Scottish losses

[museumtom]

I spent two weeks going through De Ruvigny's Roll of Honour picking out Irishmen, thinking that they would be the higher number of casualties. What I found was that the Scots had significantly more casualties than the Irish in that series of books.

Cheers.

Tom.

[Theletterwriter]

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.

I am following this thread with great interest although some of the comments are becoming slightly bizzare. Does Nigelfe know why his father and great uncle served with the London Scottish e.g. was it a family tradition or did the regiment recruit in the area where the family lived (lives) or were there strong family ties with Scotland which do not appear to be so relevant today?

Douglas

[WilliamRev]

I understood that a greater percentage of the population of Scotland than England/Wales served in the army, and so one would expect a higher proportion of the population to be casualties. I think that Trevor Royle makes this point in Flowers of the Forest.

But just to take one regiment, the Royal Scots Fusiliers, as a example:

looking at "Soldiers Died in the Great War" part 26, and assuming that this is a fair cross-section of the entire regiment, we find that: in the two regular battalions (1st and 2nd) around one third of the men were recruited in England - not just the north and the midlands, but many in London and on the south coast, and the vast majority of these were English-born - just a few were Scotsmen who had moved south.

In the Territorial battalions of the RSF approx. one eighth were recruited in England, seven eighths in Scotland.

In the New Army battalions of the RSF around a third were recruited in England, two thirds Scotland - I suppose that this latter is the least surprising statistic since we know that drafts of men ended up in all sorts of units, so no surprise that loads of Englishmen ended up in a Scottish regiment.

So, for example, with roughly one third of the 1,710 men killed in the 1st battalion Royal Scots Fusiliers during WW1 being English, one needs to look carefully at claims that, per capita, more Scotsmen than Englishmen died. I'm not saying that they didn't - just that we need to examine such claims carefully because I'm sure that the RSF weren't the only Scottish regiment which contained loads of Englishmen.

William

[nigelfe]

Does Nigelfe know why his father and great uncle served with the London Scottish e.g. was it a family tradition or did the regiment recruit in the area where the family lived (lives) or were there strong family ties with Scotland which do not appear to be so relevant today?

My g-uncle was 46 when KIA (at bit old for a cbt infantryman in my opinion). I've no idea when he joined the Scottish, apart from being in London, which was formed in the latter part of the 19th C so not much time for family tradition, and there's nothing to indicate any ancestors with military service (his father and gfather were MDs as was his brother, he wasn't). The Scottish were unusual (unique?) in that they only commissioned officers from their ranks, they seem to have had a reputation as a regiment of 'professional men'.

My father passed out of Sandhurst in 1917 and was commissioned into the Indian Army. After the General Strike he decided to join the TA, wasn't impressed by most TA officers and decided to join the London Scottish as a private, I'm not sure whether or not he had any friends already serving with them. One of his gfathers had long service in the Royal Artillery reaching WO, no other military connections (apart from a relic said to have been given to one of his forebears by John Churchill, 1st duke of M).

[IRC Kevin]

If death due to illness is to be taken into account there may very well be a higher figure for Scottish regiments. The official history of the 51st Highland Division describes how much more deadlier the measles epidemic, which occurred in late 1914, was for soldiers from north of Inverness, with around 11% of all soldiers contracting the illness dying from it, a rate ten times higher than for those from south of Inverness. (Presumably because of less genetic resistance to these diseases. Scarlet Fever and Diptheria accounted for another 7 soldiers during this period) Also, if totals from the divisonal casualty statistics are being used for calculations, then it must taken into account that until 1916 the 51st Highland Division actually contained four battalions from N.W. England.

[truthergw]

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.

This is a classic illustration of the fact that statistics have no relevance to small numbers. In my family, 3 went to war. 2 DOW. so Scottish figures 'ought ' to be 2/3rds fatalities.

[Steven Broomfield]

Out of interest, The London Scottish were originally raised as Rifle Volunteers in 1859, so there was time for an (albeit brief) family tradition.

I believe that up to the war, recruits were to be of at least Scottish descent, so born in Scotland, or in England of Scots ancestry. (They also had to pay a joining fee and an annual sub).

They were largely "professional", many from the Ministries nearby, and others from the legal profession and business. I suspect a large number would have walked into a commission in many other regiments and a very large number of those who survived Messines did just that.

During the war these rules were somewhat relaxed, but looking at the Great War memorial at RHQ as I do from time to time, I never cease to be intrigued by the high proportion of Scottish names.

And I have to say that, having worn the Hodden kilt and marched behind the Pipes and Drums I am more than happy to consider myself an honorary Scotsman. I joined because RHQ was a 5-minute walk from work and there was a singularly smaller choice of infantry TA units to join in 1978 than there had been in 1914.

[Theletterwriter]

Nigel / Steven

Thanks for the update re the family history and the brief summary re the London Scottish origins.

Cheers

Douglas

[Guest]

I understood that a greater percentage of the population of Scotland than England/Wales served in the army, and so one would expect a higher proportion of the population to be casualties. I think that Trevor Royle makes this point in Flowers of the Forest.

