England stays Catholic, Scotland goes Protestant-how screwed are the Scots?

Pretty much what it says on the tin. I was wondering what would happen if Henry VIII stayed Catholic (let's say a son instead of Mary as our POD) but the Scottish reformation still happened as per OTL.

Would a catholic king of England see the military conquest and forceful counter-reformation of Scotland as an enterprise worth doing? And if so, would the 16th-century English have the military capacity to carry this out?

Scotland would almost certainly have a Catholic 5th column that would collaborate with any English invasion, but in this scenario England would likely have a Protestant 5th column in the form of converts gained by more radical reformers than OTL. This could trigger an English version of the wars of religion and weaken England militarily.

So what do more knowledgeable people think? Protestant Scotland stays independent, or gets conquered and razed?
 
Pretty much what it says on the tin. I was wondering what would happen if Henry VIII stayed Catholic (let's say a son instead of Mary as our POD) but the Scottish reformation still happened as per OTL.

Would a catholic king of England see the military conquest and forceful counter-reformation of Scotland as an enterprise worth doing? And if so, would the 16th-century English have the military capacity to carry this out?

Scotland would almost certainly have a Catholic 5th column that would collaborate with any English invasion, but in this scenario England would likely have a Protestant 5th column in the form of converts gained by more radical reformers than OTL. This could trigger an English version of the wars of religion and weaken England militarily.

So what do more knowledgeable people think? Protestant Scotland stays independent, or gets conquered and razed?

I don't think they could have enforced Catholicism on Scotland. A Catholic England would look more similar to France, or even the Polish Commonwealth (it depends on how tied is the ruling dynasty to the Papacy). England could even become a puppet of Spain for some time, like Portugal.

I foresee a Swedish/Scottish union, and a colonization of North America by these two regional powers (instead of England). Also, capitalism wouldn't rise in England, or it would at least be hampered by a Catholic mentality.
 
I doubt we'd see Scotland getting conquered - whilst England does have the resources, I doubt it would have the inclination to do so.

Interesting butterflies would be England continuing to be in the pro-Habsburg camp - remember IOTL England started off anti-French and pro-Habsburg until Philip II's heavy handed handling of things pushed England into opposing the Habsburgs - even going as far as to becoming neutral at worst vis a vis France and allies at best, which was the state of affairs until the Glorious Revolution.
 
Pretty much what it says on the tin. I was wondering what would happen if Henry VIII stayed Catholic (let's say a son instead of Mary as our POD) but the Scottish reformation still happened as per OTL.

Would a catholic king of England see the military conquest and forceful counter-reformation of Scotland as an enterprise worth doing? And if so, would the 16th-century English have the military capacity to carry this out?

Scotland would almost certainly have a Catholic 5th column that would collaborate with any English invasion, but in this scenario England would likely have a Protestant 5th column in the form of converts gained by more radical reformers than OTL. This could trigger an English version of the wars of religion and weaken England militarily.

So what do more knowledgeable people think? Protestant Scotland stays independent, or gets conquered and razed?

IOTL part of the reason the Reformation in Scotland succeeded is that Elizabeth sent troops north to help the Protestants. Assuming a Catholic England would give comparable help to the Catholics, Scotland might end up remaining Catholic too.

Also, whilst there were of course Protestants in England before Henry VIII broke from Rome, there doesn't seem to have been much of a groundswell in Protestantism in the same way as there was in Scotland or Germany, for example. Absent the King's Great Matter, it's not necessarily the case that Protestantism would gain widespread support. (Although of course, there would be ways to butterfly your way around this, e.g., by having a particularly charismatic and persuasive Protestant preacher end up converting large numbers of people in England.)
 
I don't think they could have enforced Catholicism on Scotland. A Catholic England would look more similar to France, or even the Polish Commonwealth (it depends on how tied is the ruling dynasty to the Papacy). England could even become a puppet of Spain for some time, like Portugal.

I foresee a Swedish/Scottish union, and a colonization of North America by these two regional powers (instead of England). Also, capitalism wouldn't rise in England, or it would at least be hampered by a Catholic mentality.

