Talk:History of Scotland/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Text from 2001 (see page history of this archive)

I don't thnk that devolution has in any sense of the word reversed the union of the parliaments (may have diluted it a little though). Scots MPs still sit in Westminster and some policy is still decided at Westminster.

---

I agree that this is a little ambiguously worded, but I see what the author is trying to get at. It is a question of nuance: maybe something like 'a beginning of the disentanglement of the merged parliaments' would more accurately fit the bill. sjc

---

I don't think there was anything 'so-called' about the Highland Clearances. There is a considerable amount of highly convincing primary evidence which indicates that a) they happened b) were extremely brutal and c) affected a considerable number of folk. sjc

---

Let's see what the old Merriam Webster has to say:

so-called adj 1. Commonly named : popularly termed 2. falsely or improperly so named.

Given the remainder of the paragraph on the Clearances, I think it's clear which meaning of the term is being used. -- PaulDrye

Yes, there is an ambiguity here; certainly when someone says 'so-called' to me, though, I tend to think immediately in terms of definition 2, as I guess, would most people... sjc

It's a Scottish article, and the Chambers dictionary defines: so-called adj styled or known as such (usually implying doubt or denial ... or a wish to disassociate oneself from the implications of the term). It would appear to me its use here is appropriate, no need to re-factor (pun intended!) -- Dweir, 17 Nov 2001

---

I think a little background would be nice:
see scottweb/clearances

---

My apologies for cutting off the second half of the article - all I did was correct a link, but I got an error from the server after clicking save. Anyway, I take the blame.

What I was going to change was the date for the start of known habitation in Scotland... by 2000BC we were already into the Bronze Age. Mesolithic midden has been discovered on Lewis and near Inverness which dates to at least 5000BC... Dweir

---

About St. Ninian, would you care to expand that section to explain what happened that Christianity needed to be re-introduced later? Based on my own knowledge of the history of the area, I assume he was a contemporary of the late Romans, and that his efforts came to naught after they left. But I don't know that, and a bit of clarification might be useful -- Paul Drye

I have got more to say about St Ninian but I want to check my facts first, basically he lived sometime between 360ish and 432. It's believed that he converted the Southern Picts to Roman Christianity but they recanted. No one knows why. -- Derek Ross

History of Britain Series

I want to make a History of Britain Series, this is, of course quite impossible between England, Scotland and Ireland and their various pre-1600 histories. So... I was thinking of making a History of England Series ending at the Union of the Crowns, after which History of Britain would come into affect. A history of Scotalnd will also be made. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:History_of_England - this is a table I have come up with, not all of the articles linked to are satisfactory. If anyone thinks it's a good idea - I wouldn't mind some help/imput etc. --OldakQuill 19:20, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, fair enough but note that England and Scotland as political entities only exist between about 500 AD and 1700 AD. Before that History of Britain is a more appropriate title since the Angles lived in Europe and the Scots in Ireland. After that History of the United Kingdom would be more appropriate. -- Derek Ross 21:00, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

843 Kenneth MacAlpin unites the Scots and Picts as one nation. This was the first step in creating a united Scotland, a process not completed until at least 1034 and perhaps much later. --Dumbo1 17:13, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

1320-1560, the lost years

Surely this article should have some discussion of Scottish history between 1320 and 1560? john k 00:22, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Indeed :) Derek observed the same thing (User talk:Derek Ross) and says he'll probably fix matters in a few weeks. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:28, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Actually I'm going to make a barebones start on it tonight. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:34, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Phew. Finished -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:17, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Good job - I've added a few details here and there. It was James II who took on the Douglases, right? john k 05:55, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The Black Douglases! Yep. I just didn't want to go into too much detail but feel free. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:17, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I just wanted to add something about each of the Kings. Do you think we might want to go into a bit more detail on Mary Queen of Scots/The Reformation? john k 06:41, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Mary has such a good article about her already that I would hesitate to add any more about her in this one. The Reformation might be worth a bit more though. I think that we have enough about the important rulers now. Any additions should probably be about cultural or social history. For instance there isn't anything about the Black Death in Scotland, the role of famine, or about the rise and fall of the Scottish Parliament from the fourteenth to the seventeenth centuries. That's probably where we need to concentrate our efforts in the future. But not tonight :-) Bedtime for me. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:54, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Yeah - that's stuff I know less about, so I'd have to take a back seat. Certainly the Reformation could have more, though. john k 07:08, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

BTW, how did such an incomplete article come to be featured already? It seems to me that it should still be at "candidate with unresolved objections" until it gets to a near-finished state. john k 07:08, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Don't know the answer to that one. I can only guess that it looked superficially complete to an uncritical reader. -- Derek Ross | Talk 07:14, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Trim down?

I rather like this article as it is, but when adding edits get warnings that it's too big and perhaps should be split up. Presumably reducing the number of images would be an option.

With some regret, one candidate for hiving off would be prehistory. Here's an idea of a reduced section as a link. Should this be taken further? (Prehistoric settlement) People lived in Scotland for at least 8500 years before recorded history came to these islands. From hunter-gatherer encampments to megalithic cairns and standing stones to Pictish and Celtic fortifications, this period is covered in Prehistory of Scotland. dave souza 11:37, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The images don't count toward the size of the article, it's only the wikitext. Don't worry too much about the warning - it's entirely a technical artifact, as some (very old) browsers have problems with large textboxes - but that means _very_ old browsers. I'd say we should ignore the warning for now - if the article gets significantly larger then we should chop it into sub-articles and leave the main "History Of Scotland" a survey article. You and Derek have between you transformed this article recently, and our new-found surfeit of quality text is a good problem to have. Keep up the good work. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:21, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oh, btw, I think we should retain the photo of Stirling Castle at the article's very beginning, or substitute it with some other history-spanning image (Edinburgh Castle would make more sense, but our photo of that isn't so good). The opening section (and its accompanying image) shouldn't be in the main chronological flow of the article as a whole, but instead form a one or two paragraph summary of the whole article. The opening paragraph certainly isn't that yet (I'll move some glacial details down to prehistory), and it's something we need to have - the opening paragraph is generally what Raul uses for the text on the front page, when he features the article there (which he will do, once we give him the nod). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:33, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Right then. I've written a (nasty) summary opening paragraph, but it needs a few sentences covering roman through jacobite times. Man, writing a summary at this altitude is hard, and it's particularly tough to avoid falling into cliche and jingoism - so feel free to wrestle this down into something less sophomoric. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 13:02, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree about Stirling Castle. It's a nice picture, so I've put it back. And I'm impressed by your summary paragraph. 10,000 years in 250 words. Wow! -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:56, 2004 Jul 20 (UTC)

I seem to have glossed over 1 1/2 millennia, which isn't good. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 16:08, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice - I like Stirling Castle too, and it apparently was a Gododdin hillfort: I mean to try to find if there's any archaeology on it, and perhaps give it a mention in the text. New starting summary and move of glaciers looking good.

Since there was a lot of detail getting trimmed out, I've started a stub for Prehistoric Scotland which can act as an extension of the shorter item in the main article. Lots still to add. --dave souza 23:41, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Roman Scotland

The article is good, but the information about Roman Scotland is out of date.

Recent dendrochonology dating of timbers from under the fort in Carlisle shows the foundation at 72CE. At Newstead, Inchtuthil and Castleford coins and assemblages indicate that Roman military settlement was early Flavian, prior to Agricola. Tacitus is our major source for this period, however he was the son-in-law of Agricola. The writer Tertullian wrote this 100 years after the writings of Tacitus: Cornelius Tacitus, however, - who, to say the truth, is most loquacious in falsehood. It would seem that the historical account of the invasion of Scotland is somewhat fabricated. We have to turn to archaeology to provide us with information.

