Royal Regiment of Scotland to receive freedom of Inverclyde
The Royal Regiment of Scotland is to become the first recipient of the freedom of Inverclyde at a special ceremony in Greenock next year.Councillors unanimously approved the decision to bestow the honorary title on the senior and only Scottish line infantry regiment of the British Army.In addition to the ceremony, there will also be a parade through Greenock town centre, followed by a reception at the town hall featuring performances by military bands and local performers.The local authority said it had already set aside £25,000 in the 2025/26 budget for the event.
The soldiers have served in many conflicts and peacekeeping missions worldwide, including operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Balkans.Cllr Graeme Brooks, who is the council's armed forces champion, put forward the motion, which was seconded by provost Drew McKenzie.Cllr Brooks said: "The brave men and women of the Royal Regiment of Scotland serve us at home and overseas to protect the freedoms we hold dear so it's only right that we show our appreciation by granting them the freedom of Inverclyde."It's also important that we remember and acknowledge the service of soldiers past and present, as well as their families, and this honour is as much for them as it is for current personnel."Provost McKenzie added that there was a "strong and proud connection" between Inverclyde and the armed forces, in particular the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders that merged with other regiments to form the Royal Regiment in 2006. He said: "Their motto is 'be the standard for others to follow' which I think is very apt as they lead the way in becoming the first recipients of the Freedom of Inverclyde."
The regiment has previously been honoured by councils including Stirling and Dumfries. The creation of the Royal Regiment of Scotland in 2006 caused controversy at the time, as it meant names of famous regiments - such as the Royal Scots and the Kings Own Scottish Borderers - were dispensed with.Others such as the Black Watch and the Royal Highland Fusiliers reformed as one of the battalions in the new regiment.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Palestine Action to be banned after vandalism of planes at RAF base
The Home Secretary is preparing to ban Palestine Action following the group's vandalism of two planes at an RAF base. Yvette Cooper has decided to proscribe the group, making it a criminal offence to belong to or support Palestine Action. The decision comes after the group posted footage online showing two people inside the base at RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire. The clip shows one person riding an electric scooter up to an Airbus Voyager air-to-air refuelling tanker and appearing to spray paint into its jet engine. The incident is being also investigated by counter terror police. A spokesperson for Palestine Action accused the UK of failing to meet its obligation to prevent or punish genocide. The spokesperson said: 'When our government fails to uphold their moral and legal obligations, it is the responsibility of ordinary citizens to take direct action. The terrorists are the ones committing a genocide, not those who break the tools used to commit it.' The Home Secretary has the power to proscribe an organisation under the Terrorism Act of 2000 if she believes it is 'concerned in terrorism'. Proscription will require Ms Cooper to lay an order in Parliament, which must then be debated and approved by both MPs and peers. Some 81 organisations have been proscribed under the 2000 Act, including Islamist terrorist groups such as Hamas and al Qaida, far-right groups such as National Action, and Russian private military company Wagner Group. Another 14 organisations connected with Northern Ireland are also banned under previous legislation, including the IRA and UDA. Belonging to or expressing support for a proscribed organisation, along with a number of other actions, are criminal offences carrying a maximum sentence of 14 years in prison. Friday's incident at Brize Norton, described by the Prime Minister as 'disgraceful', prompted calls for Palestine Action to be banned. The group has staged a series of demonstrations in recent months, including spraying the London offices of Allianz Insurance with red paint over its alleged links to Israeli defence company Elbit, and vandalising Donald Trump's Turnberry golf course in South Ayrshire. The Campaign Against Antisemitism (CAA) welcomed the news that Ms Cooper intended to proscribe the group, saying: 'Nobody should be surprised that those who vandalised Jewish premises with impunity have now been emboldened to sabotage RAF jets.' CAA chief executive Gideon Falter urged the Home Secretary to proscribe the Houthi rebel group and Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, adding: 'This country needs to clamp down on the domestic and foreign terrorists running amok on our soil.' Former home secretary Suella Braverman said it was 'absolutely the correct decision'. But Tom Southerden, of Amnesty International UK, said the human rights organisation was 'deeply concerned at the use of counter terrorism powers to target protest groups'. Mr Southerden said: 'Terrorism powers should never have been used to aggravate criminal charges against Palestine Action activists and they certainly shouldn't be used to ban them. 'Instead of suppressing protest against the UK's military support for Israel, the UK should be taking urgent action to prevent Israel's genocide and end any risk of UK complicity in it.'
