Talk:Second War of Scottish Independence

Merge Request
A merge request was put on this shortly after I started work. There is already a seperate entry on the First War of Scottish Independence, and I believe the much neglected Second War needs similar treatment. It receives partial and cursory treatment in the Wars of Scottish Independence page. I could expand this but that would risk making the whole thing excessive in length. Rcpaterson 22:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that this article is valid and there is no need to merge it. It needs to be exanded, which it seems Rcpaterson intends to do. Tyrenius 22:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As the merge tag has been removed via a revert by Netsnipe who put it there in the first place, do I take it that there is a consensus not to merge? At least an informative edit summary would have been helpful. Tyrenius 04:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that. What's the official policy on merge tags? Are they to always remain on a work-in-progress article or do I accept the author's promises on good-faith? --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  08:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You could merge an article unilaterally if you wanted. However, if other editors are involved it is best to discuss (hence the tag). Through discussion the next step is reached (merge or not merge so remove tag). At the moment it is the case that involved editors have seen fit that this is best as a separate article. If nothing happens to it after a while and all the info is in the main article, you may think it best to merge it after all. No point keeping the merge tag on at the moment, unless you are suggesting it should be merged at the moment. Tyrenius 00:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I see a stub has now been put on this; but what I have written already is not a 'stub'-at least as I understand the term-but an intro. I would have finished the whole article within a day or two, but I have since been diverted on to other projects. I will, however, continue, if that is the consensus.Rcpaterson 23:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Wiki doesn't have isolated intros. It only has stubs! I think from above conversation you should go ahead and complete the article. Tyrenius 00:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, a massive article and a massive section! Well there is plenty of content but it should probably be combined here, into this article, instead of spread out like it is. However this article is already about 40kb :) --Fxer 17:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The merge tag was put on when this article was just a paragraph. I propose removing the tag, now that this topic has turned into a full article in its own right. Tyrenius 23:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You do note that this merge tag is about adding information from the Wars of Scottish Independence page into this article? --Fxer 23:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I didn't. I thought it was the original merge tag reinstated. Tyrenius 12:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm really not sure that there is anything to be merged: this article contains much more than the rather limited sub-section in the Wars of Scottish Independence page. I have to say that I have major issues with the way the subject has been approached, which is precisely why I created this page in the first place. I'm sorry to say there is some deep intellectual confusion over this whole topic. We have an article on the First War of Scottish Independence, which seemingly ended for some bizarre and unexplained reason in 1306, and then another page which correctly takes the contest down to 1328, but loses all detail and focus half way through. The one simply does not tie in with the other. My preference would be to scrap both of the latter and create a new page along the lines of this present article: but that would probably mean standing on about a million toes! Rcpaterson 04:45, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm all for bold edits, but I don't know about just scrapping the articles wholesale. I would think these articles should be organized like the rest of wikipedia, we have a First War article, a Second War article and then use the Wars of Scottish Independence article as an overview, with general info about the struggles, as well as paragraph long excerpts and links to the First and Second war articles. I'd agree with Rcpaterson on the points that the articles on the topic definately need some reorganizing and rewriting. --Fxer 16:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * A good plan. Tyrenius 18:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Could someone please explain why this is called a war of independence? From the article it sounds more like a Scottish dynastic struggle with some English intereference than a struggle for independence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.32.121 (talk) 12:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC) Not so; Edward III had a long-standing ambition to negate the 'shameful peace' of 1328 and to succeed where his father and grandfather failed. His intention was to make Edward Balliol king of a trancated Scotland and subject to his own authority with the stipulation that if Balliol died without issue the Scottish crown would fall to the Englsih crown as a feudal escheat. To some extent Balliol's role in the whole process was to provide a fig-leaf of legality to the adventures of Beaumont, Wake, Talbot etc.. Edward Balliol was of course the l;egitimate heir to the crown in terms of simple primogeniture, but his 'right' had been rejected by the Community of the Realm in 1320 in favour of Robert I. This is a matter of some significance; in England the Crown in Parliament is sovereign, but in Scotland sovereignty rests with the people - a principle given in court as recently as 1954. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.32.90 (talk) 15:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a good question. According to a related Wikipedia page this name was only adopted some time after the American War of Independence. In other words for almost 500 years these conflicts were called something else. Arguably these wars are better described as Norman-French civil wars not wars of national independence in the modern sense. Cassandra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.7.111.241 (talk) 17:05, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Why the strange titles?
Can someone please explain why the sections of the article have vague and slightly ridiculous titles such as "Autumn King" and "Awakened Dreams"? I'm sure someone has gone to a lot of effort to think them up, and they must have some relevance to the article, but they don't half make it difficult to tell which section is about which phase of the war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.19.13.170 (talk) 12:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed they seem out of place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.17.34 (talk) 01:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I've replaced the title headings to read a little better, although not by much. To be honest, I'd argue that this article needs a total rewrite. As it stands, we've got no in-text citations and the article as a whole reads very much as if it came from the pen of King David himself. Dougano (talk) 13:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, this article needs a rename too. Wikipedia is the only place I've seen this period referred to as part of the Wars of Scottish Independence, which previously included that from 1297-1304 and 1306-1328. At the very, very least, the name should be changed to Third War of Scottish Independence.Chuck Hamilton (talk) 19:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

