Casualty Figures: Scotland

[truthergw]

Niall Ferguson in his interesting analysis of casualties and the concept of 'net body count', observes ( p.308) that , the Germans shaped their tactics around new ideas and technologies in a more effective manner than the Allies. Examples given are 'defence in depth', use of machine-gun nests , storm troopers even the 'creeping barrage'.

We know that it took bitter experience over a many years for the British Army to learn how to develop an effective attacking strategy against a well-defended enemy. I wonder if the rate of adoption of new techniques in the British Army varied amongst different regiments etc.? Could it be that the Scottish regiments were the last to be trained to use new techniques?

Just a thought...

C.

I think that ' many years ' is stretching things a bit. Trench warfare started in earnest in 1915 and the war was over in 1918. In that time, German defensive tactics changed from open warfare through massed defence on the front line to an elastic defence in depth, with the British very quick to adapt their offensive tactics to suit. For example, the latter system was introduced 1917 and counter measures were being employed by the end of that year and the British seeking to employ the same style of defence by Spring 1918. I am not aware that training differed between nationalities and as has been pointed out, once conscription started, the national character was not nearly so marked. Cockney Kilties abounded by end 1917 as did Scots in English regiments.

[Guest]

Presumably, Martin, the "casualties" you tabulate are actually, fatalities, and that additional hundreds of thousands ( probably a million and a half) were wounded, gassed or taken prisoner.

Phil (PJA)

Phil - I am quoting Brig E A James - he says "casualties" but I am sure you are right...it should read fatalities....however over such a large body of data I would imaging casualty/fatality ratios would be similar so the comparison still hold water.

[Guest]

Martin Middlebrook dealt with the casualties of (British) Infantry Battalions in 'Your Country Needs You', Appendix 2, pages 162-170. On page 167 it has the 'Top 12' of highest average active service battalion deaths, it is headed by the Scots Guards and followed by; grenadier Guards, Irish Guards, Seaforth Highlanders, Northamptonshire, Gordon Highlanders, Rifle Brigade, Cameron Highlanders, Kings Own Scottish Boarderers, Coldstream Guards, The Buffs (East Kent) and the Black Watch. There are lots of caveats as to to why and he states all figures "...should be treated with caution."

Mike

Mike - Before I go any further let me declare my neutrality. I had two grandfathers fight in WWI - one a Scot (Royal Scots Fusiliers) and one English (Derbyshire Yeomanry). I agree that stats should be treated with great caution but so should arguments that soldiers from one region were regarded as being more expendable be treated with equal caution. There is absolutely no hard evidence to support this argument. More Scots died as a % of population simply because more Scots volunteered as a % of population. When analysing the battalion fatalities there is no evidence that Scottish battalions (as a whole) fought in harder actions that caused higher fatalities.

Using the stats from James' "British Regiments 1914-18" we can do a very rough proxy for fatalities per battalion. They provide no evidence that Scottish or Irish battalions were treated differently or put into harder actions. The only thing it might show is that the Guards battalions saw very high casualties and the Guards Division might argue that they saw harder fighting than most. A number of Scottish Regiments show very high fatalities per battalion, but equally Scottish battalions also show up much lower down the list on this rough measure. There is absolutely no correlation between region and fatalities per battalion. The methodology has been refined and it shows the fatalities per battalion. The 'battalion' has been adjusted to reflect only the Regular, TF Field Units and New Army Service Battalions combined per Regiment - i.e it strips out the Reserve units, garrison units etc..

One can argue with the methodology and refine it further, but the data is interesting and does not support any view that battalions from any country were harder fought than others. For what it is worth here it is.: (colour coded for ease) British Army Infantry Regiments: Casualties (fatalities) per Battalion* 1914-1918. [source: Brig E A James " British Regiments 1914-1918" Table B and page 136]

Scottish Battalions (143)..... 583 fatalities per battalion*.... which suggest fatalities per battalion only 1.9% greater than English battalions.

Irish Battalions (56) ..............592 fatalities per battalion*.....which suggest fatalities per battalion only 3.5% greater than English battalions

Welsh Battalions (66)...........410 fatalities per battalion*

English Battalions (776)......572 fatalities per battalion*

It is worth noting that the Scottish fatalities per battalion* are heavily distorted by the Scots Guards. If this regiment was stripped out, then the average fatalities per Scottish battalion* drops to 571. If anyone had an axe to grind it would be the Scots Guards rather than the Scottish population. If the Guards Regiments are stripped out the ratio for the remaining Scottish, Irish, Welsh and English battalions* drops to 571, 572, 403 and 567 respectively. The Scottish battalions*' fatalities per battalion* being 0.7% greater than the English battalions*.

