Ah challene: Scottish led United Kingdom

You can have a POD any where you want in which England and Wales are integrated into Scotland by the act of union and not into England
 
With greatest respect to you and your efforts to make a utopia where the English instead need to put up with our World Cup adverts being pounded into their skulls every waking moment this is pretty much impossible unless you make large parts of northern and Central England indentify themselves as Scottish or at least Celtic.
 
With greatest respect to you and your efforts to make a utopia where the English instead need to put up with our World Cup adverts being pounded into their skulls every waking moment this is pretty much impossible unless you make large parts of northern and Central England indentify themselves as Scottish or at least Celtic.

Well, that clearly means you need a very early PoD...but that means that it's not terribly likely the idea of "Scotland" per se ever arises.
 
You can have a POD any where you want in which England and Wales are integrated into Scotland by the act of union and not into England

The Act of Union didn't integrate Scotland into England by any means- the two nations were merged rather than England enlarged, hence the UK. Scottish law remained seperate etc. This should be contrasted with Wales, which was fully integrated into England by the Laws in Wales acts in the 1530s.

Indeed, given the fact that England had a Scottish monarch for most of the 17th century, the obvious way to get what you seem to be wanting is have James I's efforts at early Union pay off. Not sure how you'd overule the English objections to this though. Hm, Charles I wins the ECW and, as part of general absolutism, forcibly unites his two realms?

The other option would be a bit earlier. Henry V lives longer and Henry VI is more of a chip off the old block. The Union of the English and French crowns endures, people in England get increasingly restive under the rule of what is essentially a French Dynasty, and eventually revolt over high taxation to pay for the King's continental wars. The Scottish Monarch appears as an obvious alternative, presses a claim on the throne and eventually gets installed by the nobility as a more home-grown alternative to the King in Paris. An Act of Union soon follows...
 
The other option would be a bit earlier. Henry V lives longer and Henry VI is more of a chip off the old block. The Union of the English and French crowns endures, people in England get increasingly restive under the rule of what is essentially a French Dynasty, and eventually revolt over high taxation to pay for the King's continental wars. The Scottish Monarch appears as an obvious alternative, presses a claim on the throne and eventually gets installed by the nobility as a more home-grown alternative to the King in Paris. An Act of Union soon follows...

The only problem is, if you're suggesting that Henry V instantly relocates to France and treats England as a province - a mindset I believe to be false and anachronistic but that's another story - then what's to say the King of Scotland here won't just move to London after pressing his claim to the throne and hack off the Scots as Henry hacked off the English? And if he doesn't relocate to England, surely a few years later the English will just get fed up with an absentee SCOTTISH King as opposed to an absentee FRENCH King and use their overwhelming force of might over Scotland to rebel yet again?
 
With greatest respect to you and your efforts to make a utopia where the English instead need to put up with our World Cup adverts being pounded into their skulls every waking moment this is pretty much impossible unless you make large parts of northern and Central England indentify themselves as Scottish or at least Celtic.

It's horrible. I even made a thread challenging a national team instead of divided teams.
 
Uhm. If I can make a suggestion that I don't *think* has too many butterflies (that can't be waved away) or too much ASB in the mix...

~35-40AD, The Albiones send emissaries to Roman Gaul and diplomatically convince the Romans to conquer Britain south of Albion to "settle the barbarians'

40-70AD, aided by Albion, Rome succeeds in pacifying the Brittonic tribes.
Albion, allied with Rome, essentially adopts Roman practices and law.

When the legions are removed, Albion requests that they be done so in a gradual fashion from the north to the south so that they can fill in and provide law in the region.

This ultimately gives a Scottish Britain, yes?

Or did I miss something in the challenge? (likely, since I just woke up)
 
Seeing as at that point the Scots were still just another Irish tribe hanging out in Ulster, yeah, that's pretty wrong.

Yes, and the problem with this idea in general is that England was a much more important and powerful realm than Scotland. IOTL, the Scottish royal family basically inherited England-thats about as favorable to Scotland as you can get. And yet they still moved their capital to London and were English within two or three generations.

The closest you can come, IMO, to this is a Gaelic-dominated Britain. According to my Oxford History of Ireland (which I don't have with me now unfortunately), the Scots colony on Kintyre (which eventually became modern Scotland), was one of only several Irish colonies in Britain established at the time. All the others were in England or Wales, and ultimately failed.

But why not wank one of them? Have an Irish tribe establish control over all of Wales, then expand into OTL England and eventually defeat the Saxons. Most of *England's population was Brythonic Celtic at the time, so after a couple centuries of Irish rule we could see a gradual shift to a Gaelic-derived language similar to Scots Gaelic. Thus, by 1000, you have Gaelic-dominated Britain.
 
Yes, and the problem with this idea in general is that England was a much more important and powerful realm than Scotland. IOTL, the Scottish royal family basically inherited England-thats about as favorable to Scotland as you can get. And yet they still moved their capital to London and were English within two or three generations.

I think this is it. Make them keep the capital in Scotland even if not dominant, Scotland will become much more important within the UK than IOTL.
 
Seeing as at that point the Scots were still just another Irish tribe hanging out in Ulster, yeah, that's pretty wrong.

Did I have my times wrong??

I thought the Scotii came from Ireland and established the Kingdom of Albion?

Then let Pict refugees come stay south of them, between them and Celts, around 30AD...

Then the Romans entered the scene around 43AD...


Am I wrong?
 
Did I have my times wrong??

I thought the Scotii came from Ireland and established the Kingdom of Albion?

Then let Pict refugees come stay south of them, between them and Celts, around 30AD...

Then the Romans entered the scene around 43AD...


Am I wrong?

Waaaaaay off. By a few centuries, in fact. And the Albiones were Spanish (At least according to wiki. I'd never actually heard of that tribe before... Odd.).

The Scottii crossed over at right about the same time, or perhaps a little earlier, that a bunch of Germanic folks were crossing the North Sea into Britain. The Kingdom of Dalraida (Or Dal Raida or Dalraita) was established around where, I believe, Kintyre is now. Picts were Celts, more likely than not, non-Romanised Britons who actually conquered Dalraida a couple of times. Eventually though, Dalraida and Pictland... merged, I guess, the whole Kenneth MacAlpin thing. This new kingdom was called Alba (Which is Scotland's modern Gaelic name.), and, after some time, conquered northern parts of Northumbria and Strathclyde, more or less giving you Scotland's modern borders.

But, seriously, please read a book.

You are, at least, more or less right about the Romans, the more or less part being Julius Caesar's little incursion about a century before the Claudian invasion.
 
Top