Scottish Regiments in the Canadian Army

[kilty]

There has been a long history of Scottish regiments in the Canadian Army. The post-war period to the present day has seen many reorganizations and amalgamations of Scottish militia units until now only 14 proud regiments remain on the Canadian Army List. They are, in order of precedence:

The Black Watch (Royal Highland Regiment) of Canada (31 Jan 1862)
The Royal Highland Fusiliers of Canada (14 Sep 1866)
The Lorne Scots (Peel, Dufferin and Halton Regiment) (14 Sep 1866)
The Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry Highlanders (03 Jul 1868)
1st Battalion, The Nova Scotia Highlanders (North) (10 Sep 1869)
2nd Battalion, The Nova Scotia Highlanders (Cape Breton) (13 Oct 1871)
The Cameron Highlanders of Ottawa (05 Aug 1881)
The Essex and Kent Scottish Regiment (12 Jun 1885)
48th Highlanders of Canada (16 Oct 1891)
The Argyll & Sutherland Highlanders (Princess Louise's) (01 Sep 1903)
The Lake Superior Scottish Regiment (03 Jul 1905)
The Queen's Own Cameron Highlanders of Canada (01 Feb 1910)
The Calgary Highlanders (01 Apr 1910)
The Seaforth Highlanders of Canada (24 Nov 1910)
The Canadian Scottish Regiment (Princess Mary's) (03 Sep 1912)

[kiltimabar]

How did it happen that Canada was able to maintain so many Scottish regiments and the United Kingdom could not?

[BruceBC]

and the Toronto Scottish (1921). Why are they still around? Likely many reasons. Here are my thoughts: Tradition - forms the backbone of the armed services and helps bring in new members. The militia system is part of the tradition in Canada We are a country with a small population but with an large landmass. The regiments form(ed) a part of the life of a small town and even a city. (any Canadian who has lived in a small town knows that the Legion and the Curling Club are the centers of its universe - may be add Tim Hortons to that). Canada, like many European countries lost large numbers of troops in World War I and many claim that Canada became a Country at the Battlle of Vimmy Ridge. All of the Canadian Scottish Regiments played a large role in WWI, WWII, Korea, peace keeping and have members on active service at this time. Ok - this one may cause some debate. Canada in some ways is more Scottish than Scotland. The First Nations, French, English and Scottish formed the country (yes others did and do contribute). Look at Canadian Maps. The names of Scottish towns are everywhere. Major rivers have Scottish names. The best pipe band in the World is from Canada. You can't have a parade without at least a few pipe bands (think there is some law about that). In parts of the maritimes you can still hear gaelic spoken. We even have a part of the country named "New Scotland" Seeing a guy wearing a kilt in Canada may not happen every day but no one looks at you as if you are from the Mother Ship and about to say "take me to your leaders". As the band "Spirit of the West" sings "There are none so Scot as the Scots abroad". We have a short history as a Country and are still building our traditions. Those that we do have we hold on to. In North America it helps set us apart and to define who we are. With all that being said - there was a big reorg of the armed services in the '70's. Many disliked what was done and as a result the Government may have been worried about touching these old regiments. Lately some in the army have suggested changes - so we still may lose some of them. Just one guy's thoughts.

[JolyStNicholas]

Thank you my northern neighbor for sharing all that great information.

So close but one never knows what goes on. Again thank you!

[Sheep In Wolf's Clothing]

(any Canadian who has lived in a small town knows that the Legion and the Curling Club are the centers of its universe - may be add Tim Hortons to that).

