Talk:Military history of Scotland

Scope

This article appears to infer that Scotland in some way has a military of its own which is subordinated to that of the UK by the Act of Union.

Those reading should note that Scotland has only around 5 million people to England's 50 and as a result, most (ie: almost all) of the military expenditure within Scotland is paid for by the treasury of the United Kingdom.

This includes (especially) the UK's nuclear deterrent and also the maritime patrol function of the RAF (G-I-UK gap in North Atlantic).

However, as is the case with my native Wales, it would appear that a disproportionately large number of serving personel (ranks) in the UK military are from Scotland.

I have no interest in substantially editing the article myself, as this will likely attract the wrong kind of attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.113.29 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I think this article is biting off more than it can chew, hence the slightly confused title. The bulk of the content of the article would form a good basis for a main "Military History of Scotland" article, which is notable by its absence. The listing of current Scottish units and bases could be moved into an appropriately titled article. -- IslaySolomon 11:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe the article title is apt. There still remains Scottish military units, though they are a part of the British Armed Forces. Nearly every developed article in the whol Wikipedia has a hefty history section, but that's just how things go. I don't think we need to move anything. I do, however, believe that this article could be done a whole lot better; be cleaned up. Alas, I do not have the time nor effort to devote to this goal. File:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn File:Icons-flag-scotland.png 22:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Pedantry here. The "Scots Navy" was created by James IV, not earlier not later. Earlier monarchs had fleets, but they were not a recognisable 'Navy', more a marine extension of land forces Brendandh 09:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Barry Budden

Please see discussion at Talk:Angus#Barry_Budden. --Mais oui! 08:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Addition of New Section in Article

I think there should be a section added,(if just a list) about notable current commanders and recent former commanders (over the 20th centuary/ last 50 years or whatever). Does anyone else share this opinion, (or not) it would be good to hear from you as well.--217.42.190.13 (talk) 16:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC) RS 19/07/09

Why only the last 50? You seem to be suggesting a list of peacetime generals and admirals which will make a rather dull list. There is already lists of current commanders in the List of Governors of Edinburgh Castle or 2nd Infantry Division (United Kingdom) which could be built upon for this sort of list. Perhaps a bit of editing of the 'See Also' section with links such as Category:Scottish generals or Category:Scottish soldiers would do? Brownag (talk) 01:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I like what your saying, Brownag my suggestion for only the last 50 was just that and I would be quite happy to see it go beyond the last 50 years. I would be willing to start the article of, but I only know a handfull of commanders and would need a lot of help.--86.131.205.57 (talk) 15:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC) RS 12/08/09

Royal Scots

I think that there should be a mention of the Royal Scots in the sentence about Charles II at the restoration of the monarchy. I don't watch this page, so I'll leave it to another editor to add the mention, if there is agreement it should be done. --PBS (talk) 11:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Military of Scotland

What is the difference between Category:Scottish regiments and Category:Regiments of Scotland? Most of the latter seem to be 19c or 20c like the former and are based in Scotland too, apart from the London Scottish & Manus O'Cahan's Regiment ie they are not overseas Scottish/Highland regiments. Hugo999 (talk) 01:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Military what?

Military is an adverb or a noun. When and adverb it needs a noun after it, such as "military forces of Scotland". When a noun it has a definite article, as in "The military of Scotland". Military of Scotland makes no sense. I suggest a move to "Armed forces of Scotland", or "Military history of Scotland". I would favour the latter as it saves the possible arguments over whether Scotland has, technically, had armed forces since 1707.--SabreBD (talk) 01:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Restoration Army

There seems to be a lack of information on the restoration army. I think in part because it falls in the gap as being a British army, yet it is pre-union. 98.206.155.53 (talk) 04:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

This page should be deleted!

