Talk:History of Scotland

message: Similarly, we don't really need an image of Romans butchering innocents. That was what they did and is implicit in any attempted conquest anywhere in history. We do need some image from Ptolemy's Geography (not necessarily this one, although it's big, Greek, and fairly well annotated) showing the misunderstanding of Scotland's geography that was current in European thinking for over a millennium. — LlywelynII 16:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not particularly wedded to the "attacking Romans" picture and I am quite prepared to entertain arguments for replacement with the Ptolemy map. However, my revert did not replace one with the other. I removed the map because it had been added in such a way that it broke the guidance of the MOS on sandwiching of text. That said it is putting it a bit strongly to say we don't need one and we do need the other. They are just illustrations. Which of those best illustrates the points in the article and the general article best is not really a matter of need, but of preference. I suggest, per WP:BRD you make a case here for your preference and then we see whether other editors agree.--SabreBD (talk) 17:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No, we actually do need to illustrate the Ptolemaic (mis)understanding of the area, as above. The "attacking Scots" picture is fine; I was just noting that if you are wedded to removing images for whatever reason, you took the wrong one. I found a compromise with you by adjusting the images so as to meet your somewhat finicky complaint. ("Avoid"≠"never".) My compromise edit actually improved the placement of the original image, putting it beside the text discussing the relevant invasion. Now, kindly stop being obstructionist to no purpose and let it stand or make a point about why the actual image doesn't merit inclusion. — LlywelynII 18:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I returned to the "consensus" version while we discuss things. Putting it back was not a "compromise", a compromise would be worked out here first. Since the image is tied to the text issue above I suggest that we resolve that one first and then come back to this. But again, views from other editors would be welcome.--SabreBD (talk) 07:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

text: In fact I do not have objections to the inclusion of this image, but wanted to get consensus here first - pretty much the opposite of a propriety approach. But thanks for the moral support in my efforts to improve the article, it really helps encourage effort.--SabreBD (talk) 22:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Sabrebd Has a sense of ownership in a number of ways – one is that he is the one who decides what consensuses like. That's usually after he had erased other people's work. In my experience, repeated interference and a very narrow viewpoint discourages other people from wasting their time on Scottish articles. Rjensen (talk) 23:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Amazing and really borne out by this talkpage, where I agreed several points with you by compromise. Yes, its just full of me deciding consensus.--SabreBD (talk) 00:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Ptolemy

message: The problem I have with this section is while it provides a summary of the attempted colonization of the New World, it omits any explanation of the (obvious) financial injury its failure inflicted upon the Scots economy. At this point, economic history is well-enough developed that some estimate of this loss should exist. It took me some digging thru related articles, until I found in Company of Scotland & the lead paragraph to Darien scheme that this loss was 25-50% of the liquid capital (i.e. hard currency in circulation) of Scotland -- although neither article provides a citation for where this figure was taken. (In Darien scheme the Company of Scotsland is said to have raised a subscription of ₤400,000 "about a fifth of the wealth of Scotland" -- for which that article provides 2 citations. I did not see any further explanation of how much money was risked. It would also help the reader's understanding if an estimate of the liquid capital then available in Scotland were provided.)Regardless whether a fifth, a quarter or a half of the available cash in the economy, this number is a comprehensible fact that clearly conveys the damage this failed enterprise dealt to the Scots economy, & must needs appear in this overview. -- llywrch (talk) 15:11, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is a fair point, as long as it is concise and the sources are reliable, this would help the reader. From memory, I think the estimates of how large a proportion of the Scottish economy this was have varied, so it may also need to be up to date.--SabreBD (talk) 16:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Failure of the Darien scheme 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on History of Scotland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140222183612/http://scotland.stv.tv/history/archaeology/255532-rare-pre-ice-age-handaxe-discovered-on-orkney/ to http://scotland.stv.tv/history/archaeology/255532-rare-pre-ice-age-handaxe-discovered-on-orkney/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Re first section sentence 'As Rome finally withdrew from Britain, Gaelic raiders called the Scoti began colonizing Western Scotland and Wales'. 
Don't know if Scotii also invaded Wales, but even if so it seems not part of this wikipage.
But I do know that in the same period South East 'Scotland' was colonised by Angles who found the Anglo-saxon kingdom of Bernicia. This is why 'Scots' speak English to this day.
So the sentence would better read:
'As Rome finally withdrew from Britain, Gaelic raiders called the Scoti began colonizing Western Scotland and Anglo-saxons the South East'. Cassandrathesceptic (talk) 16:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Typically, you appear not to have read the article which of course does include the (in fact somewhat later) involvement of the Angles (no Saxons). Mutt Lunker (talk) 23:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anglo-Saxons forgotten 

