Scottish losses

[RHD]

Hi,

I have seen mentioned a few times only that Scottish loses expressed as a population were much higher than other British nations. Can anybody shed some light on this or is it just anti English propganda.

[John_Hartley]

Can't shed any light on it. Nor, for that matter, do I understand why the statement might be considered to be anti-English. It's either a fact or an error.

If there is any basis for the assertion, it'd be interesting to see how anyone could possibly come to that statistical conclusion. Presumably it could only be on the patently false assumption that Scots only served with Scottish Regiments, English with English, etc.

[tipperary]

I also think it is hard to get a definate figure on losses,I believe the official Irish figure to be understated because they served in so many armys English,Australian,New Zealand,American a few with the German's no doubt,a hard task to break the numbers down.john

[Guest]

This debate has been fully exhausted on another thread here. Lots of stats. MG

[eltoro1960]

The number of war dead was higher proportionally than other parts of GB And Ireland as a check of the Scottish National War Memorial shows, Trevor Royle gives a breakdown in his book, Flowers of the Forest, a lot of expats, especially those residing in England returned to join Scottish Regiments, you also had Tyneside Scottish and London Scottish etc.

From memory as a percentage of the population only Serbia fared worse and Scotland was around double the figure for the rest of the Home Nations.

I don't think for a second it is anti English propaganda, merely a tragic fact (as John suggests) and a terrible loss of life, some of the memorials in rural communities bear a shocking number of names on them.

John

[Theletterwriter]

I travel throughout the UK with my work and I fully concur with John Duncan's statement re the number of names on rural communities war memorials. Shocking and extremely sad.

Douglas

[Scalyback]

Given the period. Wales was part of "England" as such.

Has any study been done with Welsh units?

RWF also know as the brummies

Welch regiment and SWB, I think are mostly welsh boyos. Plus later Welsh guards. Plus the problem of the Monmouth units. At the time, English or Welsh lads(or consider themselves).

Given the problems of Scots V English units has a Welsh/English study been done? Not in anyway giving into nationalcentric views, ust the question of welsh lads in the trenchs. I understand WW1 was seen as big blow to the welsh language.

Oh and just to add............. Royal Monmouthshire Royal Engineers. RE unit or Welsh RE unit Great unit to work with Btw!

[ccsk]

I am afraid I can't add to the facts and figures that have been given but one thing that I do not think has come up before on this subject of higher Scottish casualty levels per % of those that enlisted is that surely the type of regiment makes a difference? It seems to me that at least part of the explanation could be that the Scotts provided a higher percentage of infantry soldiers than the English, if this is the case then you could understand the higher casualy rates to a degree.

Before I get any 'oh so the Scots are only good fae cannon fodder' comments my relatives are all from Newcastle and were miners, labourers or navvies so there is no higher moral ground being sort here. the Northumberland Fusiliers rasied the 2nd highest number of battalions in WW1 (the London Regiment raised more) and I would suspect that the economy in Northumberland was not too different to Scotland i.e mainly mining some heavy industry and rural moorland. If Northumberland raised so many Infantry units isn't it possible they may have provided less people to the APC, AVC, WABC and MT drivers etc than the national average as well?

As I say I have no evidence but it just seems possible to me that if you compare the casualties rates of an 'infantry heavy' set of recruits it is likely they will be higher than one that includes more support arms - and it would be useful to explore this option to see if it impacts on the figures at all.

[truthergw]

I think you may have a valid point there. Scots provided 2 Scottish divisions, 9th and 15th for the New armies, They were among the assault divisions at Loos. They also provided a TF division, the 51st. The battle of Loos and the battle of Arras with its high casualty rates, saw a high proportion of Scots troops engaged. That may have helped account for the higher than pro rata casualties.

Edited for typo pointed out in a later post.

[nigelfe]

What a load of nonsense based on 'heroic' (I use the term loosely) assumptions. The first question is 'define Scottish?'.

I also find it personally offensive to assume that all members of regts such as the London Scottish considered themselves Scots, as it happens my father was the first RSM of the 2 Bn in 1938 (until he was recommmissioned in 1939)and served in a Scottish named regt throughout the war. He certainly didn't consider himself a Scot, the nearest Scots relative was his maternal grandmother who had 'migrated' to London (showing good sense).

My great uncle (other side of the family) died serving in the London Scottish in 1914, all his parents and grandparets were born in and around London.

