Something to be ashamed of?

[al78]

Two of the great things about the Scottish highlands are the fantastic accessibility rights and that there is a walking/hiking/climbing route to satisfy/challenge any level. Yes they have modest height compared to the great mountain ranges of the world but to me that is a plus point. It means just about every hill/mountain can be climbed in a day trip, or at the very most an overnight camp, to climb Kilimanjaro for example requires a full week at the absolute minimum, and really you need longer to get properly acclimatised. There are parts where you can lose yourself in the landscape, enjoy a great feeling of isolation in a fantastic geological landscape, but you are never more than a full day walk from some form of civilisation if needed. The lack of altitude is made up by being a higher latitude, under the polar front jet stream, which can make the weather extremely severe on the high plateaux. There is a reason why the plant life on the Cairngorm plateau resembles that in Greenland rather than other parts of Europe.

[Kinshusrst Kid]

Missed this first time round. My wife and I usually spend some time in the summer in the alps. We have found people very respectful towards those who walk Scotland's mountains. Not least because of their beauty but also because there is no signposting or waymarking.

August ten years ago saw us in the Zillertal in Austria. The weather was not good but we managed a good hut to hut trek. Towards the end of our holiday the temperature plummeted and heavy snow was forecast.

Our next day was to be a fairly easy traverse on a path we had been along in both directions in the past, once in torrential rain. We were therefore comfortable with our plans.

The lady warden of the hut and a qualified guide questioned what we are doing, telling us there would be fresh snow overnight.. We explained our route and she questioned our experience as to whether we would be competent enough. We told her of our extensive experience in the alps. She was still not convinced by two Brits in their early sixties. I then mentioned that we walked in Scotland's mountains in winter. Suddenly she and her husband (also a guide) were convinced. Anyone used to Scottish winter conditions. would be OK. The navigation the next day was interesting but we got safely to the next hut.

So this was a case of those knowing mountains having respect for Scotland's mountains and the people who walk and climb them.

So no shame then, but great pride. Anyone who thinks otherwise probably doesn't know much about mountains.

[Caberfeidh]

So no shame then, but great pride. Anyone who thinks otherwise probably doesn't know much about mountains.

O yes, could not have put it better meself.

Nevis and Carn Dearg, winter conditions.

[John Doh]

Being from Switzerland I see two aspects that make hillwalking in Scotland as demanding as walking in the alps (and I mean walking not actual climbing): 1) In Scotland you usually start at or near sea level so a climb to a hill of 800 meters is already quite tiring. In the alps you can easily start your walk at above 1500 meters as there are telecabins to a lot of mountain stations and if you then walk the same 800 meters you are above 2000 meters but actually have made the same effort as the Scottish hillwalker at his 800m hill but obviously it feels much more mountaineous (is that even a word). 2) In Switzerland there are extremely good footpaths to all but the remotest/obscurest hills so walking takes less effort. In Scotland there is often no path at all except for some sheep tracks plus in the approach to the hill you have to deal with man eating bog and knee deep heather, not to speak of clouds of midges (and on some islands divebombing bonxies), all of which can make the climbing of a lowly Scottish hill way more demanding and tiring than one of those „autobahn“ footpaths to a comfortable mountain hut in the alps.

[LeithySuburbs]

all of which can make the climbing of a lowly Scottish hill way more demanding and tiring than one of those „autobahn“ footpaths to a comfortable mountain hut in the alps.

Aye, but you can't get a beer at the top.

[walkingpoles]

Switzerland here.
Hiking in the Alps and hiking in the Highlands is a quite different experience. I love going back to the Highlands even though I have the Alps at my footsteps. Of course, people are unimpressed when I tell them that the highest mountain in Scotland is lower than the cable car station from where we just started the hike in the Alps. But mentioning 15 fatalities a year in Scotland (no idea about the actual numbers) usually is all it needs to correct that.

One difficulty comparing the Highlands to the Alps, is that the altitudes don't correspond. The treeline is much lower in the Highlands than in Switzerland (usually at 1800-2000m. Ben Nevis would either be covered in forest or used as grazing land if its location were in Switzerland). The vegation and rocks on the summits of munros looks about the same as on 2500m above sea level in the Alps. So, for comparing the looks and difficulties you should also compare munros to 2500m mountains in the Alps, which are a lot less harmless than their 1500m compagnions.

I've seen UK people doing stupid decisions in the Alps and Swiss people doing stupid decisions in the highlands. The experience needed to be able to cope with the respective environments has some things in common but is far from being the same.

One issue is weather. Lightning is a real danger in the Alps. It's really a bad idea to go hiking in the Alps in thunderstorm inclined weather, which it is often, whereas I found it very uncommon to experience thunderstorms in the Highlands. On the other hand, Alpine hikers, used to good weather, signposts and well maintained mountain paths might be caught in mist and bog and experiencing a near-death experience when in UK.

I've seen UK people overestimating their skills, in one case considering Arran as a training ground for the North Face of the Eiger (will be their first trip to the Alps. (If you think that this is not a stupid idea, believe me: It is)), struggling with 2000m of ascent or thin air, walking solo on glaciers where you definitively shouldn't, etc. I know many Swiss people who would never go an a glacier or off the marked paths as they consider it too dangerous. Tourists might not have these reservations, which then shows in the accident statistics. (Don't get me wrong, also locals do stupid decisions, on both sides of the channel, myself included).

In both directions I can only recommend a defensive approach when first hiking in these parts of the world, to build up the necessary skills and experience. Whether you think that the Highlands are inferior to the Alps or whether the Alps are simply a slightly higher and pathed up version of the Highlands, you might regret that attitude.

[spiderwebb]

Agree with the last post

Like so many things its down to personal opinion. For me it certainly isn't simply a question of height, the mountains in Assynt being the perfect example of how stunning a landscape can be without the height. Whether you think the Scottish mountains are the best in the world, again, a personal opinion.

I think the weather certainly makes them unique and as per the previous post, that can make the difference in a huge way, regardless of height again.

But up there in the statistics are those brutal mountains of East Sussex (yes I can hear you laughing), but nevertheless the scene of the most fatalities in the UK, by a single avalanche, killing 8 people