message: "...in 1124, the crown passed to Margaret's fourth son David I, who had spent most of his life as an English baron. His reign saw what has been characterised as a "Davidian Revolution", by which native institutions and personnel were replaced by English and French ones, underpinning the development of later Medieval Scotland.[63][64] Members of the Anglo-Norman nobility took up places in the Scottish aristocracy"
The above wording greatly underplays what happened in this period. The crown didn't simply 'pass' to David - he was appointed by King Henry and allowed by Henry to spearhead a Norman army's invasion of Scotland. That invasion became a another Norman Conquest, and led to the permanent occupation and rule of Scotland by the Norman aristocracy. David's subsequent involvement in the Norman civil war known as 'The Anarchy' led in turn to Scotland becoming a second British 'Norman-French' kingdom.   Cassandra Cassandrathesceptic (talk) 10:42, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  King David and the Norman Conquest 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on 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 http://www.webcitation.org/62yP6lcz7?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.culturalprofiles.net%2Fscotland%2FDirectories%2FScotland_Cultural_Profile%2F-5402.html to http://www.culturalprofiles.net/scotland/Directories/Scotland_Cultural_Profile/-5402.html
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5zt5P28yI?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nas.gov.uk%2Fguides%2Feducation.asp to http://www.nas.gov.uk/guides/education.asp
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/62yGHJmza?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.culturalprofiles.net%2Fscotland%2FDirectories%2FScotland_Cultural_Profile%2F-5403.html to http://www.culturalprofiles.net/scotland/Directories/Scotland_Cultural_Profile/-5403.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 14 external links on 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/10/11/041011crat_atlarge
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.newstatesman.com/200311100040
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.culturalprofiles.net/scotland/Directories/Scotland_Cultural_Profile/-5402.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0007222
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/scots/9
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nas.gov.uk/guides/education.asp
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.culturalprofiles.net/scotland/Directories/Scotland_Cultural_Profile/-5403.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7976782.stm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/bbc_parliament/2321531.stm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-13315752
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://politics.guardian.co.uk/scotland/comment/0%2C%2C2073303%2C00.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News/Releases/2004/02/5075
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/8029388.stm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120224131805/http://edina.ac.uk/statacc/ to http://edina.ac.uk/statacc/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 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/20070105003150/http://www.scotlandview.co.uk/scotland_history.htm to http://www.scotlandview.co.uk/scotland_history.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello all- Though you and I know it is certainly meant to be humorous, the intro sentence of this article might lead those not in on the joke to take our encyclopedia less seriously than we might like. No matter how we define the history of what we now know as Scotland, it certainly did not "begin" 10,000 years ago. As for what the language "is known to have begun by" is meant to convey, that is anyone's guess. I hope that fluent writers of English who have an interest in this article will attend to this introduction soon. Otherwise this Wikipedian, who does not have extensive knowledge of Scotland's beginnings, will feel compelled to delete at least the first sentence. Eric talk 02:02, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree that "is known to have begun by" could be reworded, though I don't see any attempts at humour. I think the point being made about the history beginning after the last glacial period is that the surface of the preceding land form of many 10s of thousands of years ago has been scraped away removing any potential historical evidence of previous habitation, if there was any. Mutt Lunker (talk) 10:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: I question whether: is an accurate reflection of modern historical opinion. The consensus among current British historians appears to be that the clan system was in a slow steady decline for much of the 18th and into the 19th century. Whilst the failed Jacobite rebellion had an affect, this was more a matter of accelerating an existing process that was already underway. The only debate is over the fine detail of the extent of that acceleration. This is a view supported by:
TM Devine, particularly in Clanship to Crofters War, but also in his other work. 
Allan I Macinnes, who states "The transition from a traditional to a commercial society in Scottish Gaeldom was marked by a series of convulsions which require setting aside the idea that clanship was monolithic, static and undeveloped prior to the 'Forty-Five." Also, "Absentee landlordism, indebtedness, rent-raising and the removal and relocation of clansmen were not products of the 'Forty-Five, but part of an ongoing process of commercialism and cultural assimilation that can be traced back to the early seventeenth century."
