The Empire of Scotland

[Beck Reilly]

The way I see it, the major problem with having Scotland an independent nation is its small population. But, even small Switzerland (1/2 the land area of Scotland and in the Alps, for God's sake) has a much greater population density and population (1 1/2 times the population of Scotland).

So what changes could occur to develop Scotland with a population of 14 million ((land area of Scotland)x(population density of Switzerland))?

BTW: I don't want the climate or geography changed!

Now, with that out of the way, how can we have an independent Scottish Empire? (Double points for combining it with the Isle of Man and a Catholic Northern Ireland; Triple points for making it the dominant nation in the British Isles.)

[DominusNovus]

Maybe if the Romans had a permanent presence there. Then, have the Britons and Romans flee the southern part of the island when the barbarians come (maybe Hadrian's wall was still built, so they use that for defense). Kepp Scotland under one ruler, so it remains somewhat stable. Keep England unstable and divided, so they provide no threat. As long as Scotland remains pretty stable, its population will expand (especially if they keep any Roman institutions or infrastructure relatively intact). It can then expand to the south and over to Ireland.

[Beck Reilly]

Wait, I have an idea. How about the Spanish Armada succeeds (somehow). Many English retreat north into Scotland.

Uneasy peace, constant border fights but the Scottish forths and highlands are easy to defend.

In (about) 1650-ish, the Spanish can no longer maintain their control over England. They leave.

But, by now, nearly 1/2 - 2/3 the population of England is Catholic. Not many in Scotland (even the English who retreated north are dead) want to rejoin with the "Catholic" south.

Scottish Empire, which is now 80 yrs old, continues with a population of 1/4 - 1/5 that of England (rather than 1/10, as in OTL).

Scotland develops seperately of England....


Any possibility at all.............

[Lord Douglas]

Perhaps the Jacobite Rebellion of 1715 succeeds. It only fails OTL due to the commander's incompetance. King James now acceeds to the Scottish throne and King George I of England makes peace with Scotland. James VIII pledges to give up all claim to the English throne, but his word is not taken at face value. England, in the middle of an anti Jacobite and Anti Scottish hysteria, starts to discriminate against expat Scots and suspected Jacobites and Catholics, who they fear is the enemy within. James in Scotland meanwhile declares limited freedom of worship. The Presbeteryian Church is recognised as the Established Church, but Catholics and Episcopalians are allowed to worship in their own way and are even allowed to build their own churches, although that is under strict regulation. Non-Christians obviously aren't allowed to worship. Many flee from England due to persecution.

France and Spain realise the value of a state on England's northern border, and court it with trade agreements, alliances, colonies etc. Scotland gets Darien, like they wanted, and advisors to train their army. Darien turns out to be a steady money maker, although many still die from Yellow Fever. Porters take goods across the Isthmus of Panama to load onto ships on the other side, and in time a canal is dug, with Dutch help. Other Scots trading colonies are set up on the African and Indian coasts, and in time they grow to be the start of quite a large empire (not as large as the British and French OTL, but a respectable size). There are more wars over the years with England, and Scotland manages to get Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man out of it (most of the population of Northern Ireland was Scots anyway). But England is often willing to pay such a price as it is involved with Continiental Wars. During the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars, the Scots and English are both on the same side. Scots kings (who retain more power thna their English counterparts) are shocked at the Revolutionaries attempt to build a new European order. After that, despite some diplomatic tensions, relations between the states remain cordial. (WW1 and 2 may not happen here due to changing events, and this is only an outline. I've written enough).

So is this plausible?

[benedict XVII]

You could also have a Charles IX of Valois staying healthy enough to father a son to Mary Stuart. Said son becomes in due time King of France and Scotland. Empire is developed jointly in Ireland, Isle of Man, the America's and maybe some parts of India. French revolution happens more or less on time - even if for different reasons, but Scotland does not follow as regime was already more liberal over there. The Royals take refuge in Edinburgh, and manage to keep the Empire with the help of the French-Scottish Royal Navy whose officers immigrated with them. Refugees from the time of the Terror swell the population of Scotland and provide an important economic stimulus with all the capital and skills they bring along. Later on, France does its own thing, eventually becoming an Empire or a Republic, while Scotland prospers under the Valois, having inherited the common Empire.

