If 2RNBR has been in existence for 57 years, shouldn't the current name be retained over over one (NSR) that was only in existence for 32 years? The militia infantry battalion in Bathurst, NB, has been in a going concern since 1870 or 141 years. It has had six designations. The NSR was the fourth. The current one is the sixth and the only one with 'Royal' in the title.
And what of those reservists from 2RNBR who served actively in Afghanistan and elsewhere? How will the change back to a former designation twice-removed honour them?
The exact same argument can be made for the Cape Breton Highlanders. Only 34 years existence under that name versus 57 years as 2NSH.
While 2RNBR and 2NSH are each derived from one previous infantry unit, how would those who wish to use reactionary titles solve the problem presented by 1RNBR and 1NSH who were each a result of amalgamations?
Redesignation decisions are very rarely easy to make and, in my own humble and personal opinion, larger infantry regiments are better than single battalion ones. (The exception being, of course, the Calgary Highlanders!)