But just to take one regiment, the Royal Scots Fusiliers, as a example:

looking at "Soldiers Died in the Great War" part 26, and assuming that this is a fair cross-section of the entire regiment, we find that: in the two regular battalions (1st and 2nd) around one third of the men were recruited in England - not just the north and the midlands, but many in London and on the south coast, and the vast majority of these were English-born - just a few were Scotsmen who had moved south.

In the Territorial battalions of the RSF approx. one eighth were recruited in England, seven eighths in Scotland.

In the New Army battalions of the RSF around a third were recruited in England, two thirds Scotland - I suppose that this latter is the least surprising statistic since we know that drafts of men ended up in all sorts of units, so no surprise that loads of Englishmen ended up in a Scottish regiment.

So, for example, with roughly one third of the 1,710 men killed in the 1st battalion Royal Scots Fusiliers during WW1 being English, one needs to look carefully at claims that, per capita, more Scotsmen than Englishmen died. I'm not saying that they didn't - just that we need to examine such claims carefully because I'm sure that the RSF weren't the only Scottish regiment which contained loads of Englishmen.

William

I would add 2 points -

1. As a theoretical exercise, and making the generous assumption that these ratios stayed the same through the recruiting process, and applying these ratios

Two Regular Battalions served overseas - assume 30% non Scots

Two TF Battalions served overseas (1/4th and1/5th) - assume 12.5% non Scots

Five Service Battalions served overseas (6th, 7th,8th, 11th , 12th Bns) - assume 33% non Scots

Would imply in the Battalions that served overseas on average 27.7% were non Scots. Before anyone gets too excited, this exercise is purely to illustrate how easily (in theory) it would be to over estimate the 'Scottishness' of a typical Scottish Regiment. I chose the Bns that served overseas as this is where the majority of the casualties would have been, but one could reasonably have applied the same ratios to the home Bns. On such a large body of men - well over 35,000 enlisted men would be my estimate for these nine Battalions combined - the casualties we know are tilted towards the non-Scot Heavy regulars (1,710 of the 5,600 total killed (30%) were from the 1st Bn alone) . If anyone had the energy to trawl the SDGW and CWGC data on this regiment, I suspect the non-Scots would appear in the 25%-28% range. I might just do it to make the point.

2. Separately, regardless of the Scots/Non-Scots dynamic, even if we assumed they were 100% Scots, the numbers in this large sample still doesn't support Winter's statistics. Brig James's "British Regiments 1914-18" records the RSF had 5,600 killed in WWI - in a Regiment that raised 18 Battalions (Regular, TF, Service,Works, garrison etc). Assuming the SNWM would consider them all to have been mobilised and a rough estimate of 1,000 per Bn plus 5,600 replacements for the killed plus replacements for the wounded. In F & F the stats for wounded to killed were 3.45 to 1 (Source: Statistics 1914-1920) which would suggest a figure for wounded of 19,000 in this regiment. The History of the Great War: Medical Services - Casualties and Medical Statistics records 29.4% of the wounded in F&F returned. Using these rough guidelines and assuming the Royal Scots had a typical War, this would imply 5,500 of the 19,000 wounded would have returned to their Bns and 13,500 recruits would have been required to replace the wounded who did not return. All this would imply a recruiting based of 18,000 (18 battalions) +5,600 (replacements for KIA) + 13,500 (replacements for non-returning wounded) = 37,100. In turn this would imply the killed as a % of mobilised for this Bn would be 15.1%...........again this rough calculation would perhaps illustrate how far off a 26% figure would be and it does not include non-battle casualties or depot men that would increase the base numbers. I don't recall the RSF having a particularly 'easy' war*. They were in the thick of it with the best of them - also worth remembering that the Infantry accounted for the vast majority of thestanding Army and they saw the highest casualty rates compared to other arms.

* The 228 Scottish Line Infantry Battalions in WWI suffered 80,520 Killed which equates to 353 killed per Bn . The RSF had 311 killed per Bn (18 Bns) [source: Brig James "British Regiments 1914-18" ]

This is all theoretical and could be refined, but one would have to see gigantic errors in these assumptions for anything close to a 26% figure to be achieved.

MG

[nigelfe]

Two bns of London Scottish lost 1542 killed including attached.

Interestingly in the 1960s I served on operations supporting a well known Scottish battalion (not the Agile & Suffering), I was supprised by the number of English accents in the battalion, particularly Londoners.

[dundeesown]

This is just a rough and quick count and may be out by two or three either way.( I hope )

4th Btt.Black Watch Casualties O.Rs

360---13 non Scots

5th Btt B/W O.Rs

247 --- 4 non Scots

4/5th Btt B/W O.Rs

491 -- 42 non Scots

Total-1098---59 non Scots.

13th B/W ( Scottish Horse )from Feb 1917

151---10 non Scots

numbers are from SDGW (book very small print,the eyes are not as good as they used to be.)

Gary. ( I may be well out but not by much ? )

[hazelclark]

I am not sure whether you do it to annoy, or whether it is what you really feel, but I find your constant denigrating of Scots and Scottish Regiments offensive.

For the record, although I was brought up in Scotland and live now in Canada my father was English.

Hazel Clark

Two bns of London Scottish lost 1542 killed including attached.