Recent archaeological discoveries shows that the Roman influence in Scotland was more significant than history suggests. The first military barrier was the Gask Ridge, built 40 years to Hadrians Wall, some 130 miles further North. It consisted of large forts blocking the south eastern exits of the highland glens. Hadrians Wall was built around 120CE. The Antonine Wall was built about 80 miles north of Hadrians Wall, 20 years later and was manned for 40 years. The area between the walls has often been thought of as being free from Roman influence. However this would be contrary to the normal Roman pattern of creating client kingdoms as buffer zones at the edge of the Roman Empire. There is plenty of archaeology to show significant romanisation north of Hadrians Wall, and there are plenty of forts north of the wall which were manned when the wall was supposedly the edge of the Roman Empire. This all goes to show that Hadrians Wall was not an impervious barrier.

That the Romans did not hold onto Scotland is seen by nationalists as to be something to be proud of. However the Romans held onto parts of Scotland, many times. It is likely that the Romans did not hold the whole of Scotland was because in many areas the poor soil and harsh climate, produced a low population density, and lack of coherent central state. Thus to hold onto the entirety of Scotland would cost a lot more than the gains it would bring. Areas which supported a higher population density, were often parts of the Roman Empire, as the wall moved back and forward. At the end of empire in the west, the area between the walls were incorporated into a fifth British province (Valentia). The rise of states to the north of scotland (picts), during the period of Roman occupation to the South, perhaps were a result of contact with Rome.

Not sure how that can be incorporated, but the current article almost writes out the influence of Rome on Scotland, whereas modern research has shown that Scotland was significantly influenced by Rome.

"Over the next thousand years Scotland remained linked to Celtic cultures, while England came under Anglo-Saxon domination." Again that is not entirely true. Scotland south of the Clyde-Forth line, was significantly influenced and invaded by the Anglo-Saxons: the current language spoken in Scotland which is, and has been for over 1000 years, the scottish dialect of English. This is not down to cultural imperialism by the English in the last few hundred years. Other languages existed, but did not survive. This is almost certainly due to the large influx of anglo-saxon speaking settlers. The gaelic which is spoken in the Highlands is a late addition from Ireland. The picts (whatever they spoke) and the brythonic speaking peoples didn't leave a linguistic heritage, just a load of place names. --Dumbo1 15:48, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If you speak of Scots, I would ask that you refrain from degrading it as a "dialect of English." Scots has every right to being labeled a language as does English, and no less. This has been long-established by linguists. I would also ask that as you capitalize Enlgish, you capitalize Gaelic, and Scots, whatever you opinions of the languages may be. This is an unbiased encyclopedia, after all. Canaen 09:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with most of what you say (although Old Irish arrived in Scotland about the same time as Old English did, so Gaelic is no later an addition than English). I've certainly visited the remains of Roman forts in Perthshire, Angus and Kincardine and that coupled with the fact the the Picts lost the battle of Mons Graupius doesn't sit well with what the article says. Let's get the above into the article rather than sitting on the talk page.

I'd like to know just when you think that English arrived in Scotland. the Scotti of Dalriada spoke the Gaelic of Ulster, and it developed there into Scots Gaelic. If by Old English you mean the language of the Bernicians of Northumbira, Germanic invaders, I would note that this is not Old English, but the Germanic Language which developed into Scots. Canaen 09:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

The line

"Over the next thousand years Scotland remained linked to Celtic cultures, while England came under Anglo-Saxon domination."

was a late change. The original line said

"However, as a practical consequence, Scotland stayed cut off from the main currents of European thought and culture, and thus remained a fringe, backward nation for almost a thousand years",

which while arguable, made much more sense in the context of the preceding sentence,

"The failure of the Romans to conquer Caledonia can be seen as a triumph of the Caledonians and perhaps even as a source of national pride".

We should put back the original sentence in my opinion, rephrased to spare the feelings of more sensitive Scots if necessary. -- Derek Ross | Talk

Basically in agreement.
. "Over the next thousand years Scotland remained linked to Celtic cultures, while England came under Anglo-Saxon domination." Again that is not entirely true. Agreed - I wrote that having been annoyed by the "we're backwards" sentiment of "However, as a practical consequence, Scotland stayed cut off from the main currents of European thought and culture, and thus remained a fringe, backward nation for almost a thousand years" which seemed an absurd statement about a time when Celtic culture flourished, Angles brought Gododdin south east Scotland into touch with the Anglo-saxon scene and relationships with the Norse developed. England was pretty chaotic at this time. (Gaelic became the court language over most of Scotland in the 11th century, including SE Scotland, but was then displaced by Norman English influence.) The statement "The failure of the Romans to conquer Caledonia can be seen as a triumph of the Caledonians and perhaps even as a source of national pride". seemed rather foolish, but I didn't manage to think of a replacement. I've tried now to improve this - feel free to do better.- dave souza 17:39, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

revised version most impressive, and informative! - dave souza 21:04, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"history reached scotland"

The sentence "Written history finally reached Scotland during Roman times." is rather suboptimal. It would be better if we had a sentence explaining what writing systems the pre-roman inhabitants had, and why what remains doesn't constitute a written history. So it'd read something like (note: strawman - no facts here) "Although the brythonic peoples used a simple foobar writing system, its use was limited to scatalogical limericks, and so the written history of Scotland essentially begins during Roman times". Thoughts? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 21:35, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Could be tricky to phrase it right. I believe that writing existed (or had existed) and there were the occasional pre-Roman commemorative stones with some form of writing or symbols engraved upon them but the reason that there was no proper written history was because the Druids insisted that oral history was the way to go. Of course it worked beautifully until the Celtic societies were otherwise occupied by Christianity, wars, famine, etc, etc, and could no longer afford the luxury of properly trained bards... Derek Ross | Talk

Howsabout: "The written history of Scotland largely begins with the coming of the Roman empire. Although writing was occasionally used for commemorative purposes by pre-Romans, these societies favoured a strong oral history. With the loss of the druidic tradition (due to war, famine, and particularly the proscriptions of later Christian missionaries) much of this history was forgotten." ? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:03, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You're a master! Stick it in. -- Derek Ross | Talk

Numericals

It would wise to get rid of the numericals in the topics, to insure standard syntax throughtout wikipedia. --68.175.65.175 23:52, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not sure I know what you mean? If you mean the numbered section headers, those are automatically generated by the software, and their presence or absence is a user preference. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:58, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well Done

Good work, guys! I would say that we came through linking from the Main Page pretty well. We managed to fend off the vandals and the American spellers fairly promptly and got in some pretty worthwhile improvements to the article as well, partly as a result of the extra exposure. This calls for an extra Tunnock's Caramel Wafer all round, so break them open! Cheers -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:22, 2004 Jul 31 (UTC)

I want mine deep fried - David Gerard 16:57, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Pointless. The wafer strips are made from blue asbestos, so you can fry it forever without it changing at all. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 20:19, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Careful what you say about the Caramel Wafer. I hear that the St Andrews Tunnocks Caramel Wafer Appreciation Society have a Provisional wing not noted for their sense of humour...

Rightly so. The Tunnocks Caramel Wafer is a legend in its own teabreak. It should not be dunked or trifled with. --Dumbo1 20:11, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

On the other hand for someone who does have a sense of humour when describing Tunnock's products (and those of many other biscuit manufacturers), I can heartily recommend http://www.nicecupofteaandasitdown.com even if you don't particularly like biscuits. -- Derek Ross | Talk

Well done, chaps - good to see this as a featured article. I hope to be able to add some detail (not necessarily here, but possibly in its own article) on the Scottish Lowlands over the next few months. Cheers, Bruce Agendum 09:46, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The British Civil Wars