* Battalions: the sum of: Regular + TF Field Units + New Army Servics Bns

Data by Regiments.

Scots Guards 1,420

Grenadier Guards 1,170

Irish Guards 1,125

Coldstream Guards 965

Royal Berkshire Regiment 893

King's Own Scottish borderers 860

Welsh Guards 860

Bedfordshire Regiment 813

Seaforth Highlanders 803

King's Royal Rifle Corps 803

Lincolnshire Regiment 800

Worcestershire Regiment 788

Yorkshire Light Infantry 788

Northamptonshire Regiment 744

Royal Fusiliers 743

Wiltshire Regiment 743

Cameron Highlanders 741

South Staffordshire Regiment 707

Royal Irish Regiment 695

Royal Warwickshire Regiment 683

Royal Dublin Fusiliers 683

Gordon Highlanders 682

border Regiment 677

Dorsetshire Regiment 677

West Yorkshire Regiment 668

Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers 654

Lancashire Fusiliers 650

East Lancashire Regiment 636

York and Lancaster Regiment 629

Leicestershire Regiment 625

East Yorkshire Regiment 623

Royal West Surrey Regiment 615

East Surrey Regiment 614

Rifle Brigade 609

West Riding Regiment 605

North Staffordshire Regiment 603

Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Regiment 601

East Kent Regiment 600

Liverpool Regiment 592

Royal West Kent Regiment 575

Royal Highlanders 559

Loyal North Lancashire Regiment 542

Royal Irish Rifles 539

Yorkshire Regiment 536

Oxford and Buckinghamshire Light Infantry 535

Shropshire Light Infantry 523

Durham Light Infantry 522

Northumberland Fusiliers 516

Connaught Rangers 513

Royal Munster Fusiliers 512

Manchester Regiment 510

Royal Scots Fusiliers 509

Royal Scots 507

Gloucestershire Regiment 506

Highland Light Infantry 502

Duke of Cornwall's Light Infantry 501

Leinster Regiment 495

Royal Irish Fusiliers 476

Scottish Rifles 471

London Regiment 469

South Wales borderers 467

Essex Regiment 466

Norfolk Regiment 462

Royal Lancaster Regiment 458

Middlesex Regiment 454

Cheshire Regiment 443

Suffolk Regiment 437

Somerset Light Infantry 433

Royal Welsh Fusiliers 426

Hampshire Regiment 421

Honourable Artillery Company Infantry 420

South Lancashire Regiment 419

Royal Sussex Regiment 409

Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders 406

Devonshire Regiment 386

Welsh Regiment 363

Monmouthshire Regiment 347

Cambridgeshire Regiment 290

Hertfordshire Regiment 160

Any mistakes are mine. regards MG

[dycer]

As a born Scot, with two Uncles killed in WW1 whilst serving in a "minor" Royal Scots Battalion ,living in England,can we please we please close discussion.

I don't mind,if after 50 odd years,in England,that I am asked "What did you say"?.Such are accents.

As a Scot living in England and having served in an "English" TA Battalion in the 1970's,I have great feelings for my Country and what Scotland means.

But unfortunately Scotland's daily current reality ,from my odd visit,does not live up to her ideals,from my "Scots" perspective.

The only way that Britain will be ever able to "call" the Scots together again,is to defend the "Crown".

George

p.s.I feel I should add that from WW1 period photos, my Scots Grandfather,whom I knew,,chose to join the Navy,in WW1,having been brought up in a Scots Coastal Town but one of his "many" Brothers.chose to join the Army in WW1,I met him as well,as an old Man.

Scotland, please just leave "Her" alone

[Piorun]

Yet your earlier assertion that "like the Irish, [the Scots] were expendable in the eyes of English commanders" during the Great War is just such a statement Antony, and one unsupported by 'hard data'. Indeed, you had to go back to Wolfe to find an example of such a sentiment from an English general.

One other point I'd make is that your suggestion that, as part of the Army establishment, Haig was more English in outlook than Scots is wide of the mark.