I doubt England would become a puppet of Spain, for reasons of distance if nothing else. You might end up with England being inherited by Spain a la the Netherlands, but that depends almost entirely on what butterflies you want to throw up.

A Swedish/Scottish union, assuming it actually happens (the two countries are a bit far away for one monarch to rule effectively), would be highly unlikely to become a major colonial player: even put together, the countries don't have enough wealth and population, and each would be more preoccupied by threats closer to home (Scotland with England, Sweden with Russia).

The idea of capitalism as in some sense an outgrowth of Protestantism does of course have a distinguished academic pedigree, although I will point out that parts of Europe (most notably the Italian city-states) already had a "proto-capitalist" economy before Martin Luther nailed up his theses.
 
I don't think there's a definitive answer there. Certainly, it becomes a target and likely one that will come into conflict at some point with England. I'd say there's definitely going to be some wars between the two.

On the other hand, it's also true that Scotland is not the primary rival or concern of England. Shared religion or no, England is still going to be more in a rivalry with France and Spain than Scotland, so stretches of begrudging tolerance so long as the Scots stay in Scotland would probably happen too.

I think we need more info.

I don't think they could have enforced Catholicism on Scotland. A Catholic England would look more similar to France, or even the Polish Commonwealth (it depends on how tied is the ruling dynasty to the Papacy). England could even become a puppet of Spain for some time, like Portugal.

I foresee a Swedish/Scottish union, and a colonization of North America by these two regional powers (instead of England). Also, capitalism wouldn't rise in England, or it would at least be hampered by a Catholic mentality.
Well, this is a charming little bit of bullshit.

First off: Why in the hell would being Catholic stop England from attempting to control colonial trade routes? Being Catholic never stopped France from doing that, and it sure as fucking hell never stopped Spain or Portugal from doing so.

Also, Catholic mentality hampering Capitalism is an idiotic idea. The difference between the enterprise of the Dutch and English and the French and Spanish had a lot more to do with the fact that it was the Crown in the latter that pushed for those colonies and thus was directly involved from the start, while in the former it was started by private interests that were eventually coopted or taken over by the State. I see no reason that similar things couldn't happen ITTL's Catholic Britain, either. As earlier said, the Italian city states were well-known for having economies and systems approaching Capitalism, so I see no reason that a similar analogue ideology does not develop, even if not exactly the same.
 
On the other hand, it's also true that Scotland is not the primary rival or concern of England. Shared religion or no, England is still going to be more in a rivalry with France and Spain than Scotland, so stretches of begrudging tolerance so long as the Scots stay in Scotland would probably happen too.

I think we need more info.

And eventually realpolitik will override confessional allegiance. France supported the Protestants in the Empire during the 30YW after all.
 
I foresee a Swedish/Scottish union, and a colonization of North America by these two regional powers (instead of England). Also, capitalism wouldn't rise in England, or it would at least be hampered by a Catholic mentality.

The whole Protestant Work ethic is an old canard based on obsolete ideas. I love Weber, but Capitalism had roots in Venice, Florence, and Genoa far before the Reformation.

France was far richer than England. It wasn't Catholicism that hindered France, it was its sclerotic Ancien Regime and the effects of bad decision making in dealing with the Mississippi bubble.
 
OK assuming the POD is Henry VIII remaining loyal to Rome (Catherine of Aragon dies in an "accident"?) Scotland isn't gonna go Protestant on its own. The Scottish Protestants only succeeded against Mary of Guise and the Catholics with English aid, which is not gonna happen. This POD also assumes that James V of Scotland, Mary, Queen of Scots' father, still dies of a nerves breakdown/ complications from battle and leaves his throne to an infant daughter. Even if such a thing happens, WHY THE HELL would Scotland ally with Sweden? What help can the Swedes be against England? Can they send troops? Can their navy harass English shipping and supply lines? Does Scotland and Sweden have an existing alliance? That's a big, fat NO to all of the above.

