Jump to content

Talk:History of Scotland

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articleHistory of Scotland is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Good articleHistory of Scotland has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on July 30, 2004.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 19, 2004Refreshing brilliant proseKept
May 24, 2006Featured article reviewDemoted
July 24, 2018Good article nomineeListed
July 27, 2018Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Former featured article, current good article

RFC

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This RFC has two sections The consensus for them is as following. Charles Bertram, there is consensus is to oppose inclusion. There is consensus to use a Ptolemy map. AlbinoFerret 14:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having some issues with a page owner and need some outside opinions on two points of policy and content in the article on the History of Scotland (specifically a bit about the Roman era: the relevance of Ptolemy's maps and a major fraud that impacted our understanding of it for over a century). — LlywelynII 18:25, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Bertram

[edit]

Pace one of the editors here, yes, we absolutely need to mention Bertram and his forgery so that people know not to trust 18th and 19th century accounts of Scottish history. Everyone understands any earlier than that is iffy and likewise know that more recent discoveries wouldn't be included but the scale of the forgery and its success was massive and these poisoned accounts are what people can get to easily at Google Books, Bartleby, and the Internet Archive. I think the current parenthetical handles the situation well, but regardless of the phrasing there needs to be some discussion of and link to Bertram's book in the Roman history section. — LlywelynII 16:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Please consider what this article is attempting to do. It is meant to be a very general guide to the entire swathe of the history of Scotland. Most readers are unlikely to understand the significance of this or, frankly care. It would, however, be entirely appropriate in one of the more detailed articles to which this one provides links, such as Scotland during the Roman Empire.--SabreBD (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be the one who doesn't quite get how WP:SCOPE works. (Feel free to review it.) First, we err on the side of inclusion, even in general articles. We're not a print book. Second, our treatment of the "History of Scotland" will include major features of historiography along with the actual historical events. A hundred-year period of seemingly trustworthy and highly-available material poisoned by reliance on a fraud completely accepted by the highest authorities is a necessary thing to discuss, even in the broadest overview articles (although, yes, short of Scotland#History level). Please consider that this is not an edit war: I have in fact made an improvement to the article and you're (in all good faith) simply making it less good, less helpful, and less informative. There is no reason to do that. Pretty much ever and regardless of any policy.
I'm not sure why you're being so WP:OWNERy, but step back and get some outside advice here. I can be kind of an ass in my blunt way of making points (sorry), but I'm not actually wrong about this and your protectionism isn't actually helping anyone. — LlywelynII 18:17, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure if you realise that your possible attempt at conciliation here is undermined by the accompanying accusation of ownership, or the puzzlement at how questioning two edits our of ten and then going to the talkpage for wider opinions indicates ownership. However, moving on, surprisingly I have a very full understanding of how WP:Scope works, particularly the bit that says "is an editorial choice determined by consensus" and I am very happy to do that here. Again, I hope other editors will come in with their views so that we can develop a consensus over this issue. Also, although Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, we do have to keep in mind WP:SIZE (this article is already 196,187 bites) and most importantly here I think WP:SUMMARY. My point here is that this kind of detail is more appropriate at linked articles of which sections of this article are in effect summaries. I should also point out that the section of text was also unsourced (although I have no doubt that it can be easily sourced), so was likely to be questioned here in any case.--SabreBD (talk) 07:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. What specific misconceptions were created or reinforced by the DoB? Have any of these persisted (either as ‘conventional wisdom’ or as bases for controversy) since the forgery was exposed?—Odysseus1479 00:11, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've come to this discussion from the RfC and had a read through the article and the single sentence that seems to be the dispute. My first observation is that, in common with many articles like this, it is a real challenge to write a good quality article that gives this helicopter view on a subject that could, of course, fill many volumes. As such I'm inclined to say if in doubt, leave it out, and of course include it in the sub-article that's linked. I do agree that historiography is very much in scope for this article, but I didn't get the impression from The Description of Britain that many misconceptions persist in modern understandings of Scottish history - please correct me if I'm wrong. On this basis I'm afraid I agree that it would be better left out of this particular article. AndrewRT(Talk) 21:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (via Feedback Request Service) Oppose inclusion per SabreBD and AndrewRT. I don't think there's much to add to what they've said already. Just keep it a straight narrative as that's what readers expect. Samsara 22:36, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ptolemy