Its also extremely presumptious to assume that men serving in the armies of Aust, Canada, NZ who had some ancestral connection to Scotland (or anywhere else) considered themselve Scots, (or any other part of the British Isles). As now, now doubt men born in other parts of the British Isles lived and worked in Scotland. Its questionable if they considered themselves Scots even if they served in a Scots regt.

[Lachlan]

I think you may have a valid point there. Scots provided 2 Scottish divisions, 9th and 15th for the New armies, They were among the assault divisions at Loos. They also provided a TF division, the 52nd. The battle of Loos and the battle of Arras with its high casualty rates, saw a high proportion of Scots troops engaged. That may have helped account for the higher than pro rata casualties.

Don't forget the Fighting Fifty-First !

Also, the reserve TF divisions, 64th (2nd Highland) and 65th (2nd Lowland). I had a granddad and gt uncle in the 51st Highland, great uncle in the 52nd Lowland, granddad in the 65th and a gt uncle in the 9th Scottish (26th Highland Bde).

I understood the deaths stated by the SNWM to be Scottish persons, in whatever branch of service they died - (not Canadians, Aussies etc with Scottish origins) was (I forgot the precise figure) around 149 thousand.

[Gibbo]

The Scottish National War Memorial's website gives the following criteria for inclusion in its Roll of Honour.

"A member of the Armed Forces of the Crown or of the Merchant Navy who was either a Scotsman (i.e. born in Scotland or who had a Scottish born father or Mother) or served in a Scottish Regiment and was killed or died (except as a result of suicide) as a result of a wound, injury or disease sustained (a) in a theatre of operations for which a medal has been or is awarded; or ( whilst on duty in aid of the Civil Power."

I assume that the percentage of Scots killed has been calculated by dividing the number of men on the Scottish Roll of Honour by the population of Scotland. If so, it is misleading.

Men of Scottish birth or parentage and non-Scots serving in Scottish Regiments who were not residents of Scotland would be included in the casualties but excluded from the population.

Residents of Scotland who were not of Scottish birth or parentage and did not serve in a Scottish Regiment would be excluded from the casualties but included in the population.

I would guess that there would be more Scots living outside Scotland and non-Scots in Scottish Regiments than there were non-Scots who lived in Scotland and did not serve in a Scottish Regiment.

Thus, dividing the number of names on the Scottish Roll of Honour by the population of Scotland will exaggerate the proportion of Scots killed.

Niall Ferguson claimed in The Pity of War claimed that the proportion of Scots killed was 26.4% of those mobilised (UK 11.8%), 10.9% of males aged 15-49 (UK 6.3%) and 3.1% of population (UK 1.6%). His source is The Great War and the British People by Jay Winter.

I suspect that a higher proportion of Scots than of the UK overall were killed for the reasons stated in previous posts to this thread, but I doubt if it was as high as Ferguson claims for the reasons I've given above.

[hazelclark]

I think you are splitting hairs. A "Scottish" regiment raised in Scotland is likely to have a much higher contingent of "Scots" than a regiment raised in London, or anywhere else for that matter.

I would also take issue with your statement that Canadians, Australians and New Zealanders with connections to Scotland did not consider themselves to be Scots. While I would agree that second and third generation people of Scottish heritage might not consider themselves to be "Scots" it is a FACT that a large percentage of the "Colonials" who either enlisted in their adopted country, or rushed back to Britain to enlist in Briitish Regiments, considered themselves to be fighting for "their " homeland, whether they were Scottish, English, Irish or Welsh. I have at least three great Uncles who went back to Scotland to serve in Scottish regiments, and another two who served with Canadian Regiments.

Hazel Clark

What a load of nonsense based on 'heroic' (I use the term loosely) assumptions. The first question is 'define Scottish?'.

I also find it personally offensive to assume that all members of regts such as the London Scottish considered themselves Scots, as it happens my father was the first RSM of the 2 Bn in 1938 (until he was recommmissioned in 1939)and served in a Scottish named regt throughout the war. He certainly didn't consider himself a Scot, the nearest Scots relative was his maternal grandmother who had 'migrated' to London (showing good sense).

My great uncle (other side of the family) died serving in the London Scottish in 1914, all his parents and grandparets were born in and around London.