Interestingly in the 1960s I served on operations supporting a well known Scottish battalion (not the Agile & Suffering), I was supprised by the number of English accents in the battalion, particularly Londoners.

[Tom A McCluskey]

Martin & Co.,

I’ve a few things to put straight, so please bear with me.

Statistics and Bad Samples

“The average for these 3 battalions is 70.7% and the range would suggest somewhere between 20%-30% of regular Scottish battalion recruits were not born in Scotland.”

Not true.

Your sample, as far as statistics are concerned, is what is known as a ‘bad sample’ and as such produces a bias. The trouble with a bad sample is that, needless to say, it will lead you to an incorrect conclusion. The obvious problems are as follows:

• The sample, as far as statistics is concerned, is too skewed and is too small.

• Continuing the bias in the statistics, the sample deals only with three regular battalions that are based in India – two of which are not considered to be prestige regiments*. The environmental factor (Foreign Service battalion in India) and the lack of being a prestige regiment bring about their own issues.

• The KOSB had the second lowest population in Scotland from which to recruit two regular Battalions. The Regimental District recorded 212,628 people (males and females) on the 1911 census of which you can immediately disregard over 50% as females then minus all males not of fighting age – and those not of physical fighting quality, nor an interest in joining the Army.

• It does not include TF, who were naturally very parochial.

• Last, but not least, it does not include the New Army**, which was a goliath in manpower compared to the size of the Regular Army.

* I mean this in no diminishing way to the KOSB and the Royal Scots. By prestige, I mean this within the meaning of being able to attract Royal Patronage and thus add that extra something to assist in attracting recruits. David French has done some study of this in his book ‘Military Identities’. The top cohort of line infantry consists of 8 regiments, these are: The Black Watch, Cameron Highlanders, Highland Light Infantry, Gordon Highlanders, Seaforth Highlanders, Royal Welch Fusiliers, Kings Own Yorkshire Light Infantry and The Buffs, ‘at the top of the hierarchy stood eight regiments. No fewer than five were Highland Regiments’. The KOSB were in the next cohort and The Royal Scots were in the lowest cohort (as were the Worcestershire Regiment). Not only were the KOSB hobbled by the size of their population, but their new construct (brought about by the Childers Reforms) did not come with a battalion of the Militia.

** By this I mean not only the New Army formations, but also those soldiers who have enlisted on a ‘Service’ (duration of the War) engagement.

Terminology – or adding spin to an argument

The use of the term many in the context you have used it, and without established facts, is controversial. To clarify the meaning of many, so we don't misunderstand one another, from the COD (Concise Oxford Dictionary):

------------------------------------------------------------------------

many:

- determiner, pronoun, & adjective (more, most) a large number of.

- noun [as plural noun the many] the majority of people.

PHRASES:

a good (or great) many a large number.

many a —— a large number of.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

“A similar range of statistics can be seen in many other Regular Army Scottish battalions”.

If this is so, prove it.

The Territorial Force

I am now going to use my own small sample which will illustrate a couple of points; in this case I am going to use a Highland TF battalion (4th/5th Black Watch). The basis gist of what I am getting at is concerned with the percentage of Scots in this Battalion. Additionally, it is concerned with a fact which you have reminded us a couple of times is that as the War progressed a Scottish Battalion would become less Scottish. Your exact words being: “As the war progressed the 'country' ethnicity of Scottish battalions changed drastically and was diluted by recruits from outside Scotland”. In my example, I use a composite battalion made of two battalions of the same regiment which have been in France since November 1914 (5th Black Watch) and February 1915 (4th Black Watch). The 4th being involved in all of the battles of 1915 (Neuve Chapelle, Aubers, Loos) with the exception of 2nd Ypres – 2nd Ypres running prior to and concurrent with the Battle of Aubers. My example will disprove your theory...or this sample will. The 6th and 7th Black Watch provide similar results.

Percentage of ‘Scottish-ness’ Sample – Highland TF Battalion

I now make use of my own ‘bad sample’ to illustrate the point. Here are the figures for the combat deaths in the 4th/5th Black Watch from the action at the Ancre on the 03 Sep 1916. Everyone up to, and including, number 34 were from the 4th Black Watch. All with the exception of John Barron are Scottish - though, I have to say, it is not an aberration to find an Irishman in amongst a load of Dundee folk. The soldiers are predominantly from the Battalion’s recruiting area: Dundee. Everyone beyond number 34 (James Stormont) is from the 5th Black Watch and is generally from their recruiting area: Angus and Dundee. [For those interested in the age range, the youngest soldier is 16 and the oldest is 46].

4/5 Black Watch, Ancre, 03 Sep 1916

1 [scot] Auld, David Dundee

2 [irish] Barron, John Craigmannan Co Kilkenny

3 [scot] Burnett, James Dundee

4 [scot] Cassidy, John MM Dundee

5 [scot] Connelly, Andrew Dundee

6 [scot] Crossan, Patrick Dundee.

7 [scot] Cunningham, Robert Cocks MC Dundee.

8 [scot] Duncan, William Balfour Bethune Dundee.

9 [scot] Forbes, William Dundee

10 [scot] Gould, George Dundee.

