Alternative Medieval Scottish Capital Question

Hopefully someone can help me with this rather eclectic question :)

Basically in OTL Edinburgh remained the capital of the Kingdom of Scotland despite being burned by the English a couple of times, this is for very good reasons such as defensibility and good location for trade. However in the scenario Im proposing England is distracted with wars in France and after burning Edinburgh badly once wont attack Scotland again for a while, additionally Scotland has gained holdings in Ireland during the early 1300s when this decision is being made and the whole capital thing isn't formal yet.

Now my question is would a location about where Irvine is today be a good capital once fortified for a medieval realm including Scotland and Ireland, would it be defendable and viable ? If not where would - many thanks :)
 
It might make sense geographically, but would the kings of Scotland want to live there? That usually seemed to be the deciding factor in the choice of a capital.
 
ITTL if I do decide upon it I would make it into quite a nice place but upon initial foundation its just a standard Scottish burgh. Would it work as a capital of Ireland ?
 
It might make sense geographically, but would the kings of Scotland want to live there? That usually seemed to be the deciding factor in the choice of a capital.

In a way it makes sense geographically, but it also effectively shields Scotland from the precious trade with Europe, and that would be very costly.

European traders would now have a choice - keep trading to east coast ports, where the trade will now be more scattered, goods will cost a lot more to ship cross-country to the capital (making buyers far less willing to pay the merchants' prices) and some goods may not be off-loadable as they might need to be delivered straight to their destination (foodstuffs which can go off in a short period, for example). Either which way, their profits are going to be cut somewhat.

Alternatively they can now sail to the west coast, incurring costs for doing so as they are having to make a 2-3 day detour, which is another 2-3 days where the weather can blow them off course and so on. Not only that but the voyage to the north of Scotland is treacherous, so no merchant is going to want to choose that route willingly over the southern route, but the southern route involves sailing through English territorial waters for several hundred miles, where the English will probably do their best (over time) to persuade the merchants to land in Bristol or Southampton instead, cutting trade to Irvine. In times of war the English navy (small as it was back in the day) can entirely cut off trade fairly easily by simply closing off the two entry points to the Irish Sea.

In short, it would be disastrous for Scotland economically.
 
In short, it would be disastrous for Scotland economically.

That's the main plausibility flaw as I see it - it economic incentive for an east coast capital for trading and commerce is so strong in the early medieval era. ITTL it may be easier once trade with Ireland [the other half of the kingdom] and colonial trade from TTL Scottish colonies and the equivalent of the trade that went to Glasgow OTL increases.

Would it possible if there was confusion between rebuilt Edinburgh and Irvine over which was the capital allowing both to build up - perhaps an economic and a royal capital ? At least until the aforementioned western trade increase and the formal Union of Ireland and Scotland ?
 
Edinburgh did not really become the "capital city" in any sort of modern centralised government sense till probably 1700s. About the union of the crowns time and following on from there.

In the medieval period and before, the capital was where the court happened to be in residence, which was typically Stirling or later on Linlithgow Palace. But for most of the time frame, the main "capital" such as it was would have been Dunfermline.

The parliament might be summoned from time to time as required, possibly at Edinburgh but it was really just the biggest city. Government was by the court, and that was peripatetic. Holyrood House was really just a wee town house for use if the monarch was visiting at Edinburgh, perhaps because they had called up the "Three Estates" for a wee chat about taxes or whatever. It was not the main living place for the royals. It might be that Edinburgh was mostly used for any meeting of the Scottish parliament (when actually summoned) as it was a big enough place to accommodate them all, but parliaments could be summoned anywhere.

The main trading port in Scotland was in fact South Berwick until it was finally lost to the English for good in Tudor times (it was constantly changing hands between the 2 countries). Leith only picked up in import after that and so that probably gave more importance to the Edinburgh/Port of Leith combo as an economic unit.

But as a modern capital, with a form of permanent Civil Service actually planted there then I would say that it was when James VI went South to inherit the English throne and the country was ruled in absentia for him by his and his successors placemen that Edinburgh became that place of local power/patronage as the equivalent of the "Scottish Office" began to accrue its power base there. And that's post-medieval.
 
Top