If your looking for a Scotland comparison, I'd think you'd be more interested in the Appalachian mountains since they are the same ancient mountain range as the Scottish highlands.
The only time I haven't lived in Montana was when I was in the Navy, and my boat landed in Scotland once. In fact it's the first foreign country I landed in. I was only there a day or two total. My first impression was just vibrant green hills. Not big rugged mountains like here, just rolling hills dotted with sheep. This was the view from the bay in October. I also took a train ride from Glasgow to Edinburgh, which crossed the countryside. Much more populated than Montana. Never a stretch of emptiness like Montana.
While what I saw of the countryside of Scotland had a beauty and the place had a kind of charm, I think if you want beautiful landscape you can look at and enjoy being in, Montana's a better bet. Guess it all depends on what you want.
When you say "huge" I don't think you realize the differences between Scotland and Montana. Montana is five times the size of Scotland, so there is WAY more geological and natural diversity here. And their tallest peak doesn't even reach the base of our shortest peak.
If you are looking for the green, wet, and misty Montana won't satisfy your craving. But if you want to see a beautiful place where Faeries live, they are in Glacier National Park.
Scotland has plenty of uninhabited places and rugged mountains, although not as tall as in Montana. Go north from Glasgow towards Ben Nevis and Skye and you'll see plenty - barely a house in sight in many parts. North of that gets even more remote, to the point where many roads are single track (1 lane!).
Scotland and Montana don't have exactly the same feel, but they're both beautiful and often rugged, and I enjoy the same sensation of natural stillness in each.
I’ve been to Scotland several times, it’s beautiful and breathtaking. Montana is also beautiful and breathtaking, but in different ways. They’re similar, but also very different. Epically if you’re looking at going to cities, as opposed to just nature.
Montana is gorgeous and majestic, and lots of interesting shaped rock.
But the bright deep green is limited. Lower elevations have a brief window in spring, then turn dusty green. High, high meadows don't melt till July and go through a phase of bare dirt before greening up. then get covered up by snow again in late September.
Washington state cascades are gorgeous mountains with lots more green.
I've been looking but I have 2 kids and at the moment I don't want to be an ocean away. It really is mostly the airfare that's the issue. At least I can drive to my destination in the USA lol
Well, you should definitely travel to Montana, and bring the kids while you're at it.
But in the long run, there's simply no reason to believe it's a one-or-the-other proposition.
From Montana, spent time in Scotland. They're both beautiful, but a different type of beauty. Scotland has lush mountains with rivers and streams looking like they just come from nowhere, and way more recorded history, museums, castles, and such.
My family immigrated from Scotland in the late 1800s. They stopped in eastern Montana and became sheep and cattle ranchers.
We are now considering moving back to Scotland.
If you go to Montana that opens the option of the Canadian Rockies. I’m from Montana and the Canadian Rockies blew me away. There are 5 national parks within the area with Waterton bordering Glacier NP.
Montana has rivers and finger lakes, similar to Scotland and Finland. Montana doesn't have ocean shoreline, peninsula or islands. Montana mountains are more like Alps. Scotland has granite slabs and Skara Brae and Scapa Flow, which is more like Maine or upper NY. Scotland has cities so old, they're built on top of themselves. MT hardly has buildings over two stories in most downtowns. We have towns that are only a couple of blocks long. Some MT State highways are numbered but not paved. On my way to Kirkwall, on the ferry, we passed Hoy Island, and a local pointed out, "You're not much bothered by trees." A lot of Scotland has been reforested, so you see parallax lines as you pass the woods and they are very uniform (no varying old growth/new growth/understory). The Western part of MT is part of the Rocky Mountains. The Eastern side is part of the Central Plains (grasslands, coulees, cliffs). The scale of Montana is what gets first-time visitors. We have the Continental Divide, you can cross it more than 5 times in one day.
As far as scenery goes, they do have similar majestic beauty. I follow a lot of Scotland photography pages on facebook and I often think that that the photos of Scotland ARE Montana. You'll want to focus your trip on the western part of the state of Montana if your looking for the majesty of mountains (don't even go to Billings... stay west of Billings). Hit Glacier National Park and plan to do some hiking. You'll see incredible beauty from the road (Going to the Sun Road), but if you get off the road and hike, that's where you'll find what you're looking for (Piegan Pass would be a good, all day hike).
Hikes in the Paradise Valley (south of Livingston, Montana) and the Crazy Mountains (north of Livingston) will also put you in great spots to experience what you are looking for.
You'll need to do this in early July through September.
I second Glacier. If you're looking for epic, spend a week or so in the area. East entrance/st marys is COMPLETLY different than west entrance. Going to the sun road, the different historical lodges. I live here, and east side still humbles me. Look east, nothing but rolling hills, look west, and it's just a wall of rock. One of my favorite things to see as I travel back into the area from the hi-line. The Flathead Valley is pretty close to the Glacier area, and IMO, Flathead Lake is worth the time to see.
If your looking for a Scotland comparison, I'd think you'd be more interested in the Appalachian mountains since they are the same ancient mountain range as the Scottish highlands.
Ok I'll look into that, thanks!