11 [scot] Gow, Donald Dundee

12 [scot] Gray, James Dundee

13 [scot] Green, Martin Dundee.

14 [scot] Henderson, William Cupar, Fife.

15 [scot] Houston, Davis Dundee

16 [scot] Hutton, David Benvie Forfarshire

17 [scot] Kelly, James Dundee

18 [scot] King, William Dundee

19 [scot] Knox, James Monifieth Forfarshire

20 [scot] Masson, Peter Glasgow (lived in Broughty Ferry).

21 [scot] McBain, William Dundee

22 [scot] McCumiskey, William Dundee

23 [scot] McDonald, Hugh Dundee

24 [scot] McLeod, Alexander Dundee

25 [scot] Meekison, Thomas Dundee

26 [scot] Middleton, James Johnstone Dundee.

27 [scot] Miller, Andrew Dundee.

28 [scot] Money, Robert Dundee

29 [scot] Murray, David Gibson Carnoustie, Forfarshire.

30 [scot] Ross, Thomas Dundee

31 [scot] Shepherd, Edward Alexander Broughty Ferry.

32 [scot] Simpson, Andrew Dundee.

33 [scot] Smith, Norman Dundee

34 [scot] Stormont, James Dundee

35 [scot] Mill, Robert Cowper King Kirriemuir, Forfarshire.

36 [scot] Addison, William Kirriemuir Forfarshire

37 [scot] Alexander, Harry Arbroath

38 [scot] Bowman, Charles Hampton Brechin.

39 [scot] Boyd, Joseph Dundee

40 [scot] Cargill, William Linross Forfarshire

41 [scot] Clark, Charles Brechin Forfarshire

42 [scot] Craig, George Arbroath, Forfarshire.

43 [scot] Cunningham, Peter Broughty Ferry West, Forfarshire.

44 [scot] Davie, Alexander Montrose, Forfarshire

45 [scot] Dunbar, Alexander Brechin Forfarshire

46 [scot] Duncan, John Cupar Angus Perthshire

47 [scot] Ferguson, James Dundee

48 [scot] Grewar, Stewart Kirriemuir, Forfarshire.

49 [scot] Hannay, George Montrose Forfarshire

50 [scot] Laird, James Forfar

51 [scot] Lundie, James Arbroath, Forfarshire.

52 [scot] McLaren, Henry Dundee

53 [scot] Mackie, John Kinneff, Kincardineshire.

54 [scot] Marchbank, William Hawick, Roxburghshire.

55 [scot] Martin, David Brechin, Forfarshire.

56 [scot] Meechan, John (Meekham) Greenock.

57 [scot] Mitchell, Alexander Bell Powis, Montrose.

58 [scot] Mowat, George Montrose.

59 [scot] Murray, David Montrose.

60 [scot] Rea, William Arbroath

61 [scot] Robertson, John Dundee.

62 [scot] Simpson, Alexander Kirriemuir, Forfarshire.

63 [scot] Smith, Harry Dundee.

64 [scot] Smith, William Laing Brechin Forfarshire

65 [scot] Stewart, James Montrose, Forfarshire.

66 [scot] Tait, Robert Dundee

67 [scot] Thomson, Robert Arbroath

68 [scot] Mowat, George Montrose. B Coy.

68 combat deaths

67 Scottish = 98.5%

1 Irish = 1.5%

Based on your estimation, this would not be the case on two accounts:

• Firstly: the percentage is too Scottish.

• Secondly: it does not conform to the statement that recruits [paraphrasing] ‘were put where needed’ after the losses of 1915.

4/5 Black Watch - 3rd Ypres

I won’t publish any more names, but moving forward in time to the 3rd Ypres (the 4/5th BW being in action on the 31 Jul 1917) there are 93 combat deaths. The breakdown of nationalities is as follows:

93 combat deaths:

87 – Scottish (93.5%)

5 – English (3 of which are officers, one being with the MGC Infantry; and the remaining 2 are other ranks)

1 – American

4/5 Black Watch - German Spring Offensive March to beginning of April 1918

Now taking it forward to the German Spring Offensive in 1918, there are 89 combat deaths, with a breakdown as follows:

82 – Scottish (92%)

3 – English (1 with New Army number, 1 with 4 BW number, 1 with 6 BW number)

2 – Irish (1 with 6 BW number, 1 with 7 BW number)

1 – Hong Kong (4 BW number)

1 - South African (4 BW number)

4/5 Black Watch - Buzancy, July 1918

At Buzancy, in July 1918, there are 33 deaths of which 2 are English with New Army numbers. Scottish deaths are 94%. There are 6th and 7th BW numbers in the Battalion, but the majority of the Regimental numbers are BW TF numbers (20 BW TF numbers, 9 New Army numbers*, one 3rd Bn number)

*4/5 BW had by now absorbed the 9th BW.