Scotland has remained mostly Catholic all along under the Valois, who, taking their lessons from what happened in France, managed to avoid bloody religious tensions in their Northern Kingdom through a handy policy of toleration. When "Blood Mary" becomes Queen of England, many Protestants flee to find a refuge to Scotland. The only thing they need to do is swear an oath of personal allegiance to the Valois and promise they won't indulge in actions targeting the Catholic Church. They also have to pay a small tax to enrich the Valois's treasury.

As for the Empire, the combined Scottish-French fleet and bases makes for a stronger rival to England than OTL.

[JHPier]

Originally Posted by Lord Douglas

Perhaps the Jacobite Rebellion of 1715 succeeds. It only fails OTL due to the commander's incompetance. King James now acceeds to the Scottish throne and King George I of England makes peace with Scotland. James VIII pledges to give up all claim to the English throne, but his word is not taken at face value.
...
So is this plausible?

I don't really think that England would allow the establishment of a potentially hostile state in its rear this late when they have the power to crush it (England still outweighs Scotland several times after all). It needs to stay independent.

I like Benedict XVIII's scenario

[Lord Douglas]

Originally Posted by JHPier

I don't really think that England would allow the establishment of a potentially hostile state in its rear this late when they have the power to crush it (England still outweighs Scotland several times after all). It needs to stay independent.

I like Benedict XVIII's scenario

In 1715 there was 15 000 Jacobites running around Scotland, and there was only 5000 government troops. It was feared that many of these troops, being Scots, would desert to the Jacobites. Army of Britain as a whole at the time was less than 30 000, and much of that was on the Continent. And Scotland could be potentially useful to powers like France and Spain. But it all depends on the calibre of statesmen and generals that both Scotland and England have.

[JHPier]

Originally Posted by Lord Douglas

In 1715 there was 15 000 Jacobites running around Scotland,

Mostly Highlanders, who had a penchant for melting away when they felt themselves too far from home.

Originally Posted by Lord Douglas

and there was only 5000 government troops. It was feared that many of these troops, being Scots, would desert to the Jacobites.

Such fears are often proven to be exaggerated. Lowland and Highland Scots in this era did not much care for each other

Originally Posted by Lord Douglas

Army of Britain as a whole at the time was less than 30 000, and much of that was on the Continent.

Which can be shipped home quite as quickly as the Jacobites can march on London and supplemented by troops from Holland or the German states if really necessary

Originally Posted by Lord Douglas

And Scotland could be potentially useful to powers like France and Spain.

Only after it has managed to cut loose from England

Originally Posted by Lord Douglas

But it all depends on the calibre of statesmen and generals that both Scotland and England have.

Oh absolutely.

However I still think that the Jacobites had really only two options: march on London and overthrow the existing government - which simply keeps the UK in being, albeit in a modified form - or stay in Scotland and be overwhelmed by superior English numbers

[Lord Douglas]

Originally Posted by JHPier

Mostly Highlanders, who had a penchant for melting away when they felt themselves too far from home. Such fears are often proven to be exaggerated. Lowland and Highland Scots in this era did not much care for each other Which can be shipped home quite as quickly as the Jacobites can march on London and supplemented by troops from Holland or the German states if really necessary Only after it has managed to cut loose from England Oh absolutely.

