I found Noregr, Svitjod, Danemark, and Danelagh, but I don't know if those are right and I don't know about Scotland, Ireland and France.
Danelagh isn't the name for England, more the part that was controlled by Danes. There was a discussion about norse name of England some times ago, and the consensus seems to have been that it would have probably been close to the anglo-saxon name, or icelandic for that matter : Ingland, maybe.
The same probably goes for Scotland, at least in a geographical name (rather than strictly political).
For France, depending on if the suffix -land was used or not, something along these lines : Frankia, Frankland, Frakland.
Also, was France wasn't unified yet was it? I know it had a capet king.
Depends on what you call unified : if it's about having a modern administrative state, then obviously no.
But Capetians begans to enforce their rule, as understood by feudal conventions : no real pretender against them and they managed to have their suzerainty acknowledged and relativly applied at least in the northern part.
It doesn't, of course, make them unchallenged but not at the point to durably lower their power.
Robert II rule, that is admittedly one of the great french kings of the period, is a good exemple : the War of Sucsession of Burgundy shows that while he had to fight to enforce his interests, he was able to win such conflicts, eventually with the support of the church that sealed an important alliance for Capetians.
Eventually, he imposed his elder surviving son as heir, rather than let pairs and elites choose and elect among the whole fratry. Even if the sucession wasn't clearly a primogeniture and was at least technically elective up to Philip Augustus, Robert by associating his heir to the throne managed to prevent a nobiliar takeover of the crown.
France was eventually in a far better situation than in the early X century, and you could say it was the bases for Capetian domination one century later.