7 Black Watch - Beaumont Hamel, 13 November 1916

Here’s a 7th Black Watch statistic from Beaumont Hamel, 13 Nov 1916. I use this to illustrate the point that this was not a phenomena isolated to the 4/5th Black Watch. The 7th Black Watch fought in the 51st Highland Division. At this battle the 7th BW suffered following:

34 Combat deaths:

33 - Scottish (97%)

1 - English (Pte Hubert de Reuter – the last remaining male heir of Baron Herbert de Reuter, of the news agency fame)

Regular Battalions

“A similar range of statistics can be seen in many other Regular Army Scottish battalions…”

It is almost a physical impossibility for a Scottish regiment to be 100% Scottish. There is always going to be an English percentage in every regular Scottish regiment due to one fact: they all have a Band, and that band is manned by musicians from Kneller Hall (predominantly Englishmen).

Regular Battalions of The Black Watch

1 Black Watch

The 1st Battalion, on mobilization based at Aldershot (from Wauchope – page 3):

‘Of the officers and men 92 per cent were Scottish. The average height of the officers was 5 ft 9 ½ in. and the rank and file 5 ft 7 ½ in.’

2 Black Watch

The 2nd Battalion, on mobilization was based at Meerut, India (from Wauchope – page 163, footnote):

‘The Black Watch have always been nearly wholly Scottish. The actual percentage of nationalities in the ranks in October, 1913, the last date before the outbreak of war for which the figures are available, was: Scotsmen 88 ½ , English 8 ½ , Others 3. If the Band, which is recruited from Kneller Hall boys and is entirely English, be excluded, the percentage of Scotsmen was over 95.’

The Gist of the Thread

Going back to the starting point of the thread: “Scottish loses expressed as a population were much higher than other British nations”, from the post starter. Let me emphasize that the original poster specifies Scottish.

Scottish Menfolk

It is a fact that a considerable amount of the menfolk of Scotland emigrated immediately prior to War. It is not a new thing and there are certainly more Highlanders living in Canada than there are in Scotland. There's also more Scottish Regiments in Canada than there are in Scotland. The 1911 Scottish census records that the ratio of females to males in the county of Forfar (Dundee being the largest city in the county) was 127:100 (the figure for Bute is 141:1 and Nairn is 135:1). A lot of Scottish males emigrated to find work, or moved away as female labourers undercut their wages, an example being Harry Band of Montrose. Not many people will know the name, but Harry served in the antecedent of the 5th Black Watch. It has also been alleged that he’s the so-called ‘crucified Canadian’. Harry, like many Scottish emigrants of the War era, was Scottish by birth. He is not counted as British War Dead; he’s not even on the Montrose war memorial – even though this is where he was from. Regardless of this matter he is still Scottish, much the same as an Essex expat dying in Marbella is still English. Anyway, here's Harry’s enlistment papers:

http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/databases/cef/001042-119.02-e.php?image_url=http://data2.archives.ca/cef/well1/219389a.gif&id_nbr=23121

There are many others like him and that is why the Scottish National War Memorial remembers them. The guiding principle of the Scottish National War Memorial being:

"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 in a theatre of operations for which a medal has been or is awarded; or whilst on duty in aid of the Civil Power."

The man chooses the Regiment, not the other way about. Cpl Ernest Albert Skerrey, from Wolverhampton, was an ex-regular soldier and pal of William Linton Andrews. He fought and died in the 4th Black Watch and was killed on the 25 Sep 1915 at Loos. He is remembered on the Loos memorial at Dud Corner and he is also mentioned in Linton Andrews’ book. Like his comrades of the 4th Black Watch his memory is ‘immortalised’ in the Scottish National War Memorial. It would be highly divisive and wrong for this not be the case, and I am glad that the guiding principle of the memorial is that he will be remembered with those that he fought and died with.

Casualties

Can Scottish casualties be calculated? Possibly, but it is not an easy task and I’m not the man that's going to do it.

I am in agreement with some commentators that the SNWM is not the tool to use as an authoritative guide to Scottish War Dead. For one - as already pointed out - not all of the deaths commemorated are Scottish. Its search engine is particularly unsophisticated and you would hope that it would not be beyond the wit of man to allow a more detailed interrogation of the data held. That said, I do recognise that this would require a considerable investment of time and money, and I also appreciate the service that they do provide; but it could be better. Maybe some lottery money and some volunteers can improve the data - but to what end?

The 1921 census is too vague.

The War Registers at the Scottish GRO will be of some use to establish Scotland’s War Dead; however, I imagine they will not catch the likes of Harry Band (Scottish War Dead)... but it will, however, pick up my great-grandfather - an Englishman - that fought and died in a Scottish regiment.

http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/files2/family-records/leaflet-s1.pdf

Anyway, that’s my two pennies worth.

Aye,

Tom McC

[Theletterwriter]

I have only recently joined this forum but I think all of the contributors to this thread (of which I am one) need to take a couple of slow, deep breaths and relax. If we, as a group, feel it is important to come up with a definitive answer to the question which is becoming ever more vexatious, is it possible for us to agree on a way to resolve this once and for all?

I have family connections with the RNR, HLI, Scottish Rifles and the Gordon Highlanders in the First World War either through family members who lost their lives during the conflict or returning from the War which has enabled me to type this post tonight. If it means researching all Scottish casualties in all of the services, then I am happy to hold my hand up and offer to help in any small way that I can.