However I still think that the Jacobites had really only two options: march on London and overthrow the existing government - which simply keeps the UK in being, albeit in a modified form - or stay in Scotland and be overwhelmed by superior English numbers

Your probably generally in the right, but it wasn't highlanders who made up the bulk of the force. It was North East Lowlanders - Aberdeenshire, Perthshire etc who made up the bulk of the force. And the Union was very unpopular in Scotland of the time, so if James promised to keep the Established Church and to break the Union then he would have a lot of support from Lowlanders. And you could probably get Ireland to revolt against their English masters as well. But if King George's government thought that James would simply be happy to keep Scotland, they might just make a deal with him. But then they may not.

[JHPier]

Originally Posted by Lord Douglas

Your probably generally in the right, but it wasn't highlanders who made up the bulk of the force. It was North East Lowlanders - Aberdeenshire, Perthshire etc who made up the bulk of the force.

Hm, the two accounts of Sherrifsmuir available to me at home only mentions Highland foot

Originally Posted by Lord Douglas

And the Union was very unpopular in Scotland of the time, so if James promised to keep the Established Church and to break the Union then he would have a lot of support from Lowlanders. And you could probably get Ireland to revolt against their English masters as well. But if King George's government thought that James would simply be happy to keep Scotland, they might just make a deal with him. But then they may not.

IMO London won't cut a deal. Not unless there's been a long war and the Scots have beaten every invading army.

[Lord Douglas]

Originally Posted by JHPier

Hm, the two accounts of Sherrifsmuir available to me at home only mentions Highland footIMO London won't cut a deal. Not unless there's been a long war and the Scots have beaten every invading army.

Well, maybe I just find the prospect of an independant Scotland in this particular era interesting, all the more so since I live there. Surprisingly I don't advocate independance in this day and age. But I think that the most likely way to get a Scottish Empire is for James IV not to marry Margaret Tudor. He was fairly reluctant OTL, and he only consented to do so after his mistress was poisoned. Either that or Elizabeth I marries someone and has kids.

[Glen]

Originally Posted by Beck Reilly

The way I see it, the major problem with having Scotland an independent nation is its small population. But, even small Switzerland (1/2 the land area of Scotland and in the Alps, for God's sake) has a much greater population density and population (1 1/2 times the population of Scotland).

So what changes could occur to develop Scotland with a population of 14 million ((land area of Scotland)x(population density of Switzerland))?

BTW: I don't want the climate or geography changed!

Now, with that out of the way, how can we have an independent Scottish Empire? (Double points for combining it with the Isle of Man and a Catholic Northern Ireland; Triple points for making it the dominant nation in the British Isles.)

Nothing simpler, really. Dalriada was a precursor state of Scotland. It was founded by Celts from Ulster in the 400s. Have them retain close dynastic ties, and have a unified Scottish nation develop more successfully. Maybe have a baby boom in Ulster result in more immigration to Scotland. Also have dynastic alliances with the Scandinavians that benefit the Scots more than OTL. Isle of Man falls into their pocket quite easily....

Then begin a Celtic 'reconquista' of Britain from the Anglo-Saxons.

You could end up with the entire British Isles dominated by Scotland, and thence perhaps the world....

[Tynnin]

Your mouth to the Gods ears.

[Glen]

Originally Posted by Tynnin

Your mouth to the Gods ears.

Didn't you hear? In the ASB area we were made new Greek gods. I am the god of Infinity. I could grant such a boon, but only in infinite amounts, so the Scots would have to conquer everything ad infinitum...

[Faeelin]

Hmm. A more prosperous Scotland would do it.

The Scots decide to screw Darien, and trade along the West African coast for gold instead. It's successful, and the Scots follow up by taking control of Tobago, as they tried in OTL. They make a hefty profit on the triangle trade, and take over Santo Domingo in the 7 years war for God, the King, and St. Andrew.

The Scots become early proponents of free trade in the 18th century, and side with the colonials in Tea Revolt of the 1770's. The English parliament is forced to acknowledge America has the right to control its own taxation and trade, like Scotland.

Prosperous Scotland is a bit like Holland, in that its a center of banking. It's also as heavily industrialized as OTL.

[Red Hand]

Give them a sense of humor