After the reforms of the 16th century, the Scots Confession served as the primary confession for the Church of Scotland for just over 80 years. In 1648 it was replaced by the The Humble Advice of the Assembly of Divines , a later revision of which is widely known as the Westminster Confession of Faith and is still used today in many Protestant denominations. Meanwhile I don't hear much about the Scots Confession. I'm curious what changes switching to the Westminster Confession brought over the Scots Confession of the previous century. According to what the Westminster divines set out in the WCF, on what points would the Scots confession have been considered either incomplete, not clear, or outright wrong?

The history of the Scots Confession seems to have some amusing interludes. Having been drafted in just 4 days by 5 guys all named John, it went on to serve as the primary confession of the Church of Scotland for almost a century. The only snag it seems to have hit was when Mary, Queen of Scots, refused to ratify it even after Parliament signed off on its representation of the desired reforms. What was it about the confession that didn't suit Mary\*? What was her justification for rejecting it? \* It's possible that this is a historical question more than it is doctrinal. I think it is on topic here because I want to know specifically if there were any doctrinal points in the Confession that proved to be a hindrance to its ratification by the state at the time. At the same time, the primary reason might turn out to be a variant of "Mary, Mary, quite contrary".