Douglas

[Guest]

Tom - you make lots of very vaild arguments. I did write an equally long response but reading it back I thought "this will never end" so I then deleted it. My only interest is getting to the bottom of Winter's claim and the 26% figure I feel it is an invidious claim, but that is only my view and don't assume others should feel that way. I suspect Winter includes the Scottish expatriate diaspora and has not adjusted the English, Welsh and Irish diaspora at the same time, but what do I know? Without knowing what Winter's definitions and assumptions were there is a danger of going around in spirals, so until anyone can provide his assumptions I shall politely leave you all to it.

Regards MG ( a half Scot (Maxwell) whose 6th Bn RSF grandfather wasn't one of the fallen)

[Theletterwriter]

I can appreciate that the vast majority of casualties were suffered by the Army in the First World War. However, if we are serious about this thread, we need to have data from all the services i.e Army, Navy (including RNVR and RNR), RFC/RAF/RNAS and any other part of the armed forces who I have, in my ignorance, not indicated. The SDGW will give us the majority but not all of the relevant data.

Douglas

[nigelfe]

I am not sure whether you do it to annoy, or whether it is what you really feel, but I find your constant denigrating of Scots and Scottish Regiments offensive.

For the record, although I was brought up in Scotland and live now in Canada my father was English.

Can't help it if you want to be precious. I do not denigrate Scots or Scottish regiments, I merely challenge inflated claims and grandstanding. Particularly when the factual basis is very iffy, like the Scottish war memorial which is a disgrace. If they have to inflate themselves with such distortion then I'm happy to deliver the heaviest metaphorical boot that I can up the front or back of their kilts. Same applies to Canadians, who alo have military bignoting tendencies.

[corisande]

. I suspect Winter includes the Scottish expatriate diaspora and has not adjusted the English, Welsh and Irish diaspora at the same time, but what do I know? Without knowing what Winter's definitions and assumptions were there is a danger of going around in spirals, so until anyone can provide his assumptions I shall politely leave you all to it.

I have to agree with that. I only looked at this tread because it was attracting a lot of replies

My "normal" interest is Ireland, and I have not seen the degree of "feeling" aroused on this sort of subject outside an Irish thread.

The only way one can prove any of these things is, as Martin says, know the assumptions and work from there. Entrenched positions and heavy artillery reminds me of something ....

[Lachlan]

I must admit in my naivety, I would expect that for a roll on how many Scots died in a war, it would be people of Scottish-born nationality, whether living in the UK, or abroad - if they have not naturalised to their new country of residence - and who died in service (whether through hostile action or illness) in any military or supporting organisation of any country, anywhere in the world.

Some examples -

- Scotsman joins a Scottish regiment

- Scotsman joins an English regiment

- Scotsman joins a Corps regiment

- Scotsman joins the Royal Navy

- Scotsman living in Canada comes back to join a British unit (as my Gt Uncle George did who had emigrated to Canada without becoming Canadian)

- Scotsman resident abroad joins a Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, South African, Shanghai Scottish etc unit

- Scotsman joins the US Army

- Scotsman joins the Foreign Legion.

My biggest query is if someone born abroad to a Scottish parent who then lives in Scotland later would be seen as Scottish. I would think a Scottish-born person who goes abroad and takes up foreign nationality would not be counted formally as Scottish, even emotionally they still felt so. It's awkward - if I go to live as planned in the Philippines when I retire and take up Filipino nationality for ease of residence, I guess I wouldn't be Scottish (or British) anymore, though I would still feel it.

BTW Nigelfe - was it the Gordons you were supporting ?

[Guest]

Hello again - I now have all the books referred to citing the 26.4% figure.

1. "The Pity of War 1914-1918" by Niall Ferguson. On page 298 he states that "...the Scots were (after the Serbs and Turks) the soldiers who suffered the highest death rate of the war..." and opposite on page 299 there is Table 35 - "

Military deaths as a percentage of manpower"

listing 22 countries with the first column headed

"Total killed as a percentage of total mobilized"

as one of 3 measures. Against Scotland (which interestingly heads the table) he records 26.4%. At the foot he gives the source as J Winter, Great War p 75. - referring to J M Winter's book "The Great War and the British People"

2. "The Great War and the British People" by J M Winter. On page 75 there is Table 3.4 - "Some Estimates of Military Losses Among Combatant Countries in the 1914-1918 War" . Which lists exactly the same countries in exactly the same order as per The Pity of War p.299 with the raw data that Ferguson used to calculate his percentages. With one exception.

Scotland is not on the list.

There are 2 Editions of this book. I have tracked down both editions to ensure there was no change between editions. The Tables in editions 1 and 2 are exactly the same - neither includes Scotland. It appears that Ferguson has added his own 'statistics' for Scotland to J M Winter's list and attributed the provenance of the Scottish data incorrectly to J M Winter. The source for the British data at the foot of J M Winter's table is given as "Statistics of the Military Effort of the British Empire" (I have already referred to in an earlier post - it is commonly known as "Statistics". I have a copy and there is no country breakdown of British casualties). In Winter's chapter 'Demographic Cost of the Great War' there is no mention of Scotland and 26.4%. All the data and references are to England and Wales, and one mention which he uses as an assumption that 86% of all recruits came from England and Wales and the rest (14%) were in the proportion of Scots:Irish 4:1 and he therefore extracts 11.2% Scots and 2.8% Irish for subsequent analytical arguments. The source he cites for these percentages and ratios is "General Annual Report of the British Army 1913-1919, PP 1921 xx, Cmd 1193"

What is quite clear is that Ferguson has added data on Scotland from an undisclosed source (his own estimate?) and incorrectly attributed it to J M Winter. It seems (to me at least) the 26.4% figure started life in Ferguson's book. and has been given wider credibility via this incorrect provenance. I must apologies publicly to Winter. It wasn't his ludicrous statistic.