Sorry, George. I hadn't meant to imply that the Scots as a race were expendable in the eyes of English and I apologise for the impression given. I should have made it clearer that by "Scots" or "English" in that sentence, I meant Scots battalions and British Army commanders (who may have been Irish, Welsh, Scots or whatever). I stand corrected for sloppy argument.

As for Wolfe's statement, I'm not sure whether or not he was racially biased (although it appears that he was) but I wasn't using it in that sense. I was using it as an example of a British Army commander's attitude to the Scots soldier as a fighting force and I do hold that the attitude carried down the years - albeit, perhaps, without the contemptuous addendum regarding "no great mischief".

Despite Haig's being Scottish, he was a quintessential British Army man. It's hard to know at some remove whether the attitude towards Scots battalions, like Canadians, as "storm troops" and the like is one that Scots soldiers should welcome with pride or shun with dread. I suppose only the dead could tell us.

Yours, Antony

[George Armstrong Custer]

Despite Haig's being Scottish, he was a quintessential British Army man.

Indeed he was, Antony - but that is an entirely different proposition from your earlier suggestion that he was part of an English establishment for whom Scottish troops in particular were expendable.

George

[truthergw]

Sorry, George. I hadn't meant to imply that the Scots as a race were expendable in the eyes of English and I apologise for the impression given. I should have made it clearer that by "Scots" or "English" in that sentence, I meant Scots battalions and British Army commanders (who may have been Irish, Welsh, Scots or whatever). I stand corrected for sloppy argument.

As for Wolfe's statement, I'm not sure whether or not he was racially biased (although it appears that he was) but I wasn't using it in that sense. I was using it as an example of a British Army commander's attitude to the Scots soldier as a fighting force and I do hold that the attitude carried down the years - albeit, perhaps, without the contemptuous addendum regarding "no great mischief".

Despite Haig's being Scottish, he was a quintessential British Army man. It's hard to know at some remove whether the attitude towards Scots battalions, like Canadians, as "storm troops" and the like is one that Scots soldiers should welcome with pride or shun with dread. I suppose only the dead could tell us.

Yours, Antony

I never yet met a member of an elite regiment who did not take pride in that fact, and that includes the days of National Service and conscription. Men were well aware of the losses that had been suffered in order to gain that reputation and were well aware that when a task was difficult it would be given to the unit best able to handle it. We do not need to establish communication with the dead to throw light on these matters,simply talk to any soldier, sailor, airman or marine whether serving or veteran. Haig as CiC did not have to consider nationality when drawing up plans. He gave his orders to Army commanders who passed them on down the line.

[crickhollow]

Thank you everyone for some very interesting contributions on the significance (if any) of the apparent disproportionate casualties (% of those mobilized) suffered by Scottish Divisions/Regiments.

I had half-expected that some knowledgeable GWF member would be able to explain the figures quoted in Niall Ferguson's book. However, as with most statistics, uncovering the real truth and relevance is a much more difficult task.

Whilst the figures quoted by Niall Ferguson (sourced from J Winter's The Great War) might be rather misleading, I do think that there is other evidence to suggest that some Scottish Divisions (e.g. 51st and 52nd) and Line Regiments such as Seaforth, Gordon and Cameron Highlanders, Black Watch and others suffered relatively higher casualties than many English, Welsh and Irish Regiments (source: Martin Middlebrook Your Country Needs You).

To some extent my query still stands unanswered so I will try to do some further research. First step is to get a copy of Winter's book (done).

Any other thoughts welcome...

Many thanks

Christopher

[Derek Robertson]

Christopher,

The 52nd Division only served in F&F fr a few months in 1918 - their heavy casualties were due to service at Gallipoli and Palestine.

Of the 4 Scottish Divisions, I would have been inclined to think that the 52nd Division would have had fewer battlefield casualties than the other 3. Just my impression.

[crickhollow]

Derek

Thanks for the clarification. Middlebrook points out that the 52nd (Lowland) 'lost three battalions to the BEF in 1914 and 1915 replacing them with the 1st/4th and 1st/7th Royal Scots and 1st/5th Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders just before the division sailed for Egypt in May and June 1915'

As GWF members will recall, on 22 May 1915 the train carrying 1st/7th Royal Scots for embarkation was in collision near Gretna resulting in death and injury of 434 men of that battalion.

The 52nd was involved in three major theatres of war: Western Front, Gallipoli and Palestine.

Rgds

C.