I have changed the title, English Civil War to 'The British Civil Wars' because I have studied this topic and the current view is that the civil wars were not just about England but were a series of interelated conflicts throughout the whole of the British Isles. Also Scotland played a crucial role and it could even be argued that it was events in Scotland that actually triggered the civil war. The Civil wars are also seen as being caused by the problems of one king ruling over multiple kingdoms (which also had different religions such as Catholic Ireland, Protestant Scotland and England). Even though England, Scotland and Ireland were separate kingdoms they were all ruled by the same king and this caused many problems, especially when trying to implement a uniform religion on all of them. Also the king needed the support of all his kingdoms and trying to please everyone all of the time was impossible. Therefore the civil wars were the result of the very complex relationship between England Scotland and Ireland and the king. This is not to deny the traditional arguments about the English causes of the civil war but It is unlikely that such a huge conflict would have escalated to the degree it did without the involvement of troops from Ireland and Scotland and things such as the Scottish covenanters who actually started the wars in 1639 and the Irish confederates rebelling in 1641. Another description which has been suggested is 'The Wars of the Three kingdoms' although I think this might confuse people whereas 'British civil wars' is slightly more familar. although it probably shouldn't be called a 'civil' war at all as it involved conflicts between Ireland, Scotland and England. --Cap 13:28, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think that most, if not all, of us are well aware of these facts. However the conflict is universally known as the English Civil War, and it is not up to us to create a new name for it. That sort of thing leads to confusion. For one thing the Jacobite conflict has as good a claim to be the British Civil War as the English Civil War does (in fact a better one to my mind). For another it is conceivable that some people could believe that there was a British Civil War and a separate English Civil War. To sidestep the issue I have renamed the section with a completely different but unambiguous title for the time period -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:04, 2004 Aug 24 (UTC)

I take your point that changing names can lead to confusion, however I just found it a bit strange that you included the events happening in Scotland under the title 'English civil war' when the focus of the article is on Scotland. it implies that events in Scotland triggered the 'English' civil war and that Scotland subsequently became involved with this English conflict. Which is rather misleading, when the conflict between the Scottish Covenanters and Charles I was the start of the civil wars and also triggered off a whole series of conflicts throughout the British Isles. Therefore it seems reasonable to think about a 'war of the three kingdoms' which would emphasise the specific conflict going on between the Covenanters and Charles I (and subsequent conflict in Scotland up until Charles' execution) as a conflict in its own right, while at the same time acknowledging the close interrelationship between this conflict and the civil war in England as well as in Ireland. (However don't take this as a criticism of your actual article which is excellent and does deal with all these issues, it was just the term English civil war that I was challenging which you've now changed anyway!)--Cap 21:30, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

hopefully this is coming together now in line with the articles about the parts of the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, history seems to keep developing...dave souza 23:12, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

End of feudal duty

This seemed interesting enough to get mention somewhere, there's now a slightly expanded note on it added to Scots law so if this seems too minor to warrant appearing in this overall history it could be trimmed or deleted here...dave souza 23:12, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Outwith!

See Talk:Scotland#Outwith! -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:31, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC) [edit: Actually here. — LlywelynII 18:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)]

Sorry, Derek, have to agree with Susurrus on this one, though it's a term I like and may have added myself. The word is outwith my trusty Chambers Concise Dictionary, Edinburgh 1985, which is generally pretty good on common Scotticisms, but which, sadly, also omits the alternative "furth of". From Chambers Scots Dictionary it's defined as the rather clumsy "outside of", and while your acquaintance with our American cousins may persuade you that all should understand, I fear that those in other countries such as the USA will be baffled by a term undefined in usual references. From the talk:Scotland I can appreciate the advantage of keeping it, would a possible compromise be linking it to a new page explaining all to the uninitiated?..dave souza 00:49, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)..alternatively, put it to an arbiter (or in English, an arbitrator}...dave souza 09:58, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Dave, It looks to me as if Susurrus and the other guys who want to replace "outwith" have had no difficulty in understanding what it meant despite not having come across it before or being unable to find it in a dictionary. The context and its resemblance to "outside" mean that its general meaning is obvious, even though its specific meaning may be a little vague. However in this aspect it's no different from any other item of unfamiliar vocabulary (better than most in fact) and there are plenty of unfamiliar words for any general reader looking through the Wikipedia after all. By all means let's add an entry for it to the Wiktionary if it's uncommon in most dictionaries.

I can see the argument for not using "outwith" in the Simple English Wikipedia but I can't see it here. I believe that the main reason that people object to it is that they are used to seeing unfamiliar nouns or adjectives but not unfamiliar prepositions. I think that its inclusion can be seen as educational. Contrariwise, attempts to remove it or other unusual words like "contrariwise" can be seen as "dumbing articles down" unnecessarily. -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:07, 2004 Dec 18 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll go along with that..dave souza 00:01, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I didn't realise that my small edit would have provoked such a controversy! I didn't mean to step on anybody's nationalist toes. If Scots want to use their own regional English words for their own regional articles, that's fine. People get very attached to the connotations of their own words. I still wouldn't want to see 'outwith' in a chemistry article or anything. But articles about America use American English and articles about Britain use British English. So to be consistent, articles about Scotland must be able to use Scottish English. --Susurrus 01:22, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Seems fair enough to me. Just a wee point, Scots language is arguably NOT "regional English", though that's an old argument..dave souza 02:21, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I define as regional anything that is not international. Same goes for British and American varieties of English. --Susurrus 02:46, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

OK, I've just read a bit of the Scots language article. I take the point that Scots language is arguably not a dialect of English. But I was not referring above to the Scots language, but to Scottish English. Scottish English is by definition regional English. --Susurrus 02:52, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A quick Google search for "outwith" shows that, while it is more popular on sites with a Scottish connection, it is used on international sites from Brussels to Brisbane. Since, it appears to be international, it cannot, according to your logic, be regional. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:53, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)

If it is international, then I see no excuse for using it anywhere. "Outside" or "beyond" will do just fine. Never use an obscure word where a commonplace word will do. Claiming that the word is international would seem to me to work against your position, not for it. --Susurrus 05:08, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think that's a touché. Again, I have nothing against "outwith" as a Scottish regionalism. But I challenge ANYONE to give me one sentence where it would otherwise make more sense than a commonly recognised English word or phrase. --Susurrus 02:24, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Very well, I shall consider myself "cut to ribbons" ! (Or perhaps, like "outwith", that is too obscure or colourful a phrase for Wikipedia and I should just use a commonly recognised English word or phrase and consider myself "beat"). -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:53, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)

Can you really make such a comparison?

1. I recognised "cut to ribbons" immediately and have seen it before. I never heard of "outwith" before.
2. The Google "define:" keyword works with "cut to ribbons". It does not work with "outwith".
3. The top-ranked Google page for "cut to ribbons" is its WordNet definition. For "outwith", it is a discussion page about its relative legitimacy. The title was "Outwith my Vocabulary". Quite a few of the contributors were sceptical about the word. One of them said that basically you could use "outside" everywhere you could use "outwith". Hence the rationale behind my previous edit.
4. Is anybody really confused about the phrase "cut to ribbons"? I know that people are genuinely confused about "outwith". I was confused by it when I first saw it in this article. The person in the discussion to which you link above was also confused by it.

You establish yourself as a Scot living in Canada. You say that you can say that word easily enough where you live. But I, as an Australian, could never get away with using it where I live, in Australia. First, nobody would know what I was talking about. Second, when they did find out what I was talking about, they would consider me pompous for talking in such affected speech. They'd take the Mickey out of me (if that is not too obscure an expression). Australians despise pretension. But if I were Scottish, I'm sure that people would let me use it because everybody is really politically correct these days.

I also do not appreciate the introduction of the phrase "or colourful". I never said that some language may be too "colourful" for the Wikipedia. Kindly do not insinuate otherwise.

On the other hand, this discussion is getting academic. First, "cut to ribbons" is a colloquialism. So it is undesirable in an encyclopaedia article anyway. Because "outwith" is not a colloquialism, it is already inappropriate to compare the two. Second, I already said that I would not remove "outwith" from the Scotland-related articles. Those already comprise the vast majority of articles that use the word, of course. A quick Google search reveals this clearly enough. Are you really going to argue this vociferously for "outwith" on articles about topics outwith Scotland? Even if you do, that discussion may also well turn out to be academic, at least for me. Those articles are so few and far between that I don't anticipate reading one anytime soon. But it will be interesting to see how you go in those discussions, in any case. --Susurrus 06:08, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

<sigh> ... but full marks for your use of "outwith" in a context where "outside" would have sounded more awkward. -- Derek Ross | Talk 07:10, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)

I do not say that "outwith" is universally replaceable with "outside". If those were the only two choices, then "outwith" may often be better. But my first choice would probably have been "articles not specific to Scotland" anyway.