POV tag?
Does anyone see the reason, why the tag was placed? In the history, You may note that the anonymous IP placed it:, but with no description, with no discussion, without any relevant action to clarify his/her disapproval. So hereby here I call for its disposal. If this section will remain unanswered for more then let say a month, I see it fit for anyone to remove the tag.  R eo  ON   |   + + +  16:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Given the circumstances, I removed it. It's over a year old and the lack of a discussion since then seems to indicate that the time for all due haste has passed. A POV tagger should at least give some indication of the issues. If anyone has anything to say on the topic, please do so here. Regards, Notuncurious (talk) 17:50, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, thats good, right. But regardless the circumstances I am glad, that there was at least us two who reached agreement before the removal. I completely agree regarding the indication of POV issue, however I see it common, that it is often missing, such empty POVs are then weeding lot of articles. In such cases I try to set some quasi-discussion for one month and than, if empty (and that is always) I remove the tag. Maybe overcaring? Have a good time  R eo  ON   |   + + +  05:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problem
This article uses text from For the Lion: a History of the Scottish Wars of Independence to which Wikipedia is not legally entitled, lacking proper licensing by the publisher. The article was created with this content with more text added incrementally to this point. Examples of some of the problematic text include: ,,, , , , , , , , , , , , ,. Given the number of edits to this article since, I had hoped to be able to clean it as I went, but at this point it is apparent to me that most of this content remains unchanged and there is considerably more ground still to cover, some of which I already know is copied:. I'm very sorry to say that, at this point, it seems that to avoid creating an unauthorized derivative work, this article will need to be completely rewritten. It is being blanked to give interested and knowledgeable contributors an opportunity to help out in the hopes that one of you will. It will be revisited after about a week to see what further steps may be necessary. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

Interesting poing about the copyright. Good job with the re-write. Can I respectfully ask why change the subheadings that were there before? They broke the conflict into distinct phases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.138.172.72 (talk) 19:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Result
Gog the Mild (talk) 22:03, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) It was a Scottish victory. Edward III invaded and ultimately failed to subjugate the country, thus failing in his war aim. The Scots maintained their indepndance, thus achieving theirs.
 * 2) The English obtained an agreement to pay 100,000 merks. I think no one was surprised that only 76,000 was ever paid, and that took until 1377, when the total was supposedly due by 1367.
 * 3) The instructions for the Template:Infobox military conflict states "result – optional – this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result. Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much."
 * 4) What sources support the result being "In effect drawn "?


 * While not used in this article, I think this source puts it quite well:
 * "'When war in Scotland recommenced in 1332, it appeared rather quickly that the Bruce establishment of the kingdom was in danger of collapse. The twin threats of a return to Balliol kingship, and English conquest of southern Scotland, must have appeared likely outcomes in the aftermath of the crushing Bruce battlefield defeats at Dupplin Moor and Halidon Hill. And yet the war continued. Edward Balliol, for all that he retained support in Scotland, and could count on the military assistance of English field armies, was unable to impose his will sufficiently on the Scottish people. Edward III, despite his military effort and personal involvement in the war with Scotland, could not ensure the stability of the Balliol regime, or conquer Scotland outright. Indeed he was unable even to conquer southern Scotland and retain it against Bruce counter-attacks.'"
 * - Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:34, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you Pickersgill-Cunliffe, that is helpful. I used that source when improving Battle of Dupplin Moor. (I took that to FA.) I am currently working through this article section by section and I must remember to reconsult MacInnes before I finish. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:56, 8 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, looking at the article and what it reports the sources have to say: The episode demonstrated to both Scotland and England the fruitlessness of their struggles. It is not necessarily "In effect drawn " but it does appear to be quite inconclusive.  Edward did not beat David but nor did David beat Edward.  Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:36, 10 October 2021 (UTC)


 * An interesting take on England invading and failing in (almost) all of its war aims - instead of conquering Scotland, it gained Berwick - and Scotland succeeding - it retained its national independence and territorial integrity. Any sourcing to support "inconclusive". Genuine question, I am in the process of substantially rewriting the article - having taken five of its component articles to FA - and have not got down to the summary/aftermath parts yet. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:17, 10 October 2021 (UTC)


 * , I would first clarify: "It is not necessarily "In effect drawn"" - since a "draw" would imply an equal standing but the treaty terms clearly favoured the English. While the English did not achieve their strategic aim, neither were they beaten by the Scotts.  In simple terms: England did not beat Scotland ≠ Scotland beat England.  The episode demonstrated to both Scotland and England the fruitlessness of their struggles. [sourced in article] does not explicitly state "inconclusive" but it is saying that neither of them were going to win/did win.  If there aren't sources saying there was a result of "victory X" (or very similar - and I don't see any that are) then we use inconclusive - unless the sources are saying it is much more complicated. Then, we would use "See section". Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 04:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC)