerial ownership of the Bill
• The internal balance being struck within government
• The extent to which veterans’ concerns are shaping the final legislation

Carns became Minister for Veterans and People at the Ministry of Defence on 9 July 2024, shortly after being elected as the Labour MP for Birmingham Selly Oak in the 2024 General Election, and was appointed Minister for the Armed Forces in September 2025.

As an MoD minister, Carns would not in any event be expected to lead for the Government in Commons proceedings on a Northern Ireland Office Bill, though his presence on the front bench might have carried some political weight given his role as the Government’s principal veterans-facing minister.

Al Carns was alleged to have 'been on resignation watch' for much of last year over the decision to replace the 2023 legislation. He is also said to have been closely involved in the drafting of the new protections which have yet to be published. According to The Times,

Many veterans believe he remains ambivalent about the overall plans and has stopped short of

The saga of Northern Ireland Troubles legislation continues in Parliament on Monday (27 April), following a statement by the NI Secretary Hilary Benn last week.

Mr Benn's written statement confirmed that the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill remains central to the Government’s approach, describing it as an effort to finally address a long-standing failure to deal with the past. Nearly three decades after the Good Friday Agreement, successive attempts'in London and in Belfast' had not delivered a system capable of commanding confidence across victims, families and former security force personnel.

The Bill would enable information sharing by the Irish Government with the Legacies Commission.

The statement went on to say that '...unlike the false promise of the 2023 Legacy Act, the Troubles Bill does not offer immunity including for those who committed heinous acts of terrorism, and will be compliant with our Human Rights obligations, has been welcomed by all the main Northern Ireland political parties and indeed by many Operation Banner veterans.'

Crucially the Bill does not provide immunity for Troubles-related offences, in contrast to the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. The 2023 Act, passed under the Sunak government, was to establish an Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery (ICRIR) and introduce a controversial conditional immunity scheme for Troubles-related offences

Mr Benn's statement does not introduce new policy so much as confirming the Government's settled direction for this legislation:

• The 2023 Act is effectively being

A recent BAFF blog post mentioned that the first phase of the Renters' Rights Act 2025 is due to come into force in May 2026.

There was nothing specifically about service accommodation in the Renters' Rights Bill as first introduced by the Labour Government - or in its predecessor Bill introduced under the Conservative Government but never completed its stages before the General Election in 2024.

Sarah Gibson MP (Lib Dem, Chippenham) found cross-party support for a clause to be added to the Bill to require an annual assessment of

(a) the extent to which service family accommodation in England meets the relevant standards during that year, and 

(b)the work to maintain and improve the standard of service family accommodation in England that is undertaken during that year and planned for subsequent years.

The first report will cover the year 1 April 2026 to 31 March 2027.

This provision only covers England, but the Act also includes powers for Scottish and Welsh Ministers to make complementary provisions for their jurisdictions.

While elections are imminent in both Scotland and Wales, we trust that the necessary regulations will be adopted as soon as possible, so that assessment of service accommodation in both nations can proceed on a similar timetable to England's.

• Part 3 Renters' Rights Act 2025 - Decent Homes Standard
• The Renters' Rights Bill - Sarah Gibson MP

The Renters' Rights Act 2025 is intended to implement Labour Party manifesto commitments to 'overhaul the regulation of our country’s insecure and unjust private rented sector'. The Act only applies to England, and will be brought into force in three phases, with the first phase expected to come into force on 1 May 2026.

While the Act is intended to 'provide tangible benefits for responsible landlords' by providing simpler regulation, as its title implies the primary intention is to protect tenants.

The excellent 'Landlords' Toolkit' page on the Army Families Federation website lists the major changes under the Act, and also explains that

The Renters’ Rights Act represents a significant step forward in improving the private rented sector in England. It aims to create a fairer, more secure system for everyone who relies on private renting. The Act is designed to strengthen protections, increase transparency, and support both tenants and landlords in maintaining safe, stable homes.

However, these changes may have unintended consequences for Army families who need to let out their home when they are assigned elsewhere, especially those who have used Forces Help to Buy (FHTB) to purchase their property. With the introduction of a 12‑month notice period for regaining possession of a rental property, it may become more difficult for families to ensure their home is available when they need to return at the end of an assignment.

AFF has raised concerns to the MOD Policy Team

Following and evidence session with her on Wednesday (26 Mar), the House of Commons Defence Committee has recommended the Defence Secretary to proceed with the appointment of his preferred candidate for Armed Forces Commissioner, retired RAF Air Commodore Polly Miller-Perkins.

Ms Miller-Perkins is expected to take up the role on an interim basis for one year from April 2026, as a direct appointment without competition. A previous full and open recruitment process was unsuccessful in appointing a candidate. The Ministry of Defence has announced its intention to re-run that process shortly.

The MOD announcement also says that

Former RAF Air Commodore Polly Perkins served for over 30 years in the Royal Air Force, specialising in logistics and holding senior leadership roles including Deputy Commander and Chief of Staff, British Forces Cyprus. She deployed on operations in Kosovo and Afghanistan and worked with NATO partners to improve multinational logistics. She holds an MA in Defence Studies from King’s College London and was awarded a CBE for her service.

Tan Dhesi MP the Defence Committee chair rightly said that 'The success of the Armed Forces Commissioner depends on being visibly independent', but it seems in principle welcome that Ms Miller-Perkins has substantial experience of the armed forces.

The person-spec for the job did not require applicants to have served in the armed forces, but the 'desirable criteria' included 'Knowledge of the Armed Forces operating model, and the complaints procedures.'

The relevant legislation is

This year's Armed Forces Day national event will be hosted by Rushmoor Borough Council at Aldershot and Farnborough on Saturday, 27th June 2026, with other events taking place across the UK on or around the same date.

When Armed Forces Day was started by the then Labour government one view was that armed forces personnel were hardly honoured by giving them extra work at the weekend.

In practice, events have tended to involve a wide community effort, with considerable local authority input, and - without downplaying the preparation and time involved - forces personnel themselves being as much as possible the 'stars' rather than the 'general dogsbodies'.

We certainly wouldn't argue with the need to improve and reinforce engagement between the armed forces and the community.

Armed Forces Day in the UK started 20 years ago as 'Veterans' Day'. It was rebranded as Armed Forces Day in 2009 to better recognise all branches of the military, including serving regular and reserve personnel, veterans, and cadets. The main national event is held annually on the last Saturday in June; last year's was hosted by Ards and North Down Borough Council at Newtownards Airfield.

Armed Forces Day isn't the same one-size-fits-all event across the United Kingdom. The lead organiser can be the Council, the Legion, or a community organisation. For Armed Forces Day 2026 events in your area, visit this link:

• Armed Forces Day - Find Events

Events will continue to

An MOD written parliamentary answer to James Cartlidge MP (Cons, Shadow Secretary of State for Defence) reveals that in just under 20 months, nearly sixty thousand applications to join the armed forces were rejected on medical grounds.

The answer also revealed striking disparities amongst the figures for the respective services -

Rejections per service

• Army: 45,680 rejected on medical grounds
• RAF:   12,310
• Navy:    1,020

Although not specifically stated, these figures are for regular forces. Applying them to the approximate current size of each regular force reveals a huge variation in the proportion per service of applicants rejected on medical grounds -

Rejections compared with approx service size

• Army ∼ 62% rejections as %age of current force
• RAF   ∼ 41% rejections as %age of current force
• RN/RM ∼3% rejections as %age of current force

Another way to view these figures is that the Army rejected on medical grounds around 6 applicants for every 10 serving soldiers; the RAF rejected around 4 applicants per 10 serving aviators, and the RN/RM rejected less than one applicant per 10 serving sailors or marines.