[Steven Broomfield]

As GWF members will recall, on 22 May 1915 the train carrying 1st/7th Royal Scots for embarkation was in collision near Gretna resulting in death and injury of 434 men of that battalion.

Don't think we can blame English generals for that one

[rob carman]

I recently generated these figures for Norfolk using the 1911 census, H. Rider Haggard's Norfolk Roll of Honour, the online Roll of Honour, individual church and parish records and other published figures.

There are about 670 parishes in Norfolk. The bulk of the results I have are for rural parishes outside Norwich, Lynn and Yarmouth. I think adding in the urban figures will lower these percentages.

Served as % of 1911 population: 17.4% (15 parishes)

Died as % of 1911 population: 3.2% (333 parishes)

Died as % of those that served: 19.8% (27 parishes)

I still have to check my data against boundary and name changes etc. and then proof it, but it may be useful for comparative purposes.

Haggard himself gives two figures, 1 of every 42 (2.4%) people in Norfolk in 1911 died in service, while for the UK the figure he gives is 1 in 57 (1.8%).

Rob.

[truthergw]

Derek

Thanks for the clarification. Middlebrook points out that the 52nd (Lowland) 'lost three battalions to the BEF in 1914 and 1915 replacing them with the 1st/4th and 1st/7th Royal Scots and 1st/5th Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders just before the division sailed for Egypt in May and June 1915'

As GWF members will recall, on 22 May 1915 the train carrying 1st/7th Royal Scots for embarkation was in collision near Gretna resulting in death and injury of 434 men of that battalion.

The 52nd was involved in three major theatres of war: Western Front, Gallipoli and Palestine.

Rgds

C.

I think it might be thought misleading to classify Gallipoli and Palestine with the Western Front as major theatres of war. Only the Western Front would properly qualify for that description.

[phil andrade]

Does Rob's excellent work ( thank you !) suggest that death rates rose in areas of the UK where there was a preponderantly agricultural economy/population ?

If it were possible, it might be instructive to compile stats. that indicate whether countryfolk were more prone to being killed in the Great War than their urban counterparts.

I suspect that the Norfolk survey gives more than a hint of this.

Here's a rather striking statement from a regular soldier from nearby Suffolk, who enlisted shortly before the war to escape the degradation of life as a farm labourer :

I want to say this simply as a fact, that village people in Suffolk in my day were worked to death. It literally happened. It is not a figure of speech. I was worked mercilessly.

If this was true of rural life in East Anglia, then how much more so must it have been the case in Scotland ?

Phil (PJA)

[truthergw]

Does Rob's excellent work ( thank you !) suggest that death rates rose in areas of the UK where there was a preponderantly agricultural economy/population ?

If it were possible, it might be instructive to compile stats. that indicate whether countryfolk were more prone to being killed in the Great War than their urban counterparts.

I suspect that the Norfolk survey gives more than a hint of this.

Here's a rather striking statement from a regular soldier from nearby Suffolk, who enlisted shortly before the war to escape the degradation of life as a farm labourer :

I want to say this simply as a fact, that village people in Suffolk in my day were worked to death. It literally happened. It is not a figure of speech. I was worked mercilessly.

If this was true of rural life in East Anglia, then how much more so must it have been the case in Scotland ?

Phil (PJA)

What prompts you to assume that Scots farmworkers worked harder than their English counterparts?

[Steven Broomfield]

Well, it's colder for a start. And ploughing in a kilt must have its drawbacks.

[crickhollow]

I think it might be thought misleading to classify Gallipoli and Palestine with the Western Front as major theatres of war. Only the Western Front would properly qualify for that description.

'...three major theatres of war.' Martin Middlebrook's phrase (p.112 of Your Country Needs You) and he is my guru on many WW1 matters!

[truthergw]

'...three major theatres of war.' Martin Middlebrook's phrase (p.112 of Your Country Needs You) and he is my guru on many WW1 matters!

So you are adamant that Gallipoli is comparable to the Western Front as a major theatre of war? Does your guru give any figures for resources, troops, casualties?

[crickhollow]

I am trying to answer my own question here: I wonder if the figures quoted by Niall Ferguson are distorted due to the rapid expansion post-1915 of the British army (6 Divisions to 65 Divisions)? Could it be that this growth was proportionately greater in English, Welsh and Irish Divisions? If some of the Scottish battalions did not acquire new recruits then maybe this might go some way to explaining the difference in 'Total killed as a % those total mobilized'

Of course the question does highlight the difficulties in interpreting unreliable and incompatible statistics - but there may be something interesting yet to be discovered in the data!