James Hunter even acknowledges that change was afoot long before the '45: "There were all sorts of external forces operating on clanship long before the 1745 Jacobite rebellion, but with the defeat at Culloden in 1746 all of that accelerated, so you had the commercialization of agriculture and of the land structure, the former chieftains turned into landlords, and the whole society went into disintegration" - and Hunter is probably the historian most opposed to the views put forward by historians like Devine and Richards.
Eric Richards makes little mention of the '45 and the following repression affecting clearance (though I admit he does not discuss in any extensive way clans as a social structure). Nevertheless, a complete reading of his Highland Clearances leaves no impression that social change in the Highlands was primarily driven by the '45.
The cited reference appears to be an isolated opinion.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: On getting to examine the cited reference Conway (2006) it is clear that the article misrepresents what he says about the demise of clanship. In broad alignment with other historians, he states that there were efforts to control clans prior to the '45. He takes the view that the actions following the rebellion simply accelerated the demise of clanship. So there is a limited distance between what he says and the opinions of Macinnes, Devine, et al. The article could be read to infer that Conway supports the difference of opinion suggested by Gourievidis. The paragraph affected should be totally revised. It could perhaps follow Conway and mention the management of the confiscated estates. It should certainly mention the Statutes of Iona, with the change to money rents being initiated steadily thereafter, and the stepping away from the principle of  by landowners/chiefs (but not, unfortunately, by their tenants). In terms of deciding on an authoritative reference, I would argue that the article should follow those who have written specifically about the subject (i.e Devine and Macinnes). The views of Gourievidis should not be mentioned.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:20, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I have replaced text of the section "Collapse of the Clan System" as it had many problems. Firstly it ignores the origins of the demise of clanship with the Statutes of Iona. All major historians agree that clanship was on the way out before the '45, that is not a subject of debate, as stated in the article. The only issue is the extent to which the Jacobite rebellion accelerated this social change. Secondly, the old text has the phrase "....were notorious as a result of the late timing, the lack of legal protection for year-by-year tenants under Scots law, the abruptness of the change from the traditional clan system, and the brutality of some evictions." What does "late timing" actually mean? Richards (the cited source) does not use the word "brutal" or "brutality" as applied to any clearance. He does quote some sources who do, but Richards would often quote something that he argues against. There is no evidence that Richards even implied that he thought the clearers were brutal in the cited source. Lastly, the "old text" last paragraph is based (allegedly) on a very out of date source, written in 1957. It is difficult to work out exactly where the information that was in the article appears in the source - I cannot find it anywhere. The implication is that the period of prosperity generated by the Napoleonic Wars was of benefit to ordinary Highland peasants. This is the era when rents were still increasing - I do not detect any "boom time" for the tenants in the writings of more modern historians, the wealth generated was being busily squandered by the landowners.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:12, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collapse of the Clan System 

message: This article has 2 sections that use "migration" in the title. This is with the meaning "to permanently move from one country to another" - which is one of the various meanings given to this word in the OED (the full OED entry is: The movement of a person or people from one country, locality, place of residence, etc., to settle in another; an instance of this.)
Looking at some of those who write about emigration of Scots (i.e. to settle in another country) and migration of Scots (either temporary or permanent migration, such as moving from the Highlands to the Lowlands), the convention seems to be that when absolute clarity is needed, "emigration" is used when going to another country. That leaves "migration" to be used for movement within Scotland (or perhaps within Britain) - but frustratingly it is sometimes used for movement to another country.
In order to assist the reader, it would make sense for this article to be more precise about when the 2 words are used - i.e. always using "emigration" when referring to settling in another country. Therefore "migration", within the article, would mean a change of locality. This would increase readability - especially since seasonal migrant workers are a large part of Scotland's history from the 18th century into the 20th century (a subject that should be briefly addressed in the article).
Does anyone see any problem with such changes?ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 00:11, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Migration versus emigration