Oh how true!!
Sara
who had relitives who served with
The Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry Highlanders

[puffer]

and the Toronto Scottish (1921). Why are they still around? Likely many reasons. Here are my thoughts: Tradition - forms the backbone of the armed services and helps bring in new members. The militia system is part of the tradition in Canada We are a country with a small population but with an large landmass. The regiments form(ed) a part of the life of a small town and even a city. (any Canadian who has lived in a small town knows that the Legion and the Curling Club are the centers of its universe - may be add Tim Hortons to that). Canada, like many European countries lost large numbers of troops in World War I and many claim that Canada became a Country at the Battlle of Vimmy Ridge. All of the Canadian Scottish Regiments played a large role in WWI, WWII, Korea, peace keeping and have members on active service at this time. Ok - this one may cause some debate. Canada in some ways is more Scottish than Scotland. The First Nations, French, English and Scottish formed the country (yes others did and do contribute). Look at Canadian Maps. The names of Scottish towns are everywhere. Major rivers have Scottish names. The best pipe band in the World is from Canada. You can't have a parade without at least a few pipe bands (think there is some law about that). In parts of the maritimes you can still hear gaelic spoken. We even have a part of the country named "New Scotland" Seeing a guy wearing a kilt in Canada may not happen every day but no one looks at you as if you are from the Mother Ship and about to say "take me to your leaders". As the band "Spirit of the West" sings "There are none so Scot as the Scots abroad". We have a short history as a Country and are still building our traditions. Those that we do have we hold on to. In North America it helps set us apart and to define who we are. With all that being said - there was a big reorg of the armed services in the '70's. Many disliked what was done and as a result the Government may have been worried about touching these old regiments. Lately some in the army have suggested changes - so we still may lose some of them. Just one guy's thoughts.

BRUCE, IMHO, you are RIGHT ON.

As a part of a group of historical researchers, ( Ft. Nisqually & Ft. Langley ) who do research on the NWC & HBC in the PNW, I am well aware of the HUGE contribution the SCOTs made, here in the PNW.

And if I forget the modern contributions of the "Regiments" My friends who are associated with the SEAFORTHs remind me.

Puffer

[English Bloke]

How did it happen that Canada was able to maintain so many Scottish regiments and the United Kingdom could not?

I would imagine, like most of the rash decisions made by the UK MoD it's in the spirit of cost efficiency. The civilians in Whitehall mashed together the Scottish Regiments in the same way they've mashed together many of the Corps and Regiments of the British Army. When your job is counting beans, you don't want to let sentimentality for hundreds of years of Regimental tradition and esprit de corps get in the way of trimming the fat. Much easier to administer a monster regiment than a lot of small ones and creates more posts for the civilian clerks to boot. Win-win from a Whitehall perspective. No matter that the Regiments themselves and their recruiting regions don't see it that way.

Not to worry; everyone will have forgotten what it was like in 20 years time and Monster Regiments like the Royal Regiment of Scotland and the "Really Large Corps" (RLC) will be the norm by then...

EDIT: Interesting article here http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...ts-691975.html

[The Barry]

How did it happen that Canada was able to maintain so many Scottish regiments and the United Kingdom could not?

Because, no matter when you're talking about, Canada actually likes its Scottish inhabitants. The UK is always a bit "hit and miss" when it comes to the Scots. Or the Irish. Or whoever.

[BEEDEE]

Because, no matter when you're talking about, Canada actually likes its Scottish inhabitants. The UK is always a bit "hit and miss" when it comes to the Scots. Or the Irish. Or whoever.

Excellent point!

Brina

[English Bloke]

Because, no matter when you're talking about, Canada actually likes its Scottish inhabitants. The UK is always a bit "hit and miss" when it comes to the Scots. Or the Irish. Or whoever.

Always? I take it by UK, you mean England and the English? If you do, I must disagree. There are many Scots in the present British Government passing laws that affect the English but not the Scots. This is in spite of there being a devolved Scottish Parliament at which the English (rightly) have no say.

Our present British Prime Minister is Scots, as was the last one... The Chancellor is also Scots and there are many other Scots amongst the Politicos in Westminster. The Scots or the Irish and whoever (would that be the Welsh?) to which you refer can hardly be "hit and miss" about themselves, seeing as we are all British and therefore all members of the UK (United Kingdom). Mmmmm must be those nasty English eh?