Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Tuesday, 14th October 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Sign In
Register

Archaic army tradition



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 09 July 2008
There was a great fuss about the loss of regimental traditions with the amalgamation of the Scottish Infantry regiments into the "Royal Regiment of Scotland". However, according to Emma Cowing's report (4 July), at least one basic tradition has been retained: the ubiquitous English commanders of this "Scottish" regiment still condescendingly refer to the Scots who must reply "Yes, sir" to their orders as "Jocks". What century is this, again?
ELLA MacPHAIL
Henderson Row
Edinburgh

The full article contains 78 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 08 July 2008 8:43 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

Upbeat,

09/07/2008 08:07:22
In the US army the term "Grunts" is used, in the British army "Squaddies". Both are light colloquial generalisations.

Ella MacPhail should reflect that there is much more to this than she appears to understand. The use of the word 'Jocks' in connection with Scottish troops is a reflection of pride and confidence that these men will live up to the reputation of their forebears.
2

shivago8,

livingston 09/07/2008 17:12:35
Jocks is a better word than PRIVATES
An officer was found playing with his privates
3

Colin Wilson,

Aberdeen 09/07/2008 18:54:48
Re #2 : is that better than saying that an officer was playing with his jocks?!?

Seriously: I fail to see how that a word, which is only used pejoratively elsewhere, can have the connotations that Upbeat (#1) claims for it.
4

Upbeat,

09/07/2008 22:16:25
3

"I fail to see how that a word( sic ) .....can have the connotations .......claim(s)ed for it.

Suggest you read some more history books then : for example .....

"With the Jocks" by Peter White

You will probably not do this. But you could always stir your enthusiasm by looking up the Amazon.com reviews of this impressively level headed book.

Then you will understand just how much tradition and reputation is implied by the long established use of the word "Jock" within the Scottish regiments.

Why else would Jocks today 'lovingly' refer to their officer as a "Rupert" ?
It's a two way thing . Non Military people would probably never understand.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.