English Scotland?

Hey Guys,

Random thought, but how could you make all the 'best bits' of Scotland (i.e. The lowlands) have a predominantly English population and thus be an official part of England (annexed by England), while the bits left over (the Highlands) are still very Scottish before a political unification (if there would be one in such a timeline).

I was thinking something along the lines of England winning wars against the Scots then either moving them [the Scots] overseas in large amounts, or through mass immigration of English settlers or something.

How could you do this? The POD has to be after 1250 at least.

Go!
 
Hey Guys,

Random thought, but how could you make all the 'best bits' of Scotland (i.e. The lowlands) have a predominantly English population and thus be an official part of England (annexed by England), while the bits left over (the Highlands) are still very Scottish before a political unification (if there would be one in such a timeline).

This is actually very easy. Simply have the petty kingdoms of the Lowlands fall into the English orbit rather than the Scottish. For example in the west the forces of Strathclyde (alongside those of Alba, which became Scotland) were defeated by the English at the Battle of Brunanburh in 937, and Strathclyde only passed under Scottish control sometime in the 11th century. Lothian, to the West only fell under Scottish control in 1018, and William the Conqueror invaded it up until the Forth, but elected not to keep it. Galloway, in the south-west was pretty much independent through the 12th and 13th centuries.

I was thinking something along the lines of England winning wars against the Scots then either moving them [the Scots] overseas in large amounts, or through mass immigration of English settlers or something.

As I say, not required. Consider this linguistic map:

250px-SCOTLANG1100.PNG


As time passed, the use of Gaelic retreated northwards and English expanded west.

How could you do this? The POD has to be after 1250 at least.

That makes it slightly more challenging, but not much, as it post-dates the 1237 Treaty of York which agreed what is virtually the Scottish border. After then, the English kings became more interested in asserting overlordship over all of Scotland rather than nibbling pieces off. What we probably need to do here is have a PoD that weakens Scotland so that they fair more poorly later on.

So, I propose the PoD that Haakon IV of Norway's fleet doesn't get wrecked by a storm in 1263, and the ATL equivalent to to the Battle of Largs is a resounding victory, resulting in the death of Alexander III, and the early collapse of Scotland into the chaos of an interregnum. His heir apparent at this point is his three year old daughter Margaret, although this will change shortly afterwards with the birth of his son, Alexander IV.

Now, I imagine that under normal circumstances, Henry II of England would step in here, as he is the father of the now widowed Queen of Scotland, but he's currently in dispute with his barons, and is unable to act.

So, it's quite plausible that, essentially, Scotland disintegrates. It's only really been in its current form for 250 years, and their are still strong peripheral forces. If the lords of Galloway, Strathclyde, Dunbar etc can't agree on who's going to be Regent, then Margaret and Alexander could easily become casualties of the chaos.

This of course could have a whole set of intriguing impacts on de Montfort's "democratic" rebellion in England, but I won't go into these in too much detail - for example, the accident which prevented him attending the arbitration at the Amiens would almost certainly be butterflied. A surviving British parliament - including elected commoners would be a very interesting divergence here.

So, assuming that the civil war in England ends on schedule in 1267, it's quite possible that there is no direct heirs for Henry to intervene in support of left in Scotland. I can easily see the English, particularly the future Edward I, playing a long game here and giving support to the southern Scottish lords in return for direct fealty. Eventually, say by 1300, Scotland will reunify, but Lothian, Strathclyde and Galloway could easily be considered as English by this point
 
Hey Guys,

Random thought, but how could you make all the 'best bits' of Scotland (i.e. The lowlands) have a predominantly English population and thus be an official part of England (annexed by England), while the bits left over (the Highlands) are still very Scottish before a political unification (if there would be one in such a timeline).

I was thinking something along the lines of England winning wars against the Scots then either moving them [the Scots] overseas in large amounts, or through mass immigration of English settlers or something.

How could you do this? The POD has to be after 1250 at least.

Go!