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
This ticking timebomb of an assisted dying Bill will lead us to a moral abyss, writes professor DAVID S. ODERBERG
The passing of the euphemistically named Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill is a terrible milestone in the decline of medicine and medical ethics in the UK. MPs voted for it by a very narrow margin after some withdrew their support following the second reading, and the Bill will now head to the Lords, where it is unlikely to be significantly amended. Much of the impassioned debate revolved around crucial questions regarding safeguards against abuse, worries about possible coercion, and the need to focus more on palliative care, among many other legitimate and serious concerns. What seems largely to have escaped scrutiny is this simple fact: our MPs have approved a piece of legislation that is a euthanasia Bill in all but name. Let me explain why. The Bill makes it clear in multiple places that the person's death must be 'self-administered'. Clause 23 is explicit that the 'coordinating doctor' is not authorised by the Bill to administer the lethal substance. All they are allowed to do is 'prepare' the substance for self-administration, 'prepare a medical device' to enable the patient to self-administer, or 'assist' the patient to do so. The death-dealing act itself must be performed by the patient. Hence there is, technically, no euthanasia – no killing by the doctor of the patient. There is, however, the smallest of hints that all is not quite as it seems. According to clause 11, the 'assessing doctor' must 'discuss with the person their wishes in the event of complications arising in connection with the self-administration of an approved substance'. What could that mean? Well, the patient may, quite simply, find it difficult to self-administer. They might bungle it, as should be expected in such a fraught and stressful situation. Suppose they fail to self-administer despite making all the right requests at the right time. Or, even worse, suppose they partly self-administer but do not finish the job, and they are writhing in agony, not dead but in a terrible state. What then? I am no prophet, and I will not put a precise timeline on the following – save to say that it will all become clear in a handful of years. This Bill will be modified to allow active killing. Imagine a patient with motor neurone disease, or advanced multiple sclerosis, or late-stage Huntington's disease. Suppose, as is likely, they cannot self-administer, yet their request for 'assisted dying' is lucid, fixed, and follows the procedures in the Bill. By the letter of the law, their request must be denied. Yet surely this, from the viewpoint of the legislation's supporters, would be a perverse outcome. Here is a person in an awful state, who fits the Bill's definition of someone who is terminally ill (death reasonably expected within six months). Their circumstances are no different from anyone else entitled to request assisted dying except for the fact that they are physically unable to kill themselves. Should they be denied the right to a so-called 'peaceful death'? If so, the supposed injustice would be obvious: they would be, effectively, punished for their own misfortune. Through no fault of their own, they do not meet the Bill's criteria. Yet their medical condition could be, in terms of disability and subjective suffering, much worse than that of someone who does fit the bill and is allowed an assisted death. Could such an 'unjust' outcome be what Parliament intended? Clearly not. So what will happen is that euthanasia advocates will, as sure as night follows day, bring a test case involving someone with a dreadful affliction such as one of the ones I just mentioned. They will say to the court: 'Your Honour, it is simply unjust and perverse that my client can have no access to assisted dying, simply through no fault of their own, and even though their suffering is among the worst imaginable.' A judge will then do one of two things. They might appeal to clause 11 and 'read into' the legislation an implied legislative intent to allow active killing – euthanasia – in such a 'rare' case, and in similar ones. But I think this would be a stretch too far, judicially speaking. It is more likely that they will disallow euthanasia in the case before them but refer the matter back to Parliament for reconsideration, so as to remedy the unfair and unreasonable outcome of a badly drafted Bill. Badly drafted with intent? That is not for the judge to decide. So it will go back to Parliament, the boosters of euthanasia will storm the gates (metaphorically), and a sympathetic MP will table an amendment to remedy the injustice. And, hey presto, you will have euthanasia. The active killing of patients will be the law of the land. Our legislators, who once presided over a system that was the envy of the world for its palliative care, its hospices, its help for the most vulnerable to live out their days with dignity, should hang their heads in shame. The fact that yesterday's decision followed Tuesday's appalling vote to decriminalise abortion up to birth means we have descended yet further into the moral abyss.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Train ticket website sues Transport Secretary after making claims about 'secret' £32million agreement involving state-owned firm
Trainline has sued Labour's Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander over allegations she snubbed them by offering a £32million contract elsewhere. State-owned London North Eastern Railway (LNER), which has been run by the Department for Transport (DfT) since 2018, was said to have recently extended a ticketing sales platform contract. But the company did not offer rivals like Trainline the chance to bid for the 10-year-deal, it is claimed. Trainline has alleged the failure to seek alternative bids means due process was ignored - as were the best interests of passengers and the taxpayer. LNER reportedly awarded the contract for the central booking engine that supports its digital ticket sales to Australia's Vix Technology. Trainline also alleges the publication of the award on the Government's website on December 23 was too opaque as it buried the news during Christmas week, limiting the ability of other parties to respond. It comes as Trainline, who would have expected to compete for the work, has its own rival division which provides a similar 'white label' service to train operators. The company is understood to be claiming that a direct award of the contract was not permissible under procurement law because the terms were varied in scope, duration and beneficiaries. Given the terms of the award, the ticketing platform used by LNER, which operates between London Kings Cross and Scotland via Leeds and Newcastle, could be extended across the rail network. However, both LNER and the DfT have denied a new contract exists saying the allegations are 'categorically untrue'. Rail Unions have previously raised concerns about third party ticket operators like Trainline, accusing the company of being engaged in 'relentless profiteering'. Despite the government's plans for simplification through the nationalisation of its railway, it has maintained there would still be a need for 'an innovative and competitive third-party retail market'. Labour also ruled out establishing a national website and app to promote to promote cheaper fares in competition with the firm. But in guidance from January it said a plan to bring together ticket websites of individual operators was now in the pipeline. An LNER spokesman said of Trainline's allegations: 'This is unequivocally untrue. No such contract exists. Trainline is aware this is the case as we explicitly advised them as much earlier this month.' A DfT spokesman added: 'This is completely and categorically untrue – not least because no such contract exists, which Trainline is well aware after being explicitly told as much by LNER earlier this month. 'The Department has been clear we are working industry to simplify ticketing for customers, as part of the biggest overhaul of our railways in a generation.' Trainline has suggested it is challenging the lack of opportunity for alternative providers to bid, regardless of whether a contract has been entered into at this point in time. The company has filed a claim at the Technology and Construction Court.