Its also extremely presumptious to assume that men serving in the armies of Aust, Canada, NZ who had some ancestral connection to Scotland (or anywhere else) considered themselve Scots, (or any other part of the British Isles). As now, now doubt men born in other parts of the British Isles lived and worked in Scotland. Its questionable if they considered themselves Scots even if they served in a Scots regt.

[Guest]

I think that any arguments based on 'Scottish' Battalions, Brigades or Divisions does not stand up to careful scrutiny of the hard numbers. The idea that Scottish Battalions were completely Scottish is a fallacy even at the beginning of the War. The 1005 men of the 1st Bn King's Own Scottish Borderers gave the following countries as their place of birth in the 1911 Census

Scotland......649 .....(64.6%)

England......310.......(30.8%) [- only 36 from Nothumberland]

Ireland.............31.........(3.1%)

India............12.........(1.2%)

USA...............3.........(0.3%)

Not recorded...15....(1.5%)

TOTAL........1005

This clearly demonstrates that that less than 2/3rds of enlisted men in this Scottish battalion were Scottish by birth. The 2nd Bn Black Watch records 88.2% Scottish by birth and the 1st Bn The Royal Scots records 59.3% Scottish by birth in the same Census. The average for these 3 battalions is 70.7% and the range would suggest somewhere between 20%-30% of [Edit: these] regular Scottish battalion recruits were not born in Scotland. Scanning the names of the non-Scots born, there are few traditionally Scottish surnames, again suggesting they were not expatriate Scots but free-booting men with no Scottish bloodline - predominantly English, Irish and Welsh. A similar range of statistics can be seen in many other Regular Army Scottish battalions, Welsh Battalions and Irish battalions of the pre-War period.

Interestingly when one looks at the country of origin of the men in English battalions in the sames census, one does not see many Scots. In the 4th Bn Worcestershire Regiment (a typical example) 983 of the 1041 men were born in England. To save you the calculation that is 94.4%. There were precisely 3 Scotsmen in the Bn (0.3%). I have researched a few dozen of the English, Scottish and Irish Battalions listed in the 1911 Census and the numbers reflected in the 4th Bn Worcestershire Regt are very typical. The point here is that in the Regular Army of 1911 (most of whom would have served in 1914) the fairly large numbers of Englishmen serving in Scottish regiments were not offset by a similar proportion of Scotsmen serving in English regiments.

While the Scottish battalions of the TF and Kitchener Armies were (initially) predominantly recruited from Scotsmen (indigenous and expatriate)* after the slaughter of 1915 the ethnicity (for want of a better word) changed radically as men were sent to where they were needed. Even within some of the Country based Divisions there was much dilution: An officer of the 10th Irish Division recorded that barely half of the Division at Gallipoli were Irish.

* I believe the qualification for the Tynside Scottish was to have at least one Grandparent who was 'Scottish'. How this was proved I do not know, but that would suggest a man with 3 English grandparents and 2 English parents could qualify, which suggests again that the 'Scottishness' of the Tyneside Scots, Liverpool Scots and London Scots would have been a romantic ideal rather than a hard fact.

For the record I have English and Scottish parents and Grandfathers who served in the 6th Bn Royal Scots Fusiliers and the 1/1st Derbyshire Yeomanry in WWI so hopefully I have an unbiased view.

Any mistakes are mine. MG

[6th Shropshires]

Hi All

It's clear you can not go by Regiments ect, the only way to get a % of Scottish (or any Country) deaths is firstly look at the Scottish male population in the UK or more to the point world wide, then get the number Scottish dead from Soldiers Died and other sources (there is bound to be a small number with no place of birth)and then work out what % of male Scottish population of the world who died, then the same would have to be done for the English. I would guess that such figures were done after the was, I have seen % figures for UK, Germany and France.

Annette

[Theletterwriter]

What a load of nonsense based on 'heroic' (I use the term loosely) assumptions. The first question is 'define Scottish?'.

I also find it personally offensive to assume that all members of regts such as the London Scottish considered themselves Scots, as it happens my father was the first RSM of the 2 Bn in 1938 (until he was recommmissioned in 1939)and served in a Scottish named regt throughout the war. He certainly didn't consider himself a Scot, the nearest Scots relative was his maternal grandmother who had 'migrated' to London (showing good sense).

My great uncle (other side of the family) died serving in the London Scottish in 1914, all his parents and grandparets were born in and around London.