At first, I thought that this was a nationalistic stoush. Now it simply seems to me to be linguistic proselytism. In my singular case, then, you have already won. This debate has already burned the silly word into my brain so much that I am unlikely to forget its meaning anytime soon. So even if I see it in a neutral article, I will probably have little incentive to remove it anyway. I will leave that to the discretion of other people if they get confused. --Susurrus 23:38, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Even today, I still remember this discussion so much that I decided to check up on that infamous sentence to see how it was doing. To my ironic delight, someone else has removed the word anyway, replacing the entire original phrase that contained it! Poetic justice. --Susurrus (talk) 10:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Other Scottish Civil Wars

Question. I wrote a article about the Scottish Civil War of the 1640s, but I see elsewhere that there was another Scottish civil war in the late 16th century. Anyone know anything? Jdorney

There are a few other Scottish civil wars -- some are clear cut and some you could argue about of course. The conflicts that closed Macbeth's reign or Mary's reign were definite civil wars for instance. And you could argue that the second War of Independence was a civil war too, although that is much less defensible. However I think that the one you are referring to would be Bonnie Dundee's Jacobite uprising of 1689 which is described in the Jacobite rising article. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:40, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

No, I know about that one! In the "wars of the pike and age" page there's mention of a Scottish civil war in the 1580s. Is this just a mistake? Jdorney

Oops, I was a century out! Sorry about that. The 1580s would be during James VI's early reign which was a fairly turbulent period with the Presbyterian lords and the Catholic lords duking it out on a regular basis. It could arguably be seen as a time of civil war. Read the James VI of Scotland article for a bit more detail. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:45, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)

Ah I see, but not a rival candidate for title of THE Scottish Civil War, you wouldn't say? Jdorney

I don't think that it would be a candidate but then I'm not a professional historian, just someone with an interest. The trouble at the end of Mary's reign would be a better candidate but the thing about Scots is that we're a pretty fractious lot. Before the 19th century there was nearly always someone rebelling or raising an insurrection somewhere in the country, so much so that each new king tended to spend the early part, at least, of his reign putting down trouble of one sort or another. It was the normal course of events really. Trouble had to be pretty big in Scotland before you would call it "civil war". Otherwise you would just call it "business as usual". It might be an idea to have an article Civil wars in Scotland and cover all the conflicts which posed a serious internal threat to the Scottish monarchy. That would be a fair-sized project though. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:10, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)

Post-Roman Scotland

There's a new Edinburgh Uni Press History of Scotland coming out soon. Alex Woolf is doing "From Pictland to Alba: Scotland 789 to 1070". It's not out until next year (?). Woolf was interviewed by the Scotsman and is quoted as thinking that Kenny McA was a Pict: "There’s actually no hint at all that he was a Scot". Ewan Campbell's "Saints and Sea-Kings. The First Kingdom of the Scots" refers to "the flight to the East" of the Scots and makes the point that Dalriada was all but submerged in the Viking attacks. Then there's the fact that modern historians are rather disinclined to be so sure that the Scots did invade Scotland, see Doctor Campbell again. As it stands, this section reads as if it was written in Victorian times. Angus McLellan 22:42, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you want to add some more modern scholarship, please do. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:00, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

I made a start on this, but only a start. I also had a bash at Picts. Assuming nobody goes mental over that I'll be doing more on it later. Angusmclellan 22:07, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not at all, Angus. It looks pretty good to me. Cheers -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:30, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

I'm goin to edit the civil war section a little bit to explain how the Scots fitted in to the bigger picture. I'll try to be s clear as possible, because i know this is a very confusing period. Jdorney

Doc Glasgow's Edits

Does anyone else feel that these have been a little hasty and unilateral? For instance, in trhe Wars of the Three Kingdoms section, he said he was removing errors, but all he's actually done is removed the link to the Scottish Civil War (the main Scottish event of the period) and removed the very interesting paragraph about Scotland under the Commonwealth. I think it should be reverted, does anyone else feel the ssame about other edits? Jdorney

You have a fair point here - I may have cut too much in this section. I've put back the para on Scotland under the Common wealth. And expanded the sesion of the Scottish Civil War - I had removed the link only because it was dead. As to the errors, the original stated: "Montrose successfully raised Scottish clans opposed to the Covenanters and made Scotland the stronghold of support for the King". That's not so - as far as I can read up. Montrose was very successful, but few actually followed him. Even his own Gordon Clan would not. His army was always small and a good deal of it was Irish - hence the failure when the Irish returned home. At no point was "Scotland the stronghold of support for the King" during Montroses campaign. As far as I can make out, the Scots leadership only supported the King after 'the engagement'. Sorry, I should probably have offered explanations before. If I've got anything else wrong, I'm happy to be corrected. I hope that helps - --Doc Glasgow 15:35, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I must admit that I agree with JDorney. Although your edit summaries talked about fixing errors, the actual edits seemed to delete information, rewrite text for the sake of it and introduce spelling errors. I didn't like to change everything back with you being a new and enthusiastic editor and all that but it did cross my mind that it might not be a bad thing for the article. There may be a couple of points like Montrose where things needed changing but your edits seem to have gone well beyond that point. I mean we don't want to seem over-sensitive but this article has been a group effort over several years and we've managed to get it up to Featured Article status, which isn't that easy to do. You can understand why we get a bit uneasy when someone new comes in and makes big changes to the article without really adding anything new to it. So could you go through your changes, one section at a time, and discuss why you made them ? It might help us to understand a bit better. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:24, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

That is a fair point about the "stronghold" comment. The Scottish Civil War link isn't dead to my knowledge though and i'm not sure that much detail has to be put into the general article when its all there already in the Civil War article. No one has a problem with people who want to contribute, but its sometimes bettter to get a consensus first Jdorney 10:41, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I’ll respond to this, and then you folks do as you will. When I joined, I was encouraged to edit boldly - so I did. I confess I didn’t get the significance of the ‘talk’ ‘till later. Sorry if I steamrollered. Spelling errors? Yes, (used to a spell check), but I was trying to remove colloquialisms like ‘stymied’ and ‘bevy of claimants’ and more. If you want to revert, then you may like to consider the following, which are (IMO) errors or debatable (granted some are minor):

1) The contention that Margaret ‘restored’ the church to the rule of Rome is not NPOV. Was the Church ever under Rome before – maybe in parts, by that is at least debatable, and theologically contentious.

2) David I ‘had a large hand in the spread of Scots’ in Lowlands. Highly questionable (evidence?) implies that Scotland was largely Gaelic-speaking before that. I suspect the twooing and fro-ing between Strathclyde, Northumbria, Cumbria over the pervious 500 years had more to do with language mixes and Anglo-Saxon penetration of northern Briton – but I could be wrong.

3) David was ‘half English’ (i.e. Saxon?) – So what? So were many other Kings. His time at the Norman court of England was probably more influential than genetics.

4) Did David really ‘introduce’ the tension between the Highlands and the Lowlands??? Might the fact that the Lowlands had a different history and culture from the Picts and Scots have started this way before David?

5) Was Scotland really in the mainstream of European culture in Roman times. Much of it was outwith (sic) the Roman Empire?

6) The Kings were ‘Stewart’ (Steward) until Mary I, who introduced the French Stuart.

7) Did the Declaration of Arbroath nullify anything? Or rather assert (to the Vatican) Scotland’s claim to independence

8) Does speculation about a legal technicality that French citizenship was not repealed in Scotland merit mention in a brief overview of Scottish history? No-one, to my knowledge, has ever made an issued of it.

9) Knox didn’t convert the nation single-handedly, as implied, he was the key leader in a movement that began years before. Minor points: slightly more than the Highlands remained Roman Catholic and Knox preached Reformed/Calvinist doctrine not Presbyterianism (which is a type of church government not a theology).

10) Parliament adopted Presbyterian church government (and Reformed doctrine) in 1560. Queen did not immediately flee (as implied), indeed she only returned from France in 1561 – and fled in 1568.