Rgds

C.

[Guest]

Scotlands' enthusiasm for volunteering can be measured to a certain extent by looking at the net recruiting by the Territorial Force between the base at 1st July 1914 and the end of December 1915, before conscription came in. The hefty tome "Statistics of the Military Effort of the British Empire During the Great War 1914-1919" (all 880 pages) published by the War Office in 1922 has some exceptionally interesting data on page 365-367: "Voluntary Direct Enlistments into the Territorial Force During the War Period to the End of 1915" It is the only table in this volume that gives a breakdown of any recruiting by (British) geographic region. The TF data is net recruiting and strips out those who were deemed unfit etc so it is a pretty 'clean' figure. The data was collected on a weekly basis and is a triumph of British administration. Here are the stats compared to the male populations according to the 1911 Census:

...................................................................English TF Units................ Scottish TF Units............... Welsh TF Units......... Total TF Units

1st Jul 14 - 31st Dec 15.........................575,978.................................116,446....................................33,428......................... 725,852

Male population 1911 (census)...........17,445,608...............................2,308,839............................1,231,739........................20,986,186

TF recruiting as % of Male pop:..............3.30%....................................5.04%...................................2.71%.............................. 3.46%

Which perhaps helps illustrate the magnitude of recruiting fervour in the various regions. The caveat is that this will not capture recruits into the Regular Army, but I think it serves as a proxy for recruiting trends in the first 17 months of the War. It might also help explain 'high' Scottish casulaties as the TF was decimated in 1915-1916

What is also interesting, if one takes recruiting of Kitchener's Service Battalions by geography and makes an assumption that a Battalion was about 1,000 men the picture is rather different: Again there are caveats that Kitchener's Service Battalions did not always recruit withing regions, but a rough picture emerges. Note these are Service battalions and excluded New Army Reserve Battalions, Garrison Battalions etc...

.......................................................................English Service Bns*................ Scottish Service Bns............... Welsh Service Bns......... Total Service Bns

...............................................................................474,000.....................................40,000....................................30,000................................. 544,000

Service Bn recruit'g as % of Male pop:........................2.72%........................................1.73%......................................2.44%.................................2.59%

So rather a difference in trends between TF Field Unit recruiting and the raising of the Kitchener battalions. Note that most TF battalionas had undertaken the Imperial Service Obligation.

* This might be adjusted down slightly for some of the Scottish Service Bns in major English cities.

I still maintain that 'high' Scottish casualties as % of population reflects high recruiting as % of population and nothing else.

Regards

MG

[dycer]

Martin,

One word of caution to your assertion regarding the early Scots TF Battalions.

The Battalion did not sign the Imperial Service Order,the men did or had.

It may be that "original" TF Scots Battalions and other TF Battalions(ie those who could furnish a thousand men from their own Battalion) may have moved to France in 1914.

As a comparison may I introduce the 7th Cheshires, whom recruited in Macclesfield and surrounds, and were at total strength,according to their Historian,in 1914,but attached to a Welsh Division,which first saw service in Gallipoli in 1915,because the Divisional Commanding Officer would not commit his Division,in 1914,(according to the Battalion Historian) to the field until they were "ready".

But as an example the 8th Royal Scots(per their War Diary) landed in France on the 5th November 1914,having been brought up to 8 Company War strength,by the addition of two Companies, one from the 6th Royal Scots and the other from 8th Highland Light Infantry.

George

The 8th Royal Scots were apparently,from my peers on the Forum, an unallocated TF Battalion pre WW1 i.e.they did not have a designated Home defence role and,therefore "ripe" for foreign service in WW1 and it was, I assume, brought up to strength with men who had signed the ISO.

[crickhollow]

I still maintain that 'high' Scottish casualties as % of population reflects high recruiting as % of population and nothing else.

Thanks Martin -some good detailed research here. I think I may be getting out of my depth, but I wonder how conscription from 1916 affected the impact of any 'regional fervour' to join the Services?

Note that the casualties referred to by Niall Ferguson are 'Total killed as a % of total mobilized' (not a % of those who qualify for joining the armed forces).

Somehow I feel that regional and national character / background is reflected in casualty figures - but I am not sure the connection!

Rgds

C.

[dycer]

Would you please not be abstract in your discussion.