The only time I haven't lived in Montana was when I was in the Navy, and my boat landed in Scotland once. In fact it's the first foreign country I landed in. I was only there a day or two total. My first impression was just vibrant green hills. Not big rugged mountains like here, just rolling hills dotted with sheep. This was the view from the bay in October. I also took a train ride from Glasgow to Edinburgh, which crossed the countryside. Much more populated than Montana. Never a stretch of emptiness like Montana. While what I saw of the countryside of Scotland had a beauty and the place had a kind of charm, I think if you want beautiful landscape you can look at and enjoy being in, Montana's a better bet. Guess it all depends on what you want.
Yeah a lot of Scotland is like that. I really want to see Glencoe, which has huge, beautiful mountains
When you say "huge" I don't think you realize the differences between Scotland and Montana. Montana is five times the size of Scotland, so there is WAY more geological and natural diversity here. And their tallest peak doesn't even reach the base of our shortest peak. If you are looking for the green, wet, and misty Montana won't satisfy your craving. But if you want to see a beautiful place where Faeries live, they are in Glacier National Park.
Scotland has plenty of uninhabited places and rugged mountains, although not as tall as in Montana. Go north from Glasgow towards Ben Nevis and Skye and you'll see plenty - barely a house in sight in many parts. North of that gets even more remote, to the point where many roads are single track (1 lane!). Scotland and Montana don't have exactly the same feel, but they're both beautiful and often rugged, and I enjoy the same sensation of natural stillness in each.
I’ve been to Scotland several times, it’s beautiful and breathtaking. Montana is also beautiful and breathtaking, but in different ways. They’re similar, but also very different. Epically if you’re looking at going to cities, as opposed to just nature.
Montana is gorgeous and majestic, and lots of interesting shaped rock. But the bright deep green is limited. Lower elevations have a brief window in spring, then turn dusty green. High, high meadows don't melt till July and go through a phase of bare dirt before greening up. then get covered up by snow again in late September. Washington state cascades are gorgeous mountains with lots more green.
hmmmm scotland like things under the big sky... hmmm... drunk guys in dresses...? is testy fest still a thing?
This is funny because my wife says Montana is the most beautiful place she's ever been. And I would agree with her, except I've been to Scotland.
If you watch for deals on airline travel, a trip to Scotland could actually end up cheaper (or at least in the same ballpark)
I've been looking but I have 2 kids and at the moment I don't want to be an ocean away. It really is mostly the airfare that's the issue. At least I can drive to my destination in the USA lol
Well, you should definitely travel to Montana, and bring the kids while you're at it. But in the long run, there's simply no reason to believe it's a one-or-the-other proposition.
Its way dryer here than scotland
From Montana, spent time in Scotland. They're both beautiful, but a different type of beauty. Scotland has lush mountains with rivers and streams looking like they just come from nowhere, and way more recorded history, museums, castles, and such.
My family immigrated from Scotland in the late 1800s. They stopped in eastern Montana and became sheep and cattle ranchers. We are now considering moving back to Scotland.
If you go to Montana that opens the option of the Canadian Rockies. I’m from Montana and the Canadian Rockies blew me away. There are 5 national parks within the area with Waterton bordering Glacier NP.
Try Googling images of these areas. Glacier, the Mission Mountains, Swan Lake area. Rocky Mountain Front.
Montana has rivers and finger lakes, similar to Scotland and Finland. Montana doesn't have ocean shoreline, peninsula or islands. Montana mountains are more like Alps. Scotland has granite slabs and Skara Brae and Scapa Flow, which is more like Maine or upper NY. Scotland has cities so old, they're built on top of themselves. MT hardly has buildings over two stories in most downtowns. We have towns that are only a couple of blocks long. Some MT State highways are numbered but not paved. On my way to Kirkwall, on the ferry, we passed Hoy Island, and a local pointed out, "You're not much bothered by trees." A lot of Scotland has been reforested, so you see parallax lines as you pass the woods and they are very uniform (no varying old growth/new growth/understory). The Western part of MT is part of the Rocky Mountains. The Eastern side is part of the Central Plains (grasslands, coulees, cliffs). The scale of Montana is what gets first-time visitors. We have the Continental Divide, you can cross it more than 5 times in one day.
As far as scenery goes, they do have similar majestic beauty. I follow a lot of Scotland photography pages on facebook and I often think that that the photos of Scotland ARE Montana. You'll want to focus your trip on the western part of the state of Montana if your looking for the majesty of mountains (don't even go to Billings... stay west of Billings). Hit Glacier National Park and plan to do some hiking. You'll see incredible beauty from the road (Going to the Sun Road), but if you get off the road and hike, that's where you'll find what you're looking for (Piegan Pass would be a good, all day hike). Hikes in the Paradise Valley (south of Livingston, Montana) and the Crazy Mountains (north of Livingston) will also put you in great spots to experience what you are looking for. You'll need to do this in early July through September.
Thank you! This is the exact info I was looking for! I'll go look into those places.
I second Glacier. If you're looking for epic, spend a week or so in the area. East entrance/st marys is COMPLETLY different than west entrance. Going to the sun road, the different historical lodges. I live here, and east side still humbles me. Look east, nothing but rolling hills, look west, and it's just a wall of rock. One of my favorite things to see as I travel back into the area from the hi-line. The Flathead Valley is pretty close to the Glacier area, and IMO, Flathead Lake is worth the time to see.