Nordic touring skis

Sorry, also can't comment on specific models, but if you're only going to be using them for low-level touring, you don't really need steel edges.

I agree with Rosswm that cable bindings are much less destructive on boots than 3-pin. On the other hand, they're heavier and really come into their own if you expect to do a lot of turning. For low-level stuff/track skiing, the vast majority of folk nowadays use NNN bindings. They don't destroy boots like 3-pin and they're much lighter than cable. Not much use for linked turns at speed, though.

If you do get cable, make sure that they have a safety release feature. In the old days, cable bindings were notorious for breaking ankles in a fall when they didn't release properly.

If you're planning on skiing in Scotland and want to leave out the high stuff then the main plan would be crossing your fingers an awful lot for suitable snow...    Most of the moorland you'd ski on would be high to get the snow and you'll need to get down from there, so that's either walking with your skis or metal edges.  Scottish skiing tends to involve a fair bit of rutted ice too, so again the sort of terrain you'd not bother with edges in skiing heartlands might well benefit from them in Scotland.

E99 should be fine for that.  E109 too, though they're that bit chunkier which means more weight but also better downhill performance.  Either will take NNN BC bindings which will be better suited to the less extreme stuff than dreadnought duckbills.

Cables are easier in than 3-pin, but... they're heavier, stiffer, more expensive, don't do flat stuff so well for kick 'n' stick (because heel lift tensions them) and while 3 pin can be a pain the fact is that with a bit of care they work, and are cheap, and are light.  And there's no shortage of folk using them successfully.  Since Rotafella discontinued the Riva there's also a bit of a lack of truly light cables on the market.  However, for what you outline I'd go with Jim's idea of the NNN (though note that the BC (backcountry) version is tougher and the boot selection assumes you might want to walk somewhere, so look at the BC).

Have a natter with the folks at Braemar/Cairngorm Mountain Sports, as they supply Fischers and similar stuff and often have Baragin Bin models that might do you as well.  There was also Basecamp in Ilkley, but they're called something else now... dunno, Matt?  Don't know if Mountain Spirit in Aviemore still cater for lighter touring stuff, but you could ask.

Pete.

I agree with Pete - I wouldn't expect to ski Scotland/UK without metal edges. Our snow, when it comes, tends to get a fair bit freeze/thaw and rapidly become quite icy and rutted. I've been up the track to Ryvoan when it's been more like an ice rink!

It sounds like you've already got some leather 75mm boots? Otherwise I would've suggested a look at NNN BC as a boot/binding set-up. I started with 3-pin bindings but within a couple of years moved over to cables as providing more control, being less faff, and avoiding the problem of the pinholes icing up (or in Scotland clogging with grit!). The Riva may have gone but the Rottefella Chilli isn't a bad general purpose cable binding.

Both the E99  and E109 are very capable skis. I've used neither but I've been on several Norwegian tours where 75% of the group were using one or the other. I almost bought the 109s a year or so ago, but instead went for the Salomon XADV89, similar in characteristics to the 109 but a bit lighter (and a better fit for the bindings I wanted to mount, which was the main reason for the choice). I've used them on this trip last month and been very happy with them. There's also an XADV69 which is a close match to the E99.

There's inevitably a trade-off with any ski. The E99 or XADV69 are geared more towards speed and efficiency in straight line travel, although they'll also turn better than the equivalent ski from a few years ago. The E109 or XADV89 give you a bit more turning performance in exchange for a bit of travelling efficiency (but I've covered hut to hut touring distances on skis like these for years so it's a bit of a moot point). None of them will give you downhill performance like your Alpine touring setup, especially with a leather boot, but part of your decision is how much help you want the kit to give you with the downhill part of the trip. The E109 and XADV89 may actually be better suited to a soft plastic boot like a Scarpa T4 or Garmont Excursion, or at least a stiff leather boot with clips. If you've already got a lighter leather boot then perhaps the E99 or XADV69 would be better matched to them.

One other thing to bear in mind is that the narrower skis will need to be skied slightly longer to get the flotation. This again makes them a bit harder to turn, and also a bit less wieldy in tight corners like in forests or even for kick-turning.

Btw, are you thinking of waxing or waxless? I've always skied waxable but if I was hoping to do a lot of lower level Scottish stuff I might well pick up a pair of waxless for the simplicity.

Finally, Backcountry UK (formerly Basecamp Ilkley) now only deal with Alpine touring and NTN Telemark kit (if they've got any remnants of nordic kit left it'll be at least 2 seasons old and they'll be doing deals to get rid). The same is true of Mountain Spirit in Aviemore. For nordic in the UK you've now only got Braemar Mountain Sports (and Cairngorm Mountain Sports). but they tend to hold the stock much more at Braemar, and in my experience the advice can be a bit better there. If you're happy to buy without face-to-face service then Telemark Pyrenees are good and competitively priced.

Note that pre-cut tracks in Scotland would be the centre at Huntly, another by the ski road near Cairngorm and, errrr, that's probably it.  So if you expect to use pre-cut then you'll probably be going somewhere you can hire lighter, faster kit better suited to the job in any case.

Definitely going for crown bases rather than waxable to make things easier.

Easier for what though?  They're easier in terms of getting them ready for action but harder in terms of the effort needed to cover ground and harder to turn.  You choose, you lose...

Pete.