Comparing the medical rejection figures with annual targets, however, shows the Army and the RAF rejecting about the same percentage on medical grounds, with the RN/RM rjecting far fewer -

Medical rejections compared with target recruitment intake

• Army - around 2.7 rejections per target recruit
• RAF - around 2.6 rejections per target

I wonder why this has come to mind today. Maybe it's because I attended a recent ceremony marking the 35th anniversary of the end of active operations in the Gulf; Op Granby to the Brits, Desert Storm to our major allies.

But Ive been refreshing my memory on something that happened in that conflict. A strategic bridge over the wide Euphrates river was repeatedly attacked by coalition aircraft because it was part of an Iraqi military supply line, and was therefore a legitimate target even though it was close to a population centre.

On 14 February 1991 a Royal Air Force Tornado GR1 aircraft fired two laser-guided bombs which were aimed at the bridge. Due to a malfunction, at least one bomb failed to pick up the guidance and continued past the intended aiming point and instead struck a crowded marketplace, killing between 50 and 150 non-combatants and wounding many more.

Civilian casualties caused by coalition air operations were already under intense scrutiny, as the incident happened only the day after the widely publicised Al-Amiriyah shelter bombing in Baghdad (13 February 1991) by U.S. aircraft. Neverthelss, the facts of the Fallujah mistake being clear, the RAF spokesman Group Captain David Henderson issued a statement within hours that the bomb had malfunctioned and failed to follow its laser guidance, and acknowledged that the RAF had made an error.

This acknowledgement was widely reported by British media and praised shortly afterwards in the

The Government proposes, in the Armed Forces Bill currently before Parliament, to establish a new standalone corporate body to be called the Defence Housing Service.

According to the Ministry of Defence, the purpose is

to renew tens of thousands of military homes and address years of underinvestment as government vows to renew the nation’s contract with those who serve by delivering better housing, services and boosting protections for those who serve.

According to the Bill as submitted, the primary functions of the Defence Housing Service would be:

• improving the supply and quality of defence housing,
• managing land or other property used (or formerly used) for defence purposes,
• securing the regeneration or development of such land or other property, and
• supporting in other ways—
  • the creation, regeneration or development of service communities, and
  • the continued wellbeing of those communities.

Civil Nuclear Constabulary (CNC) held this week a webinar exploring opportunities for service leavers and veterans in armed policing.

Over 30 people joined the webinar and heard from serving Authorised Firearms Officers (AFOs) about transferable skills, their relocation journey, and how they had integrated into the local community.

The webinar covered the role of the CT-AFO, the Civil Nuclear Constabulary’s mission, the Code of Ethics, and offered insights into the recruitment process and specialisms that the CNC offer.

The CNC has over 1,110 Authorised Firearms Officers covering various sites.

The webinar was held in conjunction with British Forces Resettlement Services (BFRS), which was established in 2009 to provide a bridge between the Armed Forces Community and employers and training providers, to ensure the AFC and their families receive the right support, guidance, and opportunities in their transition from military service.

At their 'Military to Civilian Events' like this recent webinar, BFRS offer the Armed Forces Community the chance to meet employers, find jobs, access self-employment opportunities, enrol in training schemes and get in touch with a whole raft of support services specialising in the transition from Military to Civilian life.

• CNC Jobs
• British Forces Resettlement Services (BFRS) - forthcoming events

The Labour Party's 2024 General Election manifesto included a commitment to "strengthen support for our Armed Forces communities by putting the Armed Forces Covenant fully into law", and in June 2025 following a Defence Committee report on the Armed Forces Covenant, the Government committed to extending the Covenant’s Legal Duty to all UK Government departments and the devolved administrations.

Specifically, the Armed Forces Bill now before Parliament would extend the Covenant Legal Duty to cover all UK Government Departments, all Devolved Governments (Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland), and the following wide policy areas:

• Housing
• Education
• Healthcare
• Social care
• Childcare
• Employment and service in the armed forces
• Personal taxation
• Welfare benefits
• Criminal justice
• Immigration
• Citizenship
• Pensions
• Service-related compensation
• Transport