11) Church of Scotland and Church of England ‘differed almost as much as two sects under that banner could’. (Sects is pejorative!) They differed greatly – but Anabaptists would have been far more different – so I think this is an overstatement (minor point)

12) The Church of Scotland and Church of England both consider(ed) themselves ‘Catholic’. So ‘Roman Catholic’ is required to differentiate those Christians that recognised Rome.

13) Presbyterians were not ‘sceptical’ of the priesthood and Pope’s authority, they rejected them altogether.

14) Presbyterianism is not democratic – and the claim that it is ‘in essence’ is at least disputable.

15) James II promoted episcopacy in Scotland not the Church of England.

16) Jenny Geddes is generally regarded as a legendry figure

17) Montrose – see my post above)

18) The Scottish Enlightenment was more philosophical and scientific than cultural, and Walter Scott, although a giant of literature, was not ‘pre-eminent’ in the Enlightenment – that award has to go to Hume, Smith or one of the scientists.

I now know, that I should have posted these points before correcting them, and some may be wrong or contentious – but please don’t revert without considering them. (The ‘Scottish Civil War’ link was red on my PC – it isn’t now – and I don’t understand that.) --Doc Glasgow 17:47, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanations. Those are reasonable points which we will definitely take account of for future edits. Cheers Derek Ross | Talk 21:57, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

So are we keeping these edits are are we reverting it or not? The only section I know about and have contributed to is the CIvil Wars section. If we're keeping it, I'm going to do some editing of my own. If not , the nthe Doc can make some more sensitive edits as he sees fit. Jdorney

I don't think that we should just revert. I am prepared to go through and re-edit bearing his points in mind. I think it best if you do the same for the Civil war section. By doing that we should end up with a better article than we had before whereas reverting would just leave us with the same article as we had before. That would be a shame since it looks like it could be better. -- Derek Ross | Talk 02:22, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

Right, I've done my edits, I've removed some detail, because I thought it was too much for this general article and its linked to a full article in the Scottish Civil War anyway. I've also reinserted some other details. Doc, if you want to add to this page, please go ahead. As a general rule though, adding new info won't annoy people, but deleting info and re-writing pages at random will. All the best Jdorney 08:35, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'll not interfere again, except to fix typos (here mine). I'll watch your progress with interest. Your changes are good - and I learned from them. --Doc Glasgow 08:51, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Request for references

Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. Further reading is not the same thing as proper references. Further reading could list works about the topic that were not ever consulted by the page authors. If some of the works listed in the further reading section were used to add or check material in the article, please list them in a references section instead. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. Thank you, and please leave me a message when you have added a few references to the article. - Taxman 19:58, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

History of the Orkney Islands

History of the Orkney Islands is the current UK Collaboration of the Fortnight. It needs lots and all help welcomed! Secretlondon 17:59, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Capitals before 1437

I'm trying to figure out what the various capitals of Alba were before Edinburgh in 1437, but after it was a united Kingdom. I haven't found anything in any Scotland-related articles on Wikipedia, and have looked elsewhere as well. Does anyone know? I know I've heard references to Stirling, and Dunadd being Dalriada's capital (correct me if I'm wrong), and Inverness being the Picts' capital, but what of Alba/Scotland pre-1437? Canaen 08:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Dunfermline springs to mind. Can't remember source though.--Mais oui! 09:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Stirling was certainly popular as a royal residence, because of its strategic importance and impregnable fortress. It may be that there wasn't a formal capital as such. On second thoughts, maybe it should be regarded as the capital - look at the importance of battles like Stirling Bridge and Bannockburn --Berek 10:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The Perth article gives credit to Scone, Perthshire from 846 when Kenneth mac Alpin, the first king of Alba established his seat of power there, then Dunfermline lays claim from the marriage of Malcolm Canmore and his queen Margaret, which took place in the town in 1070. That seems to relate to coronations, and I've a vague memory of Edinburgh getting the honour when the royal of the day was holed up in the fortress. Having said that, the royal residence was a bit of who they went round sponging off, as I recall from Falkland Palace. Also, I'd guess that Malky Bigheid or his son David ceased calling it Alba having overthrown the "celtic" Macbeth. ...dave souza 21:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Máel Coluim III was Celtic, just like Macbeth. The scenario "Non-celtic Máel Coluim" versus "Celtic Macbeth" is pure fantasy, which I remember having to delete from the Macbeth article. What are you reading? I don't mean to be insulting or anything, but we know Máel Coluim III was a Celt. Anyways, to think about any capital before the modern era is largely an anachronism. Government, like the king, was itinerant. Dunkeld, Dunfermline, Dunnottar, Scone, Perth, Inverness and perhaps "Burghead" were all important medieval royal or ceremonial centers. Calgacus 00:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Nifty. Canaen 09:55, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Calgacus, appears to have misconstrued my rather casual comment, and a bit of clarification seems to be needed. Malcolm Canmore spoke gaelic, but was brought up in the English court from the age of 9. Having overthrown Macbeth and Lulach he claimed succession on the anglo-norman model of primogeniture, introduced feudalism by rewarding his supporters with land in Moray and the lowlands, married an English princess (brought up in Hungary) who pushed the gaelic speaking Celtic church to adopt the Latin rites of the Roman Catholic church, and as well as being married at Dufermline was buried there, ending the Celtic tradition of kings being buried at Iona. His son David was also brought up in England and took the process of change to anglo-norman feudalism much further, developing a French speaking aristocracy. It doesn't seem likely that he kept the name Alba, but that's pure conjecture by me. sources: MacBeth, High King of Scotland 1040 - 1057, Peter Beresford Ellis, and Scotland, a concise history, Fizroy Maclean. Got some good reading to dispute these points or clarify the time when Alba became Scotland? ....dave souza 15:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

David, Alba never ceased to exist and become Scotland. Alba is simply the Gaelic name. Scotia (Scotland in English), literally Land of the Gaels, is the name given to the same place in Latin. To this day, the Gaels call Scotland Alba. I can't comment on the MacBeth book, although I don't have high hopes, but as a source for MacBeth, I'd bin Fitzroy MacLean. I don't know the source for Máel Coluim going to the English court at 9 (I'm presuming it's just conjecture based on Máel Coluim's supposed age when Donnchad I was killed). I'm hunting for it, but none of the decent historical works are claiming this, and none of my primary sources, (taken from Anderson's three volumes) are saying that. Anyways, just because he went to a foreign court doesn't take away his ethnicity. That's absurd; it's like saying Charles de Gaulle became non-French because he, like Máel Coluim, spent a few years in exile. And what does being buried at Dunfermline mean? As far as I know, he was only buried there after his death. He of course died in northern England, and his body was moved there later. Iona was under Scandinavian rule after the reign of Magnus III of Norway, although I'm not saying that explains the decision, the decision is not in the slightest bit anti-Gaelic, since Dunfermline was one of the most important sites in Gaelic Scotland. Máel Coluim was as "Celtic" (i.e. Gaelic) as Friedrich Barbarossa was Germanic. King Harald IV of Norway originally bore the Gaelic name Gilla Críst. King Harald Gille's Gaelic name was because he was born in Ireland, of an Irish mother, and as a son of the Gaelo-phile Magnus III. How come this never means the Norwegian monarchy were becoming unGermanic? Rhetorical question. In truth, terms such as "last Celtic king" by their nature are unsafe, worthless and counter-productive. What is "Celtic" anyway? Alexander III, strictly speaking, was the last Celtic monarch of Scotland, but Robert Bruce was a native speaker of the Gaelic language, and it was spoken by James IV of Scotland. So, you'd probably be better leaving such terms out. Besides, there's no logical way of squeezing the argument to make Mac Bethad the last Celtic king. He was neither the last Celtic (i.e. Gaelic) speaker, nor the last man to be the son of a Celt (i.e. a Gael). Celtic (i.e. Gaelic) succession is not an issue anyway, as there's nothing inheritantly anti-Celtic about father-to-son succession, it just means the dynasty is powerful. Does a medieval man have to hump white mares and worship Dagda to be a Gael or something? ;) - Calgacus 01:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Interesting points, I think we're only arguing about emphasis, and agree that thinking of early "capitals" is an anachronism. I've obviously failed to mention the nuances of PBE's statement that MacBeth has sometimes been described as the last Gaelic King of Scotland. Though this is not true it does underline the fact that the erosion of Gaelic Scotland began when Malcolm III was crowned at Scone on 25 April, 1058. . Fair enough about Alba. Gaelic seems to have been edged out as a court language with the rise of the Scoto-Norman rulers who appear to have ended tanistry validating kings, and PBE puts the turning point as 1094 when Duncan styled himself "I, Duncan, son of King Malcumb, by hereditary right, King of Scotia!". Maol Callum a' chinn mhoir was "ethnically" celtic or gaelic, but apparently multilingual and culturally influenced by his English patrons. If he wasn't in the English court by 1042, the article about him needs amended. ...dave souza 20:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