This page is pointless, because Scotland is not a sovereign state, but UK is. The other parts of UK do not have their own pages, but Scotland has. This page is letting readers to think that Scotland is independent or it's military is independent. Also Scottish military does not exist as a separate entity from British forces in other meanings than ceremonially. Scottish forces are also not a paramilitary force. This page should be deleted or England, Wales and Northern Ireland military should have their own pages. --Ransewiki (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted the move of this page to Historic military of Scotland. This change is clearly going to be controversial and needs to be discussed here. It also seems clear that the content of this page is not just historical, so any move would need to take account of that and might necessitate the creation of two articles, one for the historic content and one for the Scottish military forces within the UK army. That is without prejudice to the result of any discussion.--SabreBD (talk) 08:14, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

File Scottish soldiers in service of Gustavus Adolphus, 1631-cropped-.jpg

I, and someone else, is concerned about the accuracy of this image. Throughout wikipedia the description/usage is in terms of Scotland, but the actual text of the image clearly states "Irish". Unless someone knows something about the source that alleviates that particular question it probably shouldn't be used so freely as a "Scottish" historical piece. See File talk:Scottish soldiers in service of Gustavus Adolphus, 1631-cropped-.jpg 67.182.14.249 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

They are Scottish. The Swedes didn't understand the difference in the 17thC.--SabreBD (talk) 12:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

That's right, they're Scots. Contemporaries didn't distinguish between Gaelic-speaking Irishmen and Scots. As far as outsiders were concerned, they all spoke 'Irish'. Today we'd use the term 'Gaelic'. Even in 18th century Britain, 'Irish' (and the Scots-language form 'Erse') were used to describe Gaelic-speaking Scots and their language (for example Boswell's Life of Samuel Johnson). For background search these three terms - "Erish", "Irisch", and "Erse" - in this Scots-language dictionary [1]. The definition for the last states that 'Gaelic' actually superseded 'Erse' in the 19th-century. The image itself is well known, and used to illustrate Scottish soldiers in numerous books.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 00:44, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Well (responding to both of you in unison), that was the question I was posing originally, but first off, the text isn't Swedish but German. The image has been used in numerous books, but, just because it's in the British Museum doesn't make it's English caption correct. Again, see this if you didn't notice it in the file talk. And I appreciate all the pointing out of linguistic identity but you'll note that that was the first question I raised (in file talk). However, I don't think this is necessarily simply a case of proper labeling of an originally misrepresented image. Unless there's evidence why do you assume it's correct? If you search that same book (1870), you'll note that the term "Scottish" is used liberally, so why did they have reason to believe they weren't Scottish when the English caption states so? Sorry, edit... let me make a bit clear so there's no confusion. My point is, the authors of a catalogue from 1870, commissioned by the trustees of the British Museum deem the picture to be a wood carving from Germany depicting Irish, not Scottish, soldiers, even though the caption (which existed at the time of the catalogue's compilation) reads Scottish. They also clearly understood the difference. If you take a pine cone and write "Pine Cone" on it in old German, and then put in a case that says "Melon" in English, how long do you think it takes for people to pass it around as a historical representation of a melon? It may, in fact (in this case) be a melon and it was just lost in translation, but why on Earth would you presume such a thing without a bit of evidence (and the source I gave is completely contrary evidence). --67.182.14.249 (talk) 10:20, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

All of the sources I have seen relating to this image state that it is men of "Mackay's" or "Mackey's" regiment. Whether or not that is totally correct is beside the point as far as Wikipedia is concerned because Wikipedia is about reflecting what the sources say. I can only find a few online references at the moment: [2] - This first one has the heading in the image which says that the soldiers are at Stettin and Mackay's regiment is known to have fought there. This next link shows a published book (OLD SCOTS BRIGADE Being the History of Mackay’s Regiment) that also gives the image to Mackay's regiment: [3]

