Talk:History of Scotland

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" - 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Thanks for checking the text; good work. Mutt Lunker (talk) 20:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)