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • Include. Not sure under which section, but the Ptolemy adds an interesting detail on how the "civilised world" viewed what would become Scotland. Always fascinated me how this map could be so right (general shape), yet simultaneously so wrong! (orientation relative to the rest of the Isle) --Haruth (talk) 04:39, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Include The issues is getting a consensus now and I agree with Haruth and LlywelynII. Sabrebd has too often taken a proprietary approach to this article, Which means erasing sourced material that he personally doesn't like. Rjensen (talk) 22:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Failure of the Darien scheme

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

References

[edit]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on History of Scotland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-Saxons forgotten

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

King David and the Norman Conquest

[edit]

"...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)[reply]

[edit]

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:

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) 07:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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:

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) 07:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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:

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) 03:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Intro

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Collapse of the Clan System

[edit]

I question whether:

Historians debate whether the dramatic changes merely reflect long-term trends that were more-or-less inevitable, or whether government intervention played the decisive role in changing the goals and roles of the chiefs.

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. [1]: 32–53, passim 

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."[2]: 210, x 

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"[1] - 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.[3]

The cited reference appears to be an isolated opinion.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 dùthchas 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Devine, T M (1994). Clanship to Crofters' War: The social transformation of the Scottish Highlands (2013 ed.). Manchester University Press. ISBN 978-0-7190-9076-9.
  2. ^ Macinnes, Allan I (1996). Clanship, Commerce and the House of Stuart, 1603-1788. East Linton: Tuckwell Press Limited. ISBN 1 898410 43 7.
  3. ^ Richards, Eric (2000). The Highland Clearances People, Landlords and Rural Turmoil (2013 ed.). Edinburgh: Birlinn Limited. ISBN 978-1-78027-165-1.

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:History of Scotland/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: EggRoll97 (talk · contribs) 15:00, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]


GA review
(see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
    b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references):
    b (citations to reliable sources):
    c (OR):
    d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):
    b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
    b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Pass/Fail:

· · ·


Plagiarism?

[edit]

I got a 99.4% match for plagarism from this link. Care to elaborate? EggRoll97 (talk) 04:51, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the site that came up positive on the plagiarism search and then think about who copied who - I think it is pretty obvious!! [2] Is anyone volunteering to contact them and suggest that they acknowledge Wikipedia rather than take all the credit for themselves?
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@ThoughtIdRetired: Nevermind, now that I look it again, it's a bit suspicious that a tour website would have a Wikipedia-style description of Scotland. EggRoll97 (talk) 08:28, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@EggRoll97: Thanks for reviewing – yeah, that's clearly plagiarism on their part rather than ours. A quick look at the page history shows that the prose was composed by several users over several years - plagiarising that website so slowly with so many sockpuppets would arguably have been a greater effort than just creating new prose, haha! --Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 00:13, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Review Finished

[edit]

With that, I've finished this review. Thanks to everyone, and congratulations! EggRoll97 (Let's talk!) 00:23, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Best" or "large amounts of" land?

[edit]