Exactly why is this "beside the point as far as Wikipedia is concerned"? You're citing random websites (to say non-primary references is an understatement) and you're asking that question? What's the point of Wikipedia if not a collection of knowledge. An image for a book cover to make your point? Really? Historical knowledge has to be accurate to be even remotely acceptable. I'm done with Wikipedia for anything historical. This image may most certainly be of Scots, but perspectives like yours are exactly the problem with Wikipedia. --67.182.14.249 (talk) 12:00, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I was a bit to harsh with my words there. Of course Wikipedia should be as historically accurate as possible I agree, but at the same time it is important to reflect what the sources say. The two websites sites I found were just the result of a quick google search to see if I could find anything. Although the second one is for a published book source about Mackay's Scottish regiment. Which brings me to the point that the majority of sources are citing the picture as being of men of Mackay's Scottish regiment.QuintusPetillius (talk) 14:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I was a bit harsh there as well. I understand your (valid) point as long as due diligence is maintained, but was frustrated about being told that possibly conflicting evidence is not evidence simply because consensus reality (valid or not) conflicts. They probably are Scots and the catalogue is probably incorrect. It's simply important to be vigilant about such things. I think we can all agree on that. If a red-flag goes up, it demands some genuine investigation. I'll let it rest there. --67.182.14.249 (talk) 02:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Yep. If something seems fishy it can't hurt to openly question it. Someone may see this discussion sometime down the road and know more about the topic than we do. I searched for the image on the British Museum website, and although I couldn't find it listed online, it lists one very similar that's obviously somehow connected. See here: [4]. Seems like the museum can't make its mind up about whether the figures represent Irishmen or Scots: under the 'description' it says "A broadside on mercenaries from Ireland in the army of Gustavus Adolphus ..."; but under the 'image description' (right hand side of page) it says "A broadside on mercenaries from Scotland in the army of Gustavus Adolphus ...". The page also cites someone named 'Paas' who regards the figures as Scots. I Googled Paas and found a review on JSTOR about his book The German Political Broadsheet 1600-1700. Vol. 1, 1630 and 1631 [5]. Unfortunately his book isn't previewable on GoogleBooks, it's only in snippet form (so pretty much useless for us). Interestingly, another book on GoogleBooks cite's Paas' book: Monro, His Expedition with the Worthy Scots Regiment Called Mac-Keys (I assume this is about the 'Mackay's regiment' mentioned by Quintus). Unfortunately I'm not sure if the image in question is mentioned in the book (it seems like it might be though).--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 21:13, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 29 May 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Unanimous consensus in favour of moving to the proposed title, which more WP:PRECISEly defines the article subject, and which is more WP:CONSISTENT with the titles of other similar articles. (non-admin closure) RGloucester — ☎ 18:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

---

Military of Scotland → Military history of Scotland – This article is not about the military of scotland it is about the military history of Scotland. The current title implies that Scotland has an independent military which is incorrect as they currently form part of the British Armed Forces. Compare for example military history of Australia, military history of the United Kingdom, and military history of the United States during World War II. I would have made this request at technical requests but the page has been moved about a couple of times before. Ebonelm (talk) 13:39, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• Support - as above, nominator. Ebonelm (talk) 13:39, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support - as above by nominator. Also, the existing title is questionable meaning. Current status is covered at Scottish regiment.--SabreBD (talk) 15:02, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support - as above by nominator. Champ 7FC (talk) 15:14, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support Obvious move which reduces confusion surrounding the current title. AusLondonder (talk) 04:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
• Support per above. Chicbyaccident (talk) 21:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Military history of Scotland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080614201829/http://www.dasa.mod.uk/natstats/ukds/2007/c6/table602.html to http://www.dasa.mod.uk/natstats/ukds/2007/c6/table602.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060807051631/http://www.fettes.com/scotsatwar/regpages.htm to http://www.fettes.com/scotsatwar/regpages.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060807051631/http://www.fettes.com/scotsatwar/regpages.htm to http://www.fettes.com/scotsatwar/regpages.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090418000817/http://www.scottishmilitaryresearch.org.uk/index.htm to http://www.scottishmilitaryresearch.org.uk/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)