A bit of background to those unfamiliar with the earlier chapters of (properly) Scottish history, before what scholarship calls the Davidian Revolution (a series of institutional reforms propagated by King David I) was something like your prototypical image of a gaelic kingdom, and it could be argued that it had - politically and culturally - much more in common with its Irish siblings across the sheuch, historiography going as far as calling the pre-Wars of Independence kingdom as specifically the Kingdom of Alba (as opposed to Scotland). It hadn't yet consolidated to the manner we're familiar with the concept of "Scotland" today, such consolidation was arguably headstarted by David and his heirs, although the process was already taking shape during the fairly long reign of David's father, Malcolm III.
The thing is, the aforementioned "revolution" is responsible for the (quick) normanization and (gradual) anglicization first of the Scottish court and second of Scotland itself, the burghs created by David would come to in less than a century be recognized as centers of the english sprachbund (for lack of a better term), as english historian William of Newburgh would write in the reign of the homonym scottish king that "the towns and burghs of the Scottish [Gaelic] realm are known to be inhabited by English". English, more accurately, the northernmost variety of Late Northumbrian Old English, that would later become Scots, was already spoken in the kingdom's lands south of the Forth and east of the Clyde Valley (so basically Lothian), but as one can take from Adam of Dryburgh, it was seen at least as far as the 13th century that the "Kingdom of Scotland" was inherently Gaelic (or at least inherently not-anglic), he describes his locality as "in terra Anglorum et in regno Scottorum" ("in english lands at the Scottish kingdom"), and there was a prevailing view that the "english lands" bordered the "scottish lands" on the Firth of Forth, traditionally the border between Old English speakers and Gaelic ones.
More on point, the anglicization of Scotland (and the takeover of Scots identity as the "mainstream" scottish identity) is very relevant to how politics and overall perceptions in Britain came and went, the Scottish Independence Wars were mostly a Scots enterprise, and were what signalled the beggining of Gaelic gaining the shorter end of the stick and relegating to a "rural" language (even with ongoing normanization, Scottish royal tradition was still very Gaelic until the break created by the Independence Wars), later in the Medieval-Modern transition, Anglo-Scottish common "englishness" was very central to the political idea of any union between the two crowns becoming institutionally permanent, and as such guided both Anglo and Scottish self-perception on politics (re: security and ambitions).
It's very difficult to classify my intent here, but it's simultaneously a WI, an AHQ, an attempt at starting discussion and an AHC (as i'm kinda asking what would be suitable PoDs for what i'm saying). But here it goes:
What are the mid to long-term consequences of a Scotland that is still seen (and still sees itself) as a mainly Gaelic, Celtic, polity? How would that change the dynamics between it, England, and surrounding polities? How that affects perceptions of it, and its perceptions of others, down the line? Assuming minimal butterflies, of course. It's an exercise at thinking. Beyond that, which PoD would be more fitting to create such situation? My tirades about David and his reforms might give the thinking of obvious-ness about where to change, but it's important to note that it wasn't until almost 150 years after him that Scotland solidly became ruled by a Scots-speaking elite, and Gaelic was sidelined. Besides, David's reforms were very beneficial towards the long-term sucess of Scotland as a state, since as i said also, it started the consolidation of royal power in the country. Besides, technically speaking bringing anglos in shouldn't necessarily expand their position in the Kingdom, the expected result of urban migration is usually for the migrants to go native, unless given greater political power than what would be considered a native. And on that, how could Gaelic expand into the english-speaking core below the Forth, instead of the reverse?
Any additional thoughts are, of course, welcomed
The thing is, the aforementioned "revolution" is responsible for the (quick) normanization and (gradual) anglicization first of the Scottish court and second of Scotland itself, the burghs created by David would come to in less than a century be recognized as centers of the english sprachbund (for lack of a better term), as english historian William of Newburgh would write in the reign of the homonym scottish king that "the towns and burghs of the Scottish [Gaelic] realm are known to be inhabited by English". English, more accurately, the northernmost variety of Late Northumbrian Old English, that would later become Scots, was already spoken in the kingdom's lands south of the Forth and east of the Clyde Valley (so basically Lothian), but as one can take from Adam of Dryburgh, it was seen at least as far as the 13th century that the "Kingdom of Scotland" was inherently Gaelic (or at least inherently not-anglic), he describes his locality as "in terra Anglorum et in regno Scottorum" ("in english lands at the Scottish kingdom"), and there was a prevailing view that the "english lands" bordered the "scottish lands" on the Firth of Forth, traditionally the border between Old English speakers and Gaelic ones.
More on point, the anglicization of Scotland (and the takeover of Scots identity as the "mainstream" scottish identity) is very relevant to how politics and overall perceptions in Britain came and went, the Scottish Independence Wars were mostly a Scots enterprise, and were what signalled the beggining of Gaelic gaining the shorter end of the stick and relegating to a "rural" language (even with ongoing normanization, Scottish royal tradition was still very Gaelic until the break created by the Independence Wars), later in the Medieval-Modern transition, Anglo-Scottish common "englishness" was very central to the political idea of any union between the two crowns becoming institutionally permanent, and as such guided both Anglo and Scottish self-perception on politics (re: security and ambitions).
It's very difficult to classify my intent here, but it's simultaneously a WI, an AHQ, an attempt at starting discussion and an AHC (as i'm kinda asking what would be suitable PoDs for what i'm saying). But here it goes:
What are the mid to long-term consequences of a Scotland that is still seen (and still sees itself) as a mainly Gaelic, Celtic, polity? How would that change the dynamics between it, England, and surrounding polities? How that affects perceptions of it, and its perceptions of others, down the line? Assuming minimal butterflies, of course. It's an exercise at thinking. Beyond that, which PoD would be more fitting to create such situation? My tirades about David and his reforms might give the thinking of obvious-ness about where to change, but it's important to note that it wasn't until almost 150 years after him that Scotland solidly became ruled by a Scots-speaking elite, and Gaelic was sidelined. Besides, David's reforms were very beneficial towards the long-term sucess of Scotland as a state, since as i said also, it started the consolidation of royal power in the country. Besides, technically speaking bringing anglos in shouldn't necessarily expand their position in the Kingdom, the expected result of urban migration is usually for the migrants to go native, unless given greater political power than what would be considered a native. And on that, how could Gaelic expand into the english-speaking core below the Forth, instead of the reverse?
Any additional thoughts are, of course, welcomed