You may be trying to make by hereditary right, King into too much of a novelty. There's no change at the death of Duncan II. He was followed by his brothers, just as custom would predict. As for Duncan I and Macbeth, it's worth emphasising that Malcolm II left no surviving son to succeed him. Kings of Alba before that time who may have claimed the throne through female descent were Eochaid s. Rhun, whose short reign was no encouragement to Duncan and Macbeth, and Kenneth I; two kings in almost two centuries. What is surprising about Scotland, if we look the wider European picture, is the degree to which customs were apparently maintained and the succession regular, perhaps even after the death of Malcolm II. On the question of the connections between Malcolm III, Earl Siward and King Edward, if any, you may want to look at Archie Duncan's The Kingship of the Scots; he takes a very skeptical line. Angus McLellan 23:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I should add that Richard Oram in his biography of David I also rejects the idea of English exile for Máel Coluim III, arguing that exile in Orkney is far more likely. One of the reasons is that, if Máel Coluim really did invade from the south, and toppled Mac Bethad north of Scone, how then did Lulach get crowned in the south? The latter is explained if Máel Coluim were invading from the north. I haven't heard much defense of the English exile theory in recent works, and there won't be much soon, because Oram himself is the author of the new history of Scotland volume on the period ... which is a wonderful choice if you ask me. :) The whole tanistry thing is largely based on modern prejudices about Gaelic society, that it is unchanging and that one needs to worship the Dagda and screw white mares in order to be a proper Gael; but of course, Gaelic society has always been just as flexible as any other european society, and has always been quite capable of self-generated change. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) File:UW Logo-secondary.gif 15:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a late addition, but if Malcolm (excuse my spelling) were indeed in exile in Orkney, then why would he come back with an English bride, along with a heavy Norman influence? This is 200 years or so before Largs, so the Orkneys were still under Norse control, and I don't think the Normans ever invaded Norway. Not trying to attack, I'm just honestly curious. It's seems rather odd to just say that he came from the opposite direction, and I'm sure questions like this haven't been ignored. File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 06:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Germanic?

Should this page be in Category:History of the Germanic peoples? It's been in it for a year at least, apparently uncontested (I couldn't see any dispute glancing at the history, anyway).

An anonymous editor has removed it twice today with no explanation. Germanic peoples suggests Lowland Scots may be considered "assimilated Germanic", but I have no idea what the general opinion on this is. I'll reinstate it for now, pending discussion here. Comments? Shimgray | talk | 15:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

"This category is intended for articles and subcategories about the Germanic-speaking peoples of Europe." - yes, it should be listed. wangi 15:38, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Scots are Gaels, having that Germanic category but not any other is Germanicist fantasy and wrong. The Scots are not a Germanic country, and certainly not more so than the Irish. - Ross MacGunn (Previous unsigned comment by: 129.215.13.83)

I don't really know anything about it, my friend, but why don't we solve this on the talk page before flying right into an edit war? JHMM13 (T | C) 16:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The first people in Scotland along with the rest of Europe probably had brown skin, so all talk of a nation's population bein "Gaels or Germanic" are equally problematic. The original populations of Germany were not Germanic (the furthest back ive heard of, they were Celtic, at a time when Ireland's population hadnt yet been Celticised.) The reason for Scots along with the English bing viewed as Germanic, is (as with Germans, Dutch and Scandinavians) as linguistic one. Ulsterians are the nesrest group to Scots in Ireland, due to the Germanic influence of Scots ipon them and their language. —This unsigned comment was added by 80.192.59.196 (talk • contribs) . (Refactored: Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC))

Hey, I'm no wikimaniac, but that really pissed me off. I changed it, others launched the war by reverting it rather than waiting for discussion. Besides, this is your etiquette, and not mine. The only countries on that are in that category are the following:

1. History of Austria
2. History of Denmark
3. History of England
4. History of Germany
5. History of Norway
6. History of Scotland
7. History of Sweden
8. History of Switzerland
9. History of the Netherlands
10. History of the United Kingdom

Why is Scotland there? Scotland is no more a Germanic country than Ireland, or Wales, and certainly less so than the United States or Canada. The categorization is propganda, and is both offensive and inaccurate - a bad combo if I can say so. If some of you are gonna keep reverting it, I've to got say that wiki has a serious problem. - Ross MacGunn

Yep. Scotland is no more a Germanic country than England, Ireland or Wales if we're talking genetics. Recent studies have demonstrated that. But linguistically it's a different story. The vast majority of Scots speak a Germanic language (as do the vast majority of English and Irish folk), so it's reasonable to include Scotland among the Germanic countries. An argument based on genetics can be made for taking it out but the same argument implies that England isn't Germanic either, so it would have to be removed from the category too. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

"Scots are Gaels", huh, you what? Run that by me again will you!? :) Some Scots are Gaels - it is one of our roots, another in Germanic - to pick but two examples consider Lothian and even the Scots language. Thanks/wangi 22:52, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

The fact that the Bernician conquest introduced Old English into Lothian and other parts of central and southern Scotland is unlikely to have resulted in very many "Germans" settling in the area. You might just as well say that France should be included in the category. Or Spain. Or Portugal. After all, some Germans ended up in those countries too, and in France they even managed to give the country their name. Why stop at removing England and Scotland, the Scandinavian countries look rather strange there, and why's Belgium missing ? That last one I'll change now. Angus McLellan 00:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely no way should Scotland be listed as Germanic. Who put that category in? It looks like trouble making or something. MacGunn is correct in many of his points, but most of all he's correct in pointing out that the assignment is potentially offensive. I'm glad he pointed this out, because I'd never noticed this here before. Anyways, only two small parts of Scotland claim to be historico-ethnically Germanic, Lothian and the northern Isles, both conquered acquisitions of a state historically Gaelic in culture. The Scots as a whole, with the Irish, Welsh and Cornish, perceive themselves to be historically Celtic. I'm not saying this is correct, but nevertheless, this is the way it is. I've never met anyone who's said Scotland is a Germanic nation. The only Germanic thing about Scotland is that the majority of people have spoken English for the last 500 years or so, but the people and kings in their ethnographic histories trace their origin to Ireland, 80% (or at least the vast majority) of placenames are Celtic and in fact, the name means "Land of the Gaels". Even early modern Anglophone Lothianers - like William Dunbar for instance - thought that of all the Scots as historically Gaels. Only in the 18th and 19th centuries did some Lowland Scots - like John Pinkerton - try to rewrite the history of the Scots as a Germanic people, and this largely tied in with the social and ideological pressures of the Anglophilia, the Union, Protestantism and anti-Jacobitism; but never did the Scottish people, not even the "Lowlanders" think of themselves as one with the Germans and Swedes. Absolutely no way can that category remain. Is there actually anyone here who seriously thinks it should be? - Calgacus 00:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

What's offensive about not using racial categotisation for describing anyone or anything as Germanic? many Germans and Swiss will have "Celtic" ancestry from the period before the Germanic languages moved South from Scandinavia, so other than racial purity angst, what is your motivation for this criticism of a reasonable description ? The majority of people have spoken Scots, which like English is Germanic, not Celtic. [Re: Alba] Wouldnt that be "Gaeltachdt"?????? So the picts were Irish were they? [Re Gaelic origin of place-names] As are many place names in the South of Germany, and towns in the east like Potsdam and Coldiz are named after Slavonic tribes. [Lowlanders do not think of themselves as Swedes or Germans] How do you know? Oh youve decided have you?! Of course there is [people who think Scotland should be the Germanic category]. Many people in the East and Centre of Scotland would accept the description of being Germanic despite the celtic romanticists such as yourself mistranslating words like Alba, and slandering historians for your own twisted reasons. —This unsigned comment was added by 80.192.59.196 (talk • contribs) . (Refactored and necessary explanation inserted inside [square brackets] by Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC))

It was added with no explanation in this edit on 21 September 2004, and seems to have been completely uncontested until now. That editor added the category to a huge swathe of other pages around the same time, even including History of Belize (!) [1]. May be of some interest, and certainly supports the "a bit crankish" theory.

