Plausible TL? Scotland Becomes Dominant Force

I'm currently 'working' on a TL which involves Scotland becoming the dominant force in the United Kingdom. Could it at all happen?

84 - Roman invasion of Caledonia. It is slowly 'Romanised'.

122 - Building of Hadrian's wall. It is built to halt a potential rebellion marching south, although this would never materialise.

383-410 - Roman withdrawl from Britain. Anglo-Saxons begin settlement in England, and Picts begin moving south of the border.

450-500 - Skirmishes with Picts mean that the Anglo-Saxons are forced to move south. The kingdoms of Bernicia never materialises and is instead settled by Picts and Scots along with northern Deira. Some other forming kingdoms are also overrun.

843 - Unification of Scotland.

927 - Unification of England.

930 - Pict Uprising in England.

1066 - Norman conquest of England. Scotland is not invaded but would be influenced by the Normans.

1296-1328 - English invasion of Scotland (First War of Scottish Independence). It fails and ends with the Treaty of Edinburgh-Northampton, merging the lands settled by Picts but claimed by England into Scotland.

1332-1357 - Discontent after the signing of the treaty leads the the Second War of Scottish Independence which again fails. The Treaty of Berwick is signed.

1455-1480 - Wars of the Roses in England. It is quickly resolved as the First War of English Independence looms.

1480-1493 - First War of English Indpendence. Scotland attempts to invade England, getting as far as Birmingham but are fought back. Some Scottish border gains are made but overall the war is inconclusive.

1513 - James V of Scotland declares himself King of Ireland.

1532-1544 - Second War of English Independence. The war ends in an unconditional English victory.

1569 - War between Scotland and Denmark for control of the German Ocean (now North Sea) . A small and unprepared Scottish fleet is defeated.

1579-1582 - English uprising in the North. This spirals into the 5th Anglo-Scottish War. English rebel strongholds like Newcastle revolt and join England, creating the 'Second Kingdom'.

1591-1593 - 6th Anglo-Scottish war and the conquest of the Second Kingdom. Lands in the North are annexed to Scotland, and England and Scotland are ruled by James I in 'the Union of the Crowns'.

1542-1651 - English civil war ends in the execution of Scottish Charles I.

(1652-1688 - Series of wars between England and the Dutch over trade with England's last colonies. A pro-Scottish Dutch lord ends up on the throne of England - William III of Orange-Nassau. He intends to unify England and Scotland, then convince the Dutch King to enter a union with the new country.

1700 - Success of the Darien scheme and colonisation attempts in North America means Scotland becomes steadily richer, whilst England is plummeted into new economic hardships.

1707 - Act of union between Scotland and England.)


I don't know about the last bit in brackets, it seems a bit implausible. But then again, the whole timeline could be so. Have I gone off on completely the wrong foot? Or could this really happen? I'm a bit of an amateur:D

e8swhj.png

The Union Flag
 

KCammy

Banned
A little convergent.

How can you be sure that things like the war of Roses and the Norman Invasions will happen like they did in OTL with such large changes to history?

Though I'm quite pleased with the concept, being perhaps a little too much of a Scottish patriot.... :)
 
Without an allies I can't see Scotland being the dominant power of the british isles. They don't have the manpower to challenge England.
 

KCammy

Banned
Without an allies I can't see Scotland being the dominant power of the british isles. They don't have the manpower to challenge England.

This.

I think you need some way to shift the centre of gravity population wise.

Though, in theory, you could make Scotland a powerful, independent, 2nd power, with luck and optimal conditions.

It is in a nice position, at the edge of the North Sea, right, as well?
 
This.

I think you need some way to shift the centre of gravity population wise.

Though, in theory, you could make Scotland a powerful, independent, 2nd power, with luck and optimal conditions.

It is in a nice position, at the edge of the North Sea, right, as well?

I did try to do so with the Picts settling south of the wall, where the land is more arable, meaning their numbers will increase over time significantly.

I've probably neglected the Auld Alliance, if ever it happens...
 
Shifting the Scottish border South is indeed necessary.

