Key Points
- Glasgow City Council has voted against granting the Freedom of the City to the Royal Regiment of Scotland on the regiment’s 20th anniversary.
- The original motion was brought by Labour councillor James Adams of the Partick East and Kelvindale ward, seeking the honour for the regiment.
- The SNP‑controlled council instead passed a composite SNP–Green amendment that said bestowing the honour on an organisation is “inherently problematic” and could tie the city in perpetuity to an entity over which council has no control or oversight.
- Glasgow is now out of step with many other Scottish authorities, as roughly half of the country’s 32 local councils have already granted the Freedom of their cities to the regiment.
- Senior politicians and former regiment members have publicly criticised the decision, calling it “astonishing” and “tone deaf,” while acknowledging the council may explore alternative ways to mark the regiment’s anniversary.
Glasgow City Council (Glasgow Express) May 15, 2026, has voted down a proposal to grant the Royal Regiment of Scotland the Freedom of the City on the regiment’s 20th anniversary, dashing hopes of a major ceremonial honour for the British Army’s largest Scottish infantry unit. The decision, taken at a full council meeting in Glasgow, was made through an SNP–Green amendment that rejected the original Labour‑sponsored motion and argued that the city’s highest honour should not be given to an organisation.
As reported by the UK Defence Journal, the SNP–Green amendment stated that conferring the Freedom of the City on an organisation is “inherently problematic,” because it would “tie the City of Glasgow in perpetuity to another organisation over which it has no control or oversight.” The amendment carried the vote, leaving Glasgow as one of the few Scottish cities that has not, so far, granted this honour to the Royal Regiment of Scotland, even though about half of Scotland’s 32 local authorities have already done so.
What was the original motion and why was the regiment highlighted?
As explained in council‑focused coverage cited by the UK Defence Journal, Labour councillor James Adams, Glasgow Labour Group Whip and councillor for Partick East and Kelvindale, had put forward the initial motion to grant the Freedom of the City to the Royal Regiment of Scotland.
The motion was framed as a way to mark the regiment’s 20th‑anniversary year, noting its long‑standing ties to Glasgow and the wider west of Scotland, where it has historically drawn many of its recruits.
According to the same report, the Royal Regiment of Scotland was formed on 28 March 2006 through the amalgamation of the six single‑battalion Scottish infantry regiments of the British Army.
The regiment has served in both Iraq and Afghanistan and continues to deploy on operations worldwide, maintaining a strong presence in Scottish civic life and military commemorations.
How politicians and military figures have reacted
Reactions from politicians and former soldiers have been sharply critical of the council’s decision. As reported by the UK Defence Journal, Paul Sweeney MSP, a former member of the Royal Regiment of Scotland, said he was “ashamed” by what he described as a “crass refusal” to grant the regiment the Freedom of the City of Glasgow on its 20th anniversary.
He added that there are “hundreds of serving and former members who are Glaswegian” and that many lost friends in Iraq and Afghanistan, before pointing out that
“half of Scotland’s 32 local authorities have already granted Freedom status to the Royal Regiment of Scotland.”
James Adams, Partick East and Kelvindale councillor and Glasgow Labour Group Whip, was quoted by the UK Defence Journal as calling the vote “astonishing” and saying it broke a tradition that Glasgow had maintained for generations of recognising military units through civic honours.
Conservative MP Andrew Bowie described the decision as “shocking,” arguing that the service of armed‑forces personnel “should be recognised and rewarded” and that the Royal Regiment of Scotland should have the Freedom of Scotland’s largest city.
Tom Tugendhat, MP for Tonbridge and a former Security Minister, was also quoted in the UK Defence Journal saying that Glasgow has a long and deep‑rooted connection with Her Majesty’s Armed Forces, dating back to the days when sailors and soldiers left the Clyde to fight for the Crown.
He suggested that rejecting the honour sends a message about how some councillors view that military history, although he did not endorse the specific wording of the SNP–Green amendment.
What other Scottish cities have done
The UK Defence Journal highlighted that Glasgow’s stance now contrasts with several other Scottish councils. Half of Scotland’s 32 local authorities have already granted Freedom of the City or similar honours to the Royal Regiment of Scotland, reflecting the regiment’s prominent role in national defence and local ceremonial life.
The report also notes that the Freedom of Dundee is scheduled to be conferred on the regiment in the coming weeks, underscoring that other cities are choosing to proceed with such honours despite the political debate in Glasgow.
Background of the particular development
The decision should be understood in the context of wider debates about honours, civic symbols, and Scotland’s evolving constitutional politics. The Freedom of the City is a historic civic honour traditionally granted to individuals or organisations that have made a significant contribution to the life of a city, and it often carries ceremonial privileges such as the right to march through the streets
“with drums beating, bands playing, and colours flying.”
In recent years, however, some local authorities have scrutinised whether such honours should be awarded to state‑linked organisations, including military units, particularly in municipalities with strong independence‑leaning or pacifist currents.
Glasgow’s council vote comes amid a broader pattern in Scotland in which local authorities are increasingly expected to weigh historical tradition against contemporary political sensibilities.
The SNP–Green amendment explicitly framed the issue as one of governance and accountability, arguing that permanently tying the city’s highest honour to an organisation with no civic oversight could set a problematic precedent.
At the same time, opponents of that view have stressed the regiment’s recruitment from Glasgow communities and the human‑sacrifice dimension of its service overseas, which they say makes the honour a matter of civic gratitude rather than political symbolism.
Prediction: How this development can affect the particular audience
For Glaswegians, especially those with family or friends in the armed forces or in the Royal Regiment of Scotland, the decision is likely to be seen as a conspicuous departure from the city’s tradition of military recognition. It may strain relations between some local communities and the SNP‑led council, particularly in areas of the city where military service is strongly valued, and could become a talking‑point in future local‑election campaigns.
For the wider Scottish public and the UK armed‑forces community, the vote may reinforce perceptions of a growing gap between certain parts of Scottish civic leadership and elements of the military and veteran population. At the same time, it could prompt other councils to more explicitly justify or reframe their own Freedom‑of‑the‑City decisions, leading to a more transparent and publicly debated approach to military honours in Scotland.