Its also extremely presumptious to assume that men serving in the armies of Aust, Canada, NZ who had some ancestral connection to Scotland (or anywhere else) considered themselve Scots, (or any other part of the British Isles). As now, now doubt men born in other parts of the British Isles lived and worked in Scotland. Its questionable if they considered themselves Scots even if they served in a Scots regt.

I think this thread shows that it will be impossible to precisely answer the intial query about whether a great percentage of Scots were killed in the First World War compared with the other home nations. Luckily, we were fighting as the United Kingdom and the Empire/Commonwealth rather than completely separate nations. Just one small point about the above quote. If Nigel finds it offensive to assume all members of Scottish regiments were Scottish, he should stop and think how offensive it is to the other home and Commonwealth nations when people in the media, including academics who should know better, rattle on about the English Army, English Navy etc. in the World Wars. As I previously said, I travel throughout the UK with my work and it is apparent how many people were lost in both Wars but particularly the First when I stop and look at the names on a war memorial. I find it much more worthwhile to pay my respects than wondering where they or their ancestors were born.

We are all Jock Tampson's bairns.

Douglas

[truthergw]

Don't forget the Fighting Fifty-First !

Also, the reserve TF divisions, 64th (2nd Highland) and 65th (2nd Lowland). I had a granddad and gt uncle in the 51st Highland, great uncle in the 52nd Lowland, granddad in the 65th and a gt uncle in the 9th Scottish (26th Highland Bde).

I understood the deaths stated by the SNWM to be Scottish persons, in whatever branch of service they died - (not Canadians, Aussies etc with Scottish origins) was (I forgot the precise figure) around 149 thousand.

I apologise. That was a horrendous typo. I meant the 51st. I'll edit the error.

[Lachlan]

I apologise. That was a horrendous typo. I meant the 51st. I'll edit the error.

No need - we're all pals here !!!

[truthergw]

What a load of nonsense based on 'heroic' (I use the term loosely) assumptions. The first question is 'define Scottish?'.

I also find it personally offensive to assume that all members of regts such as the London Scottish considered themselves Scots, as it happens my father was the first RSM of the 2 Bn in 1938 (until he was recommmissioned in 1939)and served in a Scottish named regt throughout the war. He certainly didn't consider himself a Scot, the nearest Scots relative was his maternal grandmother who had 'migrated' to London (showing good sense).

My great uncle (other side of the family) died serving in the London Scottish in 1914, all his parents and grandparets were born in and around London.

Its also extremely presumptious to assume that men serving in the armies of Aust, Canada, NZ who had some ancestral connection to Scotland (or anywhere else) considered themselve Scots, (or any other part of the British Isles). As now, now doubt men born in other parts of the British Isles lived and worked in Scotland. Its questionable if they considered themselves Scots even if they served in a Scots regt.

I'm sorry if you have taken personal offense at my post. It was not intended to cause any. However, data to support my argument is readily available based on men recorded as being Scottish. Whether a man feels himself to be Scots or not is hardly to the point. I am going by the records. Incidentally, the two Scottish New Army divisions recruited initially in Scotland and their first action was at Loos. The 51st, a TF division was again initially 100% Scottish and like the New Army units, would start to receive English draughts after conscription. One only has to read the unit histories to see that they retained their largely Scottish makeup until the end of the war. The exception being the inclusion of Newfoundland troops then South African troops who replaced the 28th Brigade. Both of these contingents included kilted troops who were proud to claim a Scots connection. I deliberately did not mention the Canadian kilted troops who fought as Canadians. I have no idea how many ANZAC troops considered themselves as Scottish by birth or ancestry, I know many did but I consider them, like Canadians to be Empire troops, not Scots. There is no mystery about Scotland suffering relatively more casualties than other nations of the British Isles. Scotland had historically sent her sons to the army and the navy. It was a major source of employment in the Highlands and Islands. Scots mercenaries had a history stretching back well before the Union. I made no claim as to martial prowess, what I was pointing out has its roots in economic history.

[hazelclark]

Thankyou for that. I had no such data to support my assumptions - I was just irritated by "NIgelfe's" comments.

Martin I quite concur with you also - it is an impossible business anyway as people like me do become rickety when frequently classed as "English".

H.C.