Indeed. I don't think it would have been uncontested if it were more noticable. I didn't notice it anyways. Calgacus 01:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

An open border along Hadrian's wall

« By approximately 160 an open but manned border once again ran along Hadrian's Wall. »

Does "open border" mean that Hadrian's wall had been destroyed? --Teofilo talk 09:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Open in the sense of free to cross - the Wall was there to stop an army, not to actually prevent people going through it. Shimgray | talk | 11:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Unlike the Berlin wall. Thanks for your answer.--Teofilo talk 19:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

War With England

Ummm, there is an error here. One paragraph states "he (John Balliol) accepted it several days after Robert Bruce (who later seized Balliol's throne and became Robert I)." referring to two of the main claimants to the throne after the death of Margaret. Later we read "the latter (Robert the Bruce) the grandson of a failed claimant to the throne during Edward's arbitration in 1292." The first statement is wrong, the second is correct. It was the grandson who became Robert I. I am going to change the former to (Who's grandson later seized Balliol's throne and became Robert I). Change as you see fit.NevarMaor 03:17, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

History of Scotland-corrections.

I've made several minor, and some major, corrections to errors of both fact and interpretation contained in this article. For convenience I list these as follows;

1. Ceann Mor can also mean 'Great Chief', which I believe to be closer to the meaning when applied to Malclom III.

2. I have completely reorganized the first paragraph in the section headed 'War with England'because it strays so far from the facts. John Balliol did not become king because he accepted Edward's demand that he be recognized as Lord Paramount of Scotland, as the article suggests; ALL of the claimants recognized this title. Once this had been accepted the whole process was conducted in a reasonably fair and open manner, with John Balliol emerging as the strongest candidate.

Robert Bruce can hardly been said to have siezed Balliol's throne in 1306; the throne was technically vacant, and no-one still claimed to be fighting on behalf of John Balliol, not even his Comyn kinsmen.

Edward II has been changed to Edward I.

3. The Auld Alliance dates to 1295 and not to the reign of William the Lion.

4. Wallace was appointed Guardian of Scotland after the battle of Stirling Bridge. As far as I am aware the title was not extended to the dying Andrew de Moray.

5. Robert Bruce was crowned in 1306 not 1307.

6. As with the opening paragraph I've tried to bring the last paragraph of the War with England section closer to the facts. Scotland most definitely did not remain under English control, either directly or indirectly, for 'over thirty years.' During the Second War of Independence, under the leadership of Andrew de Moray the younger, amongst others, there was active and sustained resistance to Edward Balliol and Edward III. Balliol was only to remain in Scotland for relatively short periods. David II, who, as in infant, had been sent to France for his safety, returned in 1341 to a realm largely free of English control. Edward Balliol managed to gain a temporary foothold in Galloway only after David's defeat and capture at Neville's Cross in 1346. By the time Balliol died in 1364 he was a distant memory in Scotland.

7. Rothesay's murder dates to 1402. James was sent to France in 1406.

8. James V was not present at Solway Moss, as the article seems to suggest.

9. Berwick-upon-Tweed did not fall to the English during the Rough Wooing; it fell to Richard Duke of Gloucester in 1482.

10. Mary did not abdicate and 'flee' to England (does a queen ever flee?). She was imprisoned in Loch Leven Castle. She only left for England after her defeat at Langside.

11. I apologize for splitting hairs, but the term 'United Kingdom' only applies to the realm after 1801, following the union between the British and Irish parliaments. From 1707 'Kingdom of Great Britain' is more correct.

12. The English Parliament did not refuse to release the king for the simple reason that no such demand was ever lodged.

Hamilton was defeated at Preston in August 1648, not 1647.

13. Scotland was part of the Commonwealth and then Protectorate from 1652 to 1660. I do not think it is correct to talk of 'Cromwell's Commonwealth.'

14. Princess Mary was not the future wife of William of Orange; they were married in 1677, well before her father came to the throne.

15. The army defeated at Dunkeld was not 'leaderless'. It was under the very ineffective leadership of Alexander Cannon.

16. While I think most would accept that John Earl of Mar's leadership was indecisive, there can be precious few who would accept that it was 'brave.' I think my rewording is closer to the truth.

Rcpaterson 01:43, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

More Corrections and Edits

Following from the above here are some further corrections in points of fact.

MAGNUS BARELEGS. Magnus did not 'force' Edgar into ceding the Western Isles to Norway, for the simple reason that he could not give what he did not have. The exact political status of the Isles had been uncertain for many years, though they had been under the control of semi-independent Norse/Gael chieftans. The Treaty of 1098 merely attempted to create a clear line of demarcation, with the Isles going to Magnus and the mainland to Edgar, though after the departure of Magnus the situation remained pretty much as it was before. I made reference here to Somerled, and his descendents who became Lords of the Isles.

LARGS As I have pointed out elsewhere the description of the Battle of Largs given here is not in keeping with that of modern scholarship. It was little more than a series of indecisive skirmishes; and drawing a link between this alleged success and the Treaty of Perth is misleading. Hakon IV's whole campaign in 1263 failed because he could not draw the Scots into a decisive battle, nor could he force Alexander III to recognize his authority. The Isles were too far away from Norway to make control meaningful against an aggressive and expansionst Kingdom of Scotland. The Treaty of Perth was no more than the recognition of simple geographical and political facts.

A further point, also, about the independence of the Isles. Soon after Perh Alexander began the integration of the Isles into the rest of the Kingdom. Perhaps the greatest sign of the progress he had made was the attendance of the Macdonald and Macdougall descendants of Somerled at the parliament where the infant Margaret was acknowledged as heir of the realm, in a pure expression of royal authority and the acceptance of primogeniture. The ensuing Wars of Independence reversed this process, leading to the formal creation of the Lordship of the Isles in 1336.

JOHN BALLIOL Edward was not the alleged overlord of Scotland: he was the overlord, duly recognised by John Balliol and the other Claimants of 1292. John of Carrick did not take the title of Robert III because of 'the hatred inspired by the previous King John.' Who in 1390 could have felt any hatred towards the hapeless John, little more by that time than a distant memory? It was taken because to continue to use his own name would have raised uncomfortable political questions about the exact status of the first King John. Also John by this time was considered to be an unlucky name for a king. Apart from poor John Balliol, Robert would have been mindful of the fate of John of England, the early death of John I of France and the capture in battle of John II.

CHURCHES, KINGS AND BISHOPS The Reformations in England and Scotland did proceed in different directions, but not in the way described here. During the reign of James VI and I both had fully functional Episcopal establishments; but whereas England was moved increasingly in a High Church direction, the Scots could not be proded along the same road. James was indeed the 'wisest fool in Christendom'; foolish in attempting to implement the Five Articles of Perth; wise in letting them go by default. Unfortunately his son's folly was not relieved by any measure of wisdom whatsoever. The National Covenant did not 'assert' Presbyterian practice: it was drawn up as an objection against liturgical innovations, Charles I's Prayer Book in particular. The bishops were only ejected from the Scottish Church at the Glasgow General Assembly in November 1638. Only then was Presbyterianism established.

Charles did not 'lose his nerve' in the First Bishops' War: neither side had the means or the will to push matters to an outright conflict. The fighting in the Second Bishops' War was not inconclusive. Charles northern forces were routed at Newburn and the Scots occupied Newcastle, thus gaining control of London's coal supply.