It may or may not be ridiculous to describe the large estates in the Highlands as "the best" land etc. but this sentence is sourced. Does the source say "the best lands" or "large amounts of land"? Mutt Lunker (talk) 12:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it's a fair cop. I should have sight of the cited reference within a week and will check this out. At this stage, I suggest that may be an inappropriate reference. The reasons are:
(1) Taking a fact about the agricultural quality of land from Henry Pelling, a historian whose major works are the history of the Labour Party suggests that we are using a fact that is outside the area of expertise of the cited author. (2) The book in question was published in 1967. There has been an enormous amount of study of Highland estates since then, by historians such as Eric Richards, Annie Tindley, T M Devine, Robert Dodgshon, Ewen Cameron, Allan Macinnes and many others. The subject has moved on dramatically since Pelling was writing about, inter alia, land ownership in Scotland. (3) The subject being discussed in the article appears to centre around 1790-1815, or perhaps up to the time of the Potato Famine (1846). Either way, this is substantially outside the period of the cited work (1885-1910). This is another reason to suggest that the citation is of a passing mention outside the main topic of the source.
Additionally: (a) there are plenty of sources to support the quality of land in the Highlands. Before this is resolved, consideration should be given to citing some. (b) the section is titled "Decline and romanticism of the Highlands" yet the text supported by citation of Pelling talks about the dukes of Buccleuch and Atholl, both having their major landholdings outside the Highlands. This seems a bit muddled. (c) Toward the end of the section the Corn Laws are stated as undermining the profitability of crop production - whilst this is largely correct, what is relevant to the Highland situation is that farmers in previously arable areas turned to producing cattle, thereby competing with the Highland trade in black cattle, from a geographic base closer to the areas of demand. So, the editor who wrote this bit of the section does not appear to have understood that aspect of the economic history of the Highlands. (I don't have a ref for this point immediately to hand, but could dig one out.)
I think there is every reason to leave the edit as it stands, pending further investigation. This is the WP:COMMONSENSE approach to something that is clearly wrong to anyone with any general knowledge of the subject. Yes, there needs to be some further editing that would include providing a better reference. Reversion, however, suggests a belief that the original text is correct, when one must have, at the very least, a strong suspicion that it is not.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:04, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Or, more briefly, WP:CONTEXTMATTERS: "Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable".
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:44, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Quick answer to User:Mutt Lunker - the source (H. Pelling, Social Geography of British Elections 1885–1910, p. 373) says

A few great nobles, such as the Dukes of Argyll, Atholl, Buccleuch, and Sutherland, owned enormous sections of the country and, at any rate until 1885, exercised an influence on politics that had very few parallels in England.

It does not say "the best lands", nor does it say they controlled "legal and economic affairs". It refers to all of Scotland, not just the Highlands. Furthermore, seeing the content of the rest of this book, it is quite clear that the comment on land ownership in Scotland was substantially outside of the main content of the work: so this is "information provided in passing". (Though I do not disagree that there was/is a spectacularly concentrated degree of land ownership in Scotland.)
So, we have an inappropriate reference that has been materially misquoted/misrepresented.
I think the other criticisms of the same paragraph still apply. They can be expanded upon: I cannot find anywhere in Gray's "Highland Economy" something that supports "Despite these changes the highlands remained very poor and traditional, with few connections to the uplift of the Scottish Enlightenment and little role in the Industrial Revolution." The Highlands actually had a substantial (and perhaps unwelcome) connection to the Enlightenment in the form of the various factors, land surveyors, lawyers et al who had been exposed to the views of Adam Smith and others before embarking on a career in agricultural improvement in the region. Though there is no real direct role for the Highlands in the Industrial Revolution, the trade in black cattle, the fishing and linen industries, even the kelp industry: all relied on the existence of the industrial towns of Britain for the demand that supported these industries. In short, the whole paragraph needs to be deleted. Looking at the title of the section that it is in, I am at a loss as to what the paragraph was trying to achieve, so have no idea what any replacement text (if appropriate) should say.
ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:33, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for checking the text; good work. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Migration versus emigration

[edit]

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)[reply]

Army deployment in 1919 Glasgow

[edit]

I'm not quite happy with this edit. We should be making the article clearer and more accurate, not obfuscating history. John (talk) 21:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The current edit reflects the evidence, that the government wasn't involved in the decision to send troops to Glasgow, whereas the version before reflected the myth that the government/Churchill was responsible for the army going to Glasgow. https://www.euppublishing.com/doi/abs/10.3366/scot.2019.0264 Gjbarclay (talk) 22:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I could tell that's what you were trying to do. It just isn't a very good solution. A general article like this one isn't the best place for the sort of detailed debunking that you are aiming for though. Let's try for a better form of words. John (talk) 15:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:History_of_Scotland&oldid=1254557231"