I'm sorry if you have taken personal offense at my post. It was not intended to cause any. However, data to support my argument is readily available based on men recorded as being Scottish. Whether a man feels himself to be Scots or not is hardly to the point. I am going by the records. Incidentally, the two Scottish New Army divisions recruited initially in Scotland and their first action was at Loos. The 51st, a TF division was again initially 100% Scottish and like the New Army units, would start to receive English draughts after conscription. One only has to read the unit histories to see that they retained their largely Scottish makeup until the end of the war. The exception being the inclusion of Newfoundland troops then South African troops who replaced the 28th Brigade. Both of these contingents included kilted troops who were proud to claim a Scots connection. I deliberately did not mention the Canadian kilted troops who fought as Canadians. I have no idea how many ANZAC troops considered themselves as Scottish by birth or ancestry, I know many did but I consider them, like Canadians to be Empire troops, not Scots. There is no mystery about Scotland suffering relatively more casualties than other nations of the British Isles. Scotland had historically sent her sons to the army and the navy. It was a major source of employment in the Highlands and Islands. Scots mercenaries had a history stretching back well before the Union. I made no claim as to martial prowess, what I was pointing out has its roots in economic history.

[Guest]

Niall Ferguson claimed in The Pity of War claimed that the proportion of Scots killed was 26.4% of those mobilised (UK 11.8%), 10.9% of males aged 15-49 (UK 6.3%) and 3.1% of population (UK 1.6%). His source is The Great War and the British People by Jay Winter.I suspect that a higher proportion of Scots than of the UK overall were killed for the reasons stated in previous posts to this thread, but I doubt if it was as high as Ferguson claims for the reasons I've given above.

Gibbo - I could not agree more. The idea that slightly more than 1 in 4 of all Scots mobilised died in WWI has to be one of the more spurious statistics in WWI mythology. Reversing the Scots data out of the UK data, Winter would have us believe that, by comparison, only 1 in 10 of the non-Scottish men mobilised were killed. Implicitly this would mean (proportionally) 2.5 times as many mobilised Scots died than the non-Scots. This is something that I just don't believe. While possible, I think it highly improbable.

The only way this figure could be generated is to include every man who served in a Scottish regiment who died. As this thread has demonstrated over just a few days, the basis for this calculation has very little credibility - The 'Scottish" Casualty figures in the Infantry are heavily distorted for all the reasons highlighted on this thread. As the war progressed the 'country' ethnicity of Scottish battalions changed drastically and was diluted by recruits from outside Scotland. It would be interesting to trawl a Scottish Battalion SDGW data for any evidence to support Jay Winters' claim. I would imagine researching the fallen of the Royal Scots (highest number of KIA for any Scottish regiment - 11,160 KIA) and the HLI ( second highest at 10,030) would be a good starting point to try and get to the bottom of this.

I do not have the SDGW disc, but does anybody know if it can generate a spreadsheet/datasheet that also includes details of next of kin/parents? That way it would be possible to get some samples of data that might prove or disprove Jay Winters claims. Having crunched the data on a number of Regular Scottish Battalions, I suspect Winter is way off the mark and has probably helped create or perpetuate another WWI myth.

None of my assumptions I can (yet) prove, but research in progress suggest to me that the 26.4% figure is way off the mark. Indicative average numbers suggest at least 20% of men in Scottish Battalions were not of Scottish descent. and in some Bns it was as high as 41%. Small samples so far, but quite interesting data.

MG

[dundeesown]

Looks as if some people are going a bit off track,the o.p. was about Scottish losses I don`t seem to see in the O.P. that they are saying that every man killed or who died in a Scottish Regiment was Scottish,I can put up pages from the Dundee AVL with forty,fifty and sixty names of lads from Dundee and only ten or so men per page were in " Scottish Regiments ".

Gary.

[Guest]

Looks as if some people are going a bit off track,the o.p. was about Scottish losses I don`t seem to see in the O.P. that they are saying that every man killed or who died in a Scottish Regiment was Scottish,I can put up pages from the Dundee AVL with forty,fifty and sixty names of lads from Dundee and only ten or so men per page were in " Scottish Regiments ".

Gary.

The SNWM stats are being used to suggest that more Scots died as a % of the population than any other nation in the UK. This is (in my humble opinion) at best distorted and at worst factually incorrect.

Debates over definitions over who is a Scot will sway this argument, but to my mind statistics are being stretched to extremes to make spurious claims over national contribution. . The idea that 'Scottish' casualties figures heavily laden with the dead from other nations can be used to make this argument is quite frankly insulting to the thousands of non-Scots who served and died in Scottish units. The reference given to support the view that proportionally more Scots died is Winter, but no detailed numbers or methodology are provided to support Winter's argument. In the absence of this, it is worth debating and analysing this bold claim.