Separate to the above, having read Prof J M Winter's book I would strongly recommend it to anyone interested in this thread and the demographics of British War casualties. He painstakingly examines the casualties and argues (probably rightly) that he is the first to have done this. He makes a few points:

1. Estimates of the numbers who died in the War varied considerably. Variance across 33 sources for British War dead is100% (he tabulates these).

2, No two sets of stats agree.

3. Population assumption based on the decennial census returns bring their own challenges

4. After some painstaking analysis he concludes that the best and most accurate (least inaccurate?) sources for the 3 arms are

a. "General Annual Report of the British Army 1913-1919, PP 1921 xx, Cmd 1193"

b. "History of the War, Naval Operations" (1931) Vol V Appendix J. by H Newbolt

c. "History of the Great War. War in the Air" (1937), Appendices 35-36" by H A Jones

From these he concludes the total recruitment base of 6,146,574 and splits out England & Wales, Scotland and Ireland across all 3 services using the 86%/11.2%/2.8% ratios mentioned above. This gives for Scotland:

a. Regular Army and TF............584,098

b. RN and Allied Services..........71,707

c. RFC and RAF............................32,611

d. Total Scottish Recruitment...688,416

5. None of his analysis breaks down deaths by country within the British Isles.

The third book which is of relevance is Trevor Royle's "The Flowers of the Forest - Scotland and the making of the First World War". I would recommend this too. Royle makes the following points in the Chapter 'A Bitter Hairst":

1. The precise numbers of Scottish dead are difficult to calculate and the initial Official figure was put at 74,000. This number comes from the Reports of the Registrar General for Scotland which also recorded the deaths of War veterans from 1919-1939. Including the men who died after the war is probably the right thing to do but becomes highly subjective. The English and Welsh Registrar did not do this. This would inflate the Scottish numbers relative to the English & Welsh numbers [my comment]

2. Later in the 1920s when the plans to build a national war memorial for Scotland were made, this was increased to 100,000 to adjust for Scots in other British units and cites Finlay "Modern Scotland p.36 and harvie "No Gods and Precious Few Heroes" p.24 as the source for this increase. He argues this is a reasonable assumption and it is a figure that is quoted elsewhere - articles, newspapers, etc.

3. He quotes the Lt Col Ian Shepherd of the SNWM "

we currently have 148,218 records but I make 2 (sic) provisos: 1. I add several names each year.....I will be adding an Australian Scot and a Canadian Scot shortly. 2. In some instances an individual's name can appear in more than one roll and I do not know whether the computer counts this as two people. 3.The figure includes Scots from around the world "killed in the service of the Crown"... we have Rolls of Honour for Australian, Canadian, Indian, NZ and South African forces as well as for men in English Regiments etc"

4. Royle argues that the 26.4% figure is "clearly too high" as it would imply 182,222 Scottish dead (he uses a slightly larger recruitment base of 690, 235), but also argues that the 74,000 is still too low.

So much for the forensics. I still don't know what Ferguson's source is for his data, but the SNWM would be my prime suspect. I would make the following observations:

1. People will decide for themselves what constitutes a Scotsman in the Service of the Crown. Personally I would not include an Englishman born in England recruited into a Scottish Regiment. Or a Canadian, or an Australian etc... the list is long.

2. Even if we were to accept the SNWM's broad and generous catchment of all people Scottish who served the Crown (plus non Scots in Scottish regiments etc), there is a big problem with the base. The SNWM only includes expatriate Scots and Scots serving with the English, Australians, Canadian etc as those who

died

.

It does not include the Scottish diaspora who joined up and

survived

, therefore the base for (Ferguson's?) calculation is artificially low. Assuming the diaspora died in the same proportions as Scotland born Scots, the base would have to be increased for the 73.6% of expatriate Scots serving elsewhere who did not die. If 74,000 became 148,000 that is an increase of 70,000 and if this 70,000 represented the dead Scottish diaspora, we need to add back some 265,000 Scottish diaspora to the base of the calculation,.... so 688,000 "Scottish" recruits becomes 953,000. We consequently get a significantly lower figure of 15.5% using this methodology

3. I don't know what the actual % figure is but I would argue that the 148,218 (and growing) Scottish dead is inflated. In my humble opinion 26.4% is an illusion that sadly has entered the public domain helped along on by the Scotsman newspaper among others. Before anyone gets too flustered, I am not trying to convince anyone else, I am just laying out my thoughts based on the forensics above. Everyone will interpret the numbers as they wish and include or exclude tens of thousands of men as they please. As someone said at the very beginning, it depends on definitions.

Any mistakes are entirely mine.