Immediate WW1 Statistics of losses are fine but are possibly,flawed,unless you can find the figures that were reported to Downing Street whom I assume took action,however,mistaken,in the inter War years.

George

[phil andrade]

What prompts you to assume that Scots farmworkers worked harder than their English counterparts?

Life is harsher North of the border today. I imagine that it was in 1914, too. Assumptions on my part. Alex Salmond has worked his magic on me !

phil (PJA)

[Guest]

Martin,

One word of caution to your assertion regarding the early Scots TF Battalions.

The Battalion did not sign the Imperial Service Order,the men did or had.

It may be that "original" TF Scots Battalions and other TF Battalions(ie those who could furnish a thousand men from their own Battalion) may have moved to France in 1914.

As a comparison may I introduce the 7th Cheshires, whom recruited in Macclesfield and surrounds, and were at total strength,according to their Historian,in 1914,but attached to a Welsh Division,which first saw service in Gallipoli in 1915,because the Divisional Commanding Officer would not commit his Division,in 1914,(according to the Battalion Historian) to the field until they were "ready".

But as an example the 8th Royal Scots(per their War Diary) landed in France on the 5th November 1914,having been brought up to 8 Company War strength,by the addition of two Companies, one from the 6th Royal Scots and the other from 8th Highland Light Infantry.

George

The 8th Royal Scots were apparently,from my peers on the Forum, an unallocated TF Battalion pre WW1 i.e.they did not have a designated Home defence role and,therefore "ripe" for foreign service in WW1 and it was, I assume, brought up to strength with men who had signed the ISO.

Hi George

I take your point on the Battalion not 'signing' the Imperial Service Order, but the May 1915 edition of the Army List has against the Titles of most regiments and battalions a circle with an x in it (looks like a hot-crossed-bun). According to the list of symbols in the front, this means (and I quote) " "Imperial Service obligations have been undertaken by the Regiment". The same symbol, but smaller also appears after the names of many of the Officers and in this instance it means "Imperial Service obligations have been undertaken by the Officer", so at least according to the Army List they considered a difference between regiments or battalions that had undertaken Imperial Service Obligations and those that had not. Pedantically speaking they did not 'sign' but from memory I believe once a battalion had reached a certain % of men who had undertaken the obligation, the Battalion was then considered as a body to have undertaken the obligation and could be sent abroad. Many battalions took great pride in reaching this point.

I am not sure I follow the rest of your post... My numbers were taken from James (Table B who takes each Regiment and lists the number of battalions in each individual Infantry Regiment that were Regular, Reserve and Extra Reserve, TF Field Units, TF Reserve Units, New Army Service Bns, New Army Reserve Bns, Garrison Bns, Labour, Tpt, Docks Bns, Graduated and Young Soldier Bns and then totals them...so one can easily split out the sub-sets. I was attempting just to show the number of units recruited (by geography) to make battalions up to strength that were designated to serve overseas rather than at home. When they actually served overseas does not really matter, as It was about recruiting. In the case of the 7th Cheshires, they would appear as one of the 9 TF Field Unit battalions of the Cheshire Regt in Table B. They would not in my analysis be classed as Welsh unit (if I understand your drift here?) despite serving in a Welsh Div. The analysis was done at individual Battalion level. I am sure it could be improved with adjusting the Tyneside Scots, Irsh, Liverpool Scots, Irish etc but gib=ven the large body of Englisg battalions it will not make much difference to the rough stats. Also if one could be bothered to wade through the pages, it would be easy to identify exactly which Bns did serve overseas. I am confident that James' Table B is accurate enough for the purposes of getting rough figures.

The analysis was not an attempt to show how many men joined in totality or what happened after 1916...it merely was attempting in the case of the TF to show how different regions responded to the initial wave of volunteering. I think it fair to assume that in most cases TF battalions generally recruited men from their own regions although I am aware of the hundreds (thousands?) of men who walked miles to another area when rejected by their own local Bn. I am not sure enough Scots walked into England, and those already in the urban areas may well have been absorbed into the "Argyll and Surrey" type battalions in London, Liverpool, Necastle etc. I have done a fair amount of research into the Yeomanry and the surviving service records of the pre 1916 men strongly correlate with the local recruiting areas. I have done similar exercises with 11 other Yeomanry Regiments of the 2nd Mtd Div and there are similar strong 'local' patterns.

As I said, I not sure I followed your points so apologies if I am missing it completely. Regards MG