Just re-read my previous post, and realised a slight 'itch, in that when abbreviating my post prior to sending it, I chopped the bits around wrongly, so although what I meant to say about 1(F) was accurate (I head one of their airships debate whether 1(F) shd stay a GR7 unit or have Typhoon), me numbering was out.
Impiger is quite correct - II(AC) is the senior squadron in the RAF; it was in 1968 and remains so. 1 is second, 4 is fourth, and 3 was twelfth. So for '3 is most senior' read '3 is most junior'.
There is a debate over reckonable service, but
AFAIK, the policy as outlined has not changed (the debate being that since elements of OCUs have deployed on ops, shouldn't they be credited).
I think I made the point about deciding which base is to lose a unit and the most junior one at that base being chosen - I used 12 Sqn as the example, since it is the third most senior GR4 unit (after 2 and 14) but could go if a unit is lost from Lossie, despite the fact that 9, 13 and 31 are junior to it.
The point about XV sqn is that the only way that its plate could have been resurrected in lieu of 45's plate was by taking time spent as a reserve unit into account (it was the equivalent of the SAEOU for ten or fifteen years) to say 'this plate is senior and must therefore be preserved (if frozen) by giving it to the TWCU' - the special pleading impiger talks of.
I'm a bit doubtful, with respect, about the named 200-series plates being saved 'despite relatively junior status', since 201, 202 and 216 are senior to 27,101, 54 and 22 , and since 201 and 202 have been extant ever since the 1968 exercise awarded seniority they can't have slipped down the list.
<returns anorak to hook behind door>