Regards

MG

[WilliamRev]

I wrote:

I understood that a greater percentage of the population of Scotland than England/Wales served in the army, and so one would expect a higher proportion of the population to be casualties. I think that Trevor Royle makes this point in Flowers of the Forest.

.............snip.........

So, for example, with roughly one third of the 1,710 men killed in the 1st battalion Royal Scots Fusiliers during WW1 being English, one needs to look carefully at claims that, per capita, more Scotsmen than Englishmen died. I'm not saying that they didn't - just that we need to examine such claims carefully because I'm sure that the RSF weren't the only Scottish regiment which contained loads of Englishmen.

For a whole load of reasons I don't think that the Royal Scots Fusiliers should be taken as a typical Scottish regiment - the regular battalions at least had a tradition of recruiting from England as well as Scotland; the officers were keen not to have to wear tartan trews, and it was only at the beginning of the Great War that pipes and drums replaced an English-style brass band.

Also, I think that we on this forum should consider being wise and sensitive and perhaps avoid joining in some sort of competition as to who suffered the most casualties. 1st RSF lost 71 officers and 1,639 men died, but I quote this just out of astonishment that my grandfather, 3 times wounded whilst serving with this battalion March 1916 to Nov 1918, survived the war - I don't mean to enter them as finalists in a (bad taste) WW1 casualty olympics.

William

[David_Underdown]

By there very nature, territorial battalions recruited very locally. However, after the introduction of conscription men were simply sent where they were most needed (to a large extent), so pre war identities did break down.

[healdav]

This argument must be one of the daftest ever. It is quite impossible to decide how many Scots died as there is no definition of "Scot".

I have a daughter born in Scotland. She left there at two and lived in Luxembourg for 20 years before living in Britain for the next 20.

Is she Scottish?

My wife and lived in Scotland for 3 years. are we Scottish?

I know someone who claims to be a Scot (and wears a kilt with all the fandangles upside down and back to front; and plays the bagpipes badly). He says his mother was half Scottish. He has spent 2 weeks there on holiday some 20 years ago.

In any case, I have come across Irishmen who KNOW that ALL the casualties in the "English" army in WW1 came from Ireland. One bloke even told me that it would have been a good thing for Ireland if Hitler had won WW2. "He would have known how to sort out the Irish problem". Said I, "Sure, one good concentration camp and a set of gas chambers, and problem solved". He wouldn't believe that he would have done that to the Irish. Go figure.

Seriously, this whole question of nationality is a big black bottomless pit. If there is one subject that the UN should call a conference to sort out (and ban politicians, journalists and nationalists) it is this.

I have children born in 3 countries (assuming Scotland to be a country). Grandchildren born in two countries and living in a third. A daughter married to a Canadian (so her 2 children are Canadian/British) and a son living in Spain with a wife who is British/Luxembourgish and 2 children the same (he ought to have both nationalities himself, but has never had time to do the citizenship course).

I hold British/Luxembourgish nationality and my wife was Irish originally then registered British and is entitled to be a Luxembourger.

My son lives in Spain, by the way.

I could take you to hundreds of people I know who are in this sort of situation. There are, doubtless, millions in Europe the same.

Try counting grains of sand on a beach when covered by the tide; much easier than nationality.

By the way, the British Home Office doesn't believe that any of these problems exist. THEY KNOW (well, as none of them have ever moved, they would, wouldn't they).

And if you still don't believe me, when Britain was formulating the nationality Act 1976 (a dreadful piece of law for those affected. Pride for those not), they did a count of definitions of British nationality. They gave up at 54 different forms of "British".

[Steven Broomfield]

They gave up at 54 different forms of "British".

They weren't trying. Even Heinz managed 57.

[nigelfe]

I must admit in my naivety, I would expect that for a roll on how many Scots died in a war, it would be people of Scottish-born nationality, whether living in the UK, or abroad - if they have not naturalised to their new country of residence - and who died in service (whether through hostile action or illness) in any military or supporting organisation of any country, anywhere in the world.

Some examples -

- Scotsman joins a Scottish regiment

- Scotsman joins an English regiment

- Scotsman joins a Corps regiment

- Scotsman joins the Royal Navy

- Scotsman living in Canada comes back to join a British unit (as my Gt Uncle George did who had emigrated to Canada without becoming Canadian)

- Scotsman resident abroad joins a Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, South African, Shanghai Scottish etc unit

- Scotsman joins the US Army

- Scotsman joins the Foreign Legion.

My biggest query is if someone born abroad to a Scottish parent who then lives in Scotland later would be seen as Scottish. I would think a Scottish-born person who goes abroad and takes up foreign nationality would not be counted formally as Scottish, even emotionally they still felt so. It's awkward - if I go to live as planned in the Philippines when I retire and take up Filipino nationality for ease of residence, I guess I wouldn't be Scottish (or British) anymore, though I would still feel it.

BTW Nigelfe - was it the Gordons you were supporting ?

Yes.

At the time of WW1 naturalisation for Britons in Commonwealth countries didn't exist. Don't be in Sydney in a months time and say that all the people in the 1st AIF born in Scotland, England, etc were actually Scots, English etc and not Australian. You'd probably find youself suspended from a lampost in Martin Place.