Given that the vast majority of casualties occurred in the Infantry in WWI it is a good starting point for the analysis. Casualty rates in the Infantry were far higher than any other arm so if we can prove that the "Scottish" Infantry casualties are over-stated it is extremely unlikely that this would be offset by "Scottish" casualties in other arms as you infer. The authority on casualties is the 880 page "Statistics of the Military Effort of the British Empire During the Great War 1914-1920" commonly known by students of the Great War as "Statistics". Part IV covers casualties and runs for 126 pages. From 4th Aug 1914 to 14th March 1920 in the Regular Army 80.2% of men killed were in the infantry (336,180 Infantry men killed of a total of 418,990 killed). In the TF 87% of all men killed were in the Infantry (106,973 infantry men killed of 122,239 total killed). Combined (regular and TF) this amounts to 81.9% of all deaths occurred in the Infantry (443,153 Infantry deaths of the 541,229 total killed). - see Table (ii) on Page 252......The point here is that the infantry lost four times as many men than all other arms combined. The idea that statistical variance in deaths in other arms could offset the brutal and dominant numbers reflected by the infantry killed is a nonsense. Any detailed analysis of the Infantry and particularly "Scottish" Infantry deaths would have sound statistical grounding. It should capture somewhere between 82% -87% of the argument and if one accepts that Scots were more likely to join the infantry than any other arm (as has been suggested on this thread) it would push these numbers higher and further reinforce the theory that analysing the "Scottish" Infantry deaths would get us closer to the answer.

I would suggest the half a million deaths are statistically more relevant than a few names on one town's memorials. If you have stats from Dundee it would be useful to share them as it might add to the debate. but I am curious to know why these can be scaled up to make a case that more Scots died as a % of the population than any of the other home nations?.......

Personally I am ambivalent to what the result of the analysis is but I do think it is important to establish fact rather than blindly accept unsubstantiated conjecture by Winter. Does anyone other than Winter and the SNWM really think 1 in 4 Scotsmen enlisted died v 1 in 10 from outside Scotland. It is simply ludicrous for Winter to even suggest this in my view. The numbers don't stack up.

MG

[Lachlan]

I suppose we could also look at our own Scottish families and see what death rate was sustained, comparing it to the popular ratio of 1 in 4.

Of the relatives I know about:-

• James Gow (Granddad) - 1/6th Btn Black Watch (51st Highland Div) and RSF (poss 11th Btn 59th Div - 1918) - survived
• William Younger Gow MC (Gt Uncle) - 1/8th Btn Royal Warwickshire (48th South Midland Div) and 25th Div 1918 - survived
• Peter Montgomery (Granddad) - 2/7th Btn Royal Scots (65th 2nd Lowland Div) and 4th Reserve Btn Royal Scots (1918-19) - survived
• Thomas Montgomery (Gt Uncle) - 1/7th Btn Royal Scots (52nd Lowland Division) - survived
• Neil Weir (Gt Uncle) - 1/8th Btn Argyll & Sutherland Hldrs (51st Highland Division) and RSF (poss 11th Btn 59th Div -1918) - survived
• Donald Weir (Gt Uncle) - 1/8th Btn Argyll & Sutherland Highlanders (51st Highland Div, 61st 2nd South Midland Div, 15th Scottish Div -1918) - survived
• David Elder Robertson (Gt Uncle) - 8th Btn Black Watch (9th Scottish Div) KIA 3/5/17 (3rd Battle of the Scarpe)
• George Robertson (Gt Uncle) - RAMC (17th Company - The Curragh) - survived
• Thomas Robertson (Gt Uncle) - Royal Engineers (service unknown) - survived

Therefore my family statistics are that 1 in 9 Scottish soldiers were killed, which sounds a lot luckier than the 1 in 4 average figure.

[nigelfe]

Martin's post #14 is an excellant start to getting in touch with reality.

Post #12 quoting the Scottish War Memorial's definition is interesting. It is also a disgrace, a classic example of Scottish grandstanding and near criminal mis-representation. The key bit is that anyone who served in a Scottish regiment counts as Scottish! Based on this fallacious claim we can at least recognise that the Scottish data is fiction.