Les be blunt: if England is Catholic than Scotland is Catholic. The Scottish Protestants, who weren't even a majority until well into the reign of James VI, were never in a position to establish their religion as dominant on their own. They only succeeded with English help. Here we'd have England intervening on the side of the Catholics, if necessary. This idea is completely unrealistic and goes against Tudor foreign policy towards Scotland, not gonna happen.
 
I don't think there's a definitive answer there. Certainly, it becomes a target and likely one that will come into conflict at some point with England. I'd say there's definitely going to be some wars between the two.

On the other hand, it's also true that Scotland is not the primary rival or concern of England. Shared religion or no, England is still going to be more in a rivalry with France and Spain than Scotland, so stretches of begrudging tolerance so long as the Scots stay in Scotland would probably happen too.

I think we need more info.


Well, this is a charming little bit of bullshit.

First off: Why in the hell would being Catholic stop England from attempting to control colonial trade routes? Being Catholic never stopped France from doing that, and it sure as fucking hell never stopped Spain or Portugal from doing so.

Also, Catholic mentality hampering Capitalism is an idiotic idea. The difference between the enterprise of the Dutch and English and the French and Spanish had a lot more to do with the fact that it was the Crown in the latter that pushed for those colonies and thus was directly involved from the start, while in the former it was started by private interests that were eventually coopted or taken over by the State. I see no reason that similar things couldn't happen ITTL's Catholic Britain, either. As earlier said, the Italian city states were well-known for having economies and systems approaching Capitalism, so I see no reason that a similar analogue ideology does not develop, even if not exactly the same.

Seconded. They idea that Catholicism would in some way compromise English trade, colonialism or economic traditions is a clever piece of Whig propaganda, but not much more. As you pointed out the Italian city states had were Catholic and had a much longer tradition of a version of Capitalism than any of the Protestant states. Like I said above, clever propaganda, but it falls apart once anyone with even a small amount of knowledge on the subject investigates. The Catholics weren't any better or worse than the Protestants in terms of colonial and economic development. One can compare individual nations to be sure, but dismissing or elevating one or another because of religion is ignorant.
 
So it looks like the rough consensus is the Scots have a chance of staying independent if they go Protestant (though this chance is as much based on English disinterest as it is on their own military ability), but becoming Protestant would take some luck beyond the events that lead to conversion if England stays Catholic.
 
I doubt England would become a puppet of Spain, for reasons of distance if nothing else. You might end up with England being inherited by Spain a la the Netherlands, but that depends almost entirely on what butterflies you want to throw up.

A Swedish/Scottish union, assuming it actually happens (the two countries are a bit far away for one monarch to rule effectively), would be highly unlikely to become a major colonial player: even put together, the countries don't have enough wealth and population, and each would be more preoccupied by threats closer to home (Scotland with England, Sweden with Russia).

The idea of capitalism as in some sense an outgrowth of Protestantism does of course have a distinguished academic pedigree, although I will point out that parts of Europe (most notably the Italian city-states) already had a "proto-capitalist" economy before Martin Luther nailed up his theses.
err the protestant thesis used to have pedigree. now all the economic historians have discredited it due to new quantitative data findings about the world econom. if you want you can read up Maddison, Rourke, Findlay, Pommeranz eg the current mainstream academics specializing in the field. England was bound to go to colonization with or without Scotland. Access to global trade markets was too good an incentive to pass up.

Western Europe according to the mainstream view was rich compared to other parts of the world prior to industrial revolution verified by quantitative data. In 1000 A.D Europe was poorer than Asia, but by 1400-1500 it had overtaken the rest of the world though differentials weren't as pronounced as post 1820. "This richness was product of centuries of accumulation based in turn on investment, appropriation of European resources and labour, substantial tech progress.. not only in distribution o material goods but in organization and financing of their exchange and distribution."(Maddison World Economy the Mellenial Perspective). Protestantinism had little to do with it.

I can link you to world economic statistics compiled by Maddison in 1992 to reflect the new findings on the world economy between 1000-2000 A.D> I too was surprised myself by what it showed.
 
Top