I would love to know what the 'substantial' religious and political concessions were in the Solemn League and Covenant? In practice all that the alliance with the English Parliament guaranteed was the Covenanter settlement in Scotland. As for English church government it was to be established 'according to the word of God and the example of the best reformed churches.' It was for this the Scots crossed the Border in January 1644.

MONTROSE Alasdair MacColla did not 'fall out' with Montrose: they merely took different views of the War. Montrose's war was for the King; Alasdair's against the Campbells. He did, however, leave Montrose with a good bit of his Irish infantry, which were then led to death and massacre at Philiphaugh. Charles' order to Montrose to disband the new forces he was attempting to raise in 1646 had nothing at all to do with his negotiations with 'moderate' Presbyterians; it was a condition of his surrender to the Scots at the end of the First Civil War. The negotiations leading to the Engagement did not come until the following year. Charles' promise of Presbyterianism, incidentally, was confined to establishing it in England for a three-year trail period. Charles I never at any point, even in the Engagement, promised that he would take the Covenant himself.

CHARLES II The contention that Charles II 'ignored' Scotland after the Restoration is nonsense. He was mindful that that the great crisis of his dynasty had been born in the north, and continued to take a close interest in Scottish developments. Management on the ground was left, for the most part, to John Maitland, Duke of Lauderdale, Secretary of State for Scotland and subsequently High Commissioner to its Parliament.

The reintroduction of Episcopacy had nothing at all to do with the rising of 1679, which was provoked by the government's attempts to stamp out illegal field assemblies. Moreover, to suggest that Charles himself 'brutally' suppressed Covenanters is a complete distortion of the truth. The 'Killing Time' actually refers to attempts in the 1680s to stamp out the kind of political sedition expressed in documents like the Sanquhar Declaration. Meanwhile, religious dissidents were being successfully harried back into the offical church, urged on by the excessive fines they had to pay for non-attendance Rcpaterson 04:27, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the above! Do you intend to edit the History of Scotland article to incorporate these corrections or would you rather that some of us "old hands" made them for you ? If you wish to make the changes yourself, you certainly have my full support in doing so but I can understand that you may be cautious as a result of past experience. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Already made, thanks. THe above is by way of explanation and justification. Rcpaterson 05:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Excellent!. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

More Corruption

I dip into this article from time to time just to see how things stand-not well, sad to say. It is clearly subject to periodic corruption, which falls short of outright vandalism, but still manages incorporate numbingly silly distortions of fact. There are too many little things to be worth mentioning-largely to do with questions of grammer and style-but here are two of the worst statements:

Edward I finally died in 1307 and the Scots were free of this tyrant to live in peace.

Not only is this a stupid-I use that term advisedly-and highly biased comment but it's also a sad distortion of the facts.

Robert Bruce believed that John Comyn had betrayed a secret pact between them and participated in his murder during a private meeting in a church in Dumfries in 1306.

This makes the death of John Comyn a premeditated crime, which, of course, it was not. If Bruce seriously considered such a course of action he would not have chosen a church, of all places, to carry it out.

Neither of the above statements would be acceptable in a primary-grade-school assignment, let alone a serious piece if history.

I really cannot imagine an encyclopedia without an article on the history of Scotland; but it this is to be the standard of editing, then it is simply not worth keeping. The only alternative is to have a completed piece of an acceptable standard subject to permanent protection. Rcpaterson 05:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Forest Loss

This article, I feel, badly needs some mention of, or subsection about, the loss of natural forests in Scotland (as of today said to be a 99% loss). It is not a subject that I personally know much about or I'd make a first attempt. But the forests, or glens, were extremely important in history, just as forests are important to a region's ecology and to the health of the land (not to mention, to modern economics). The loss of all but 1% of natural, original forest (as distinguished from 'tree plantations' or modern commercial "forests") would seem an extremely consequential outcome of political and economic history. Please, someone: add in this important aspect of, and effect of, history. Joel Russ

(Derek Ross, thanks for re-placing this comment in the proper section of this discussion page. Joel Russ)

You're welcome. As for the change in the natural environment, I agree with you. It is worth a mention. For the most part we have stuck to a traditional "political events" type history but it's worth adding social, economic and natural history information to round things out. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

For anyone who's tempted, there's a paper in the Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland (Tipping, The Form and Fate of Scotland's Woodlands) here (pdf). There's also a fairly recent book (Fowler, Landscape and Lives: The Scottish Forest Through the Ages) on the subject. Spooky synchronicity: I ordered a copy yesterday. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Angus. I downloaded the paper (PDF) for which you provided the link. It reaches back much further than I was envisioning, being mostly concerned with prehistoric (mesolithic, neolithic) times - whereas, I was thinking that a great deal of the deforestation recognized today might have its roots in the period since 1400 AD, and perhaps more especially sine 1930 (which date, in some of the commentary I've seen, is regarded as a milestone at the start of a period of rather wanton economic exploitation of British forests). The intensive Tipper paper scoots over this period from the middle ages to the present as though it is an eyeblink... yet for most of us in the early 21st century I (disregarding portions of the Sahara and other special instances), our inheritance of deforestation no doubt mainly stems from recent centuries. Joel]

Or another way of putting it, what happened to the glens in, say, the period referred to in the current Wikipedia article as "Cromwellian occupation and restoration"? (I realize this is more than one period, in terms of political control.) I suspect some changes in both land control and land use... In thnese centuries, when socieites were so directly dependent on what they could provide for themselves from the land, few things besides war, violence, or prison sentences can impact a village or region more than the condition of their land — whether this condition is a result of the people's own use of the land or of how it is managed or mismanaged by people "from outside" with politically based authority. --Joel Russ 16:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Just an unhelpful note that I'd appreciate mention of this. If someone would start out some content on the matter, I'd join the attempt. File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 06:27, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The Reformation

It's been requested over at WP:SCOWNB that the Reformation section be expanded to the extent of having its own article. Just a note. File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 06:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Fishery decline: impact on coastal villages

An impression from a recent visit to rural/coastal Scotland: Another important 21st-century history topic is the devastation of the coastal fisheries. Fishing was a very long-standing and key aspect of the Scottish village economy.

For general information about the pattern of fish-species loss, see the Wikipedia Fishery article (scroll down to the "Important issues and topics in fisheries" section; look into some of the references noted at the bottom of the article, too, if you want to dig deeper). Basically, the matter in question is the loss of the large or "noble fishes" (at the top of food chains) — cod, halibut, etc. Think big fish; think fish & chips.

This impact is real history... and important. Joel Russ 16:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

BP vs BC

In my oppinion the BP should be changed to BC, BP is a very confusing thing, I mean it's from 1950 and back.. Idiotic and not widely used at all.--DerMeister 13:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Timelines history of Britis Isles

I've created a timeline template of the History of the British Isles. My plan is to put it into that article, like the timelines of Irish State in the Irish states since 1171 article. I'm sure there plenty of mistakes, although I've deliberately left out some states/people for simplicity's sake. The "events" I've added are also obviously "Hiberno-centric", so would like the imput of other's to settle what other events should to be added. General comments are also welcome. Since the table is fairly complicated, if people want leave suggestions for events and things they would like changed on the templates talk page, I'll add them. --sony-youth^pléigh 23:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Capital prior to Edinburgh

Just looking for clarification as to whether it was Scone or Perth that was the capital of Scotland before Edinburgh claimed the honour. The dates in both articles are confusing. - Dudesleeper / Talk 20:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

There wasn't one. See Talk:Kingdom of Scotland/Archive 1#Capital for an earlier discussion. The government was wherever the king and his court were. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Scotland in Antiquity?

What about an article covering what we know of Scotland and its people(s) from Ptolemy to the begining of the dark ages (or Fall of the Roman Empire and contact with it)? Also merging the articles Caledonia and Caledonii. ΤΕΡΡΑΣΙΔΙΩΣ(^Ταλκ) 18:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Inaccurate claim about Bonnie Prince Charlie

I've removed the claim that Bonnie Prince Charlie was expelled from France in 1748, as it contradicts the biography given in the main article about him. It claims the expulsion was made in a connection with a treaty, but the article about that treaty mentions nothing relevant to the matter. The claim was unsourced. Dfranke (talk) 10:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)