This is really pretty unlikely with that PoD; it would be way easier if we could avert the vikings and keep Edinburgh from being conquered by the Celts. By 1250, Scotland exists for good, and to take a big bit of it over, you have to beat it as a state (which the medieval English proved unable to do :p); so why not take the Highlands as well? It's not like they're really suitable for setting up an independent country. They're a bizarre shape for that. The fault-line doesn't really work as a political boundary. Alratan's scenario is the closest thing, but that isn't quite "the Highlands" and "the Lowlands".

And what does "English" and "Scottish" mean? If a Scottophone part of Scotland can be brought securely under English control at this time, it'll probably turn out "English".

There's not much reason to bring in English settlers. Where you had big medieval colonisation (Silesia and all that jazz) you had lots of land and not many people here, too many for the land there. Whereas in Scotland the land is a bit shit, and England has better land and plenty enough of it. As to moving Scots away, big anachronism. States weren't ethnically-based at the time, so it was just disposing of useful people to "ethnically cleanse".

A highland state wouldn't really be "very Scottish" anyway; it would be utterly unlike our Scotland. Gaelic would be the national language and all the rest of it.
 
You could easily have a personal union form between England and Scotland by having Margaret the Maid of Norway live and marrying Edward II. In such a situation it’s really not that hard to imagine the lowlands becoming increasingly Anglicized as the center of power is clearly going to be London in such a Union. Combine that with avoiding the power struggle and the events resulted from it after Margaret's death OTL and you've effectively aborted a large part of the foundation of Scottish nationalism to boot.
 
This is really pretty unlikely with that PoD; it would be way easier if we could avert the vikings and keep Edinburgh from being conquered by the Celts.

I don't think you have to go so early. There are a hole set of good 10th/11th century PoDs that would serve to disrupt Alba's emergence as the hegemon over northern Britain, leaving it's southern parts to England.

By 1250, Scotland exists for good, and to take a big bit of it over, you have to beat it as a state (which the medieval English proved unable to do :p); so why not take the Highlands as well?

I think that you're overstating your case here a bit. Scotland's unitary identity was really established by the Wars of Independence, before then the various sub-kings had maintained substantially more independence from central rule. I agree though, that by this date England is more likely to focus on subjugating Scotland's rulers rather than border adjustments. That's why my scenario removes the central authority.

It's not like they're really suitable for setting up an independent country. They're a bizarre shape for that. The fault-line doesn't really work as a political boundary. Alratan's scenario is the closest thing, but that isn't quite "the Highlands" and "the Lowlands".

Well, my setup works just as well for taking Galloway and Strathclyde as Lothian, the nobility in much of the Lowlands is Franco-Norman anyway, as the linguistic borders are secondary. I think the issue with controlling the Highlands (or the land north of the Clyde/Forth), is simply that it's not worth it. A PoD which butterflies de Montfort's rebellion to success and then leads to the Lowland lords preferring to sit in the distant English parliament rather than answer to a nearby king in Scone. It's notable that in this period, the Kings of Scotland only held Scotland south of the Forth as vassals of the Kings of England. This could provide a reason why the English may limit their advance.

And what does "English" and "Scottish" mean? If a Scottophone part of Scotland can be brought securely under English control at this time, it'll probably turn out "English".

I agree with this completely, the advance of Middle English was well established by this point.

There's not much reason to bring in English settlers. Where you had big medieval colonisation (Silesia and all that jazz) you had lots of land and not many people here, too many for the land there. Whereas in Scotland the land is a bit shit, and England has better land and plenty enough of it. As to moving Scots away, big anachronism. States weren't ethnically-based at the time, so it was just disposing of useful people to "ethnically cleanse".

Also agreed. The thing to change here is the allegiance of the lords, rather than anything about the bulk population - that will follow soon enough.

A highland state wouldn't really be "very Scottish" anyway; it would be utterly unlike our Scotland. Gaelic would be the national language and all the rest of it.

Yes, although it might share the same name, it would be very different in character.
 
Just plain keeping the Lowlands English in the first place would indeed be the way. Or having the English marching back in and reclaiming it early in the last millenium, have to make sure its before the idea of Scottishness has formed though.

Straightclyde would probally fall/be absorbed eventually whilst with the highlands...Well look at Wales. Welsh has survived hidden up in hte hills and without the heavy connections to the good parts of Scotland there will be little incentive to get too involved in northern Scotland.
 
Top