Nevertheless, you'd always have the problem that England has better a agricultural situation. Having the heavy plough invented in Scotland, as early as possible introduction of potatoes into Scotland, invention of aquaculture in Scotland may all lessen that, but won't overcome it.

The trick therefore must be to weaken England. I'd propose an independent Cornwall/Dumnonia surviving as well as a stronger independent Wales. Doing so cuts of large parts of England and thus increases the relative strength of Scotland.

Another idea is to have Scotland expand into Ireland, maybe even to Iceland and Vinland.

Then you could have a series of civil wars and epidemics hit England. With a religious civil war killing large parts of the population in England, whereas Scotland is religiously liberal and open for immigrants, you'd further weaken England.

In the end, though, even such a rump England has good chances to become the dominant power on the British islands.
 
This.

I think you need some way to shift the centre of gravity population wise.

I would assume there would be some sort of statistics on this, but has the current quite large imbalance in population between England and Scotland been fairly consistent over time, or has it moved in England's favour over the centuries?

Also, now this is a VERY dumb question to ask (almost embarassed to ask it), and a bit tangential to the question, but WHY is there such a large population difference (in favour of England) between the two nations in OTL?

Now, obviously, England is larger than Scotland, but not by world standards massively so, so why does it end up with many more people? Perhaps this is my Australian mindset (ie green land = arable land), but my probably misinformed assumption would be that almost all parts of the UK are suitable for at least some form of agriculture (even with the more difficult moutainous topography of the Highlands, etc).
 
Around the time of Alexander the Great (the Scottish one) there was an opportunity that would have seen Scotland possibly be dominant. But I saw it on TV a long time ago and I have forgotten the detail haha but here goes...

The English King at the time was dying, there was some plan that would have seen the Northern English nobles side with Scotland instead, but it fell apart when a new King turned up before the plan was pulled off... Lacking detail I know, hopefully someone else will know that! But basically you could have had a Scotland extending down well past Newcastle. The key here is really making sure Scotland has a population size that means England can't try and bully it, or that it is economically much stronger, say from earlier, much more successful colonies.
 
Of course, as history show us many times, you don't actually need to have a larger population to be dominant (although it does help).

All that is needed is more money/economy, more/better weaponry (perhaps some combination of both), and the determination to enforce dominance, for a small minority to exert its will over a larger group.

Naturally, of course (if we assume Scotland OTL borders) the question is whether Scotland can ever surpass England in one of these fields, sufficent to even up the population odds?

Furthermore, would such a Scotland wish them to integrate England into an ATL United Kingdom, or simply use its increased strength to guard its independence against England?
 
Already IOTL the Scots conquering as far south as they did led to the English pretty much taking over the country and taking the name for themselves. Push the Scottish border further south and you'd just get a even more English nation.
 
So you're looking for a time line where Scotland dominates England; it seems to me that the further back you look for a break, the more historical events and trends you have to change or explain away. Perhaps it would be easier to keep the Stuarts on the throne, reaching Scottish dominance through a Scottish monarchy. Perhaps James II isn't driven out?
 
To get Scotland dominate, and to have a reasonably recognisable Scotland, I'd recommend two PODs, one Edward Bruce waits for his brother to arrive with reinforcements thus not getting killed. This could if done correctly led to a Scottish dominated if not owned Ireland. Second POD would be a longer first War of Independence as Scotland was quite close to annaxing a large part of northern England, and so if the war lasted longer more English Lords would have pledge allegiance to Bruce and thus you could see the north of England become part of Scotland as well.

That's a good start I'd say though you will expect the English to try andd reclaim their former glory in the next couple of years after the Bruce dies.
 
Also, now this is a VERY dumb question to ask (almost embarassed to ask it), and a bit tangential to the question, but WHY is there such a large population difference (in favour of England) between the two nations in OTL?

Now, obviously, England is larger than Scotland, but not by world standards massively so, so why does it end up with many more people? Perhaps this is my Australian mindset (ie green land = arable land), but my probably misinformed assumption would be that almost all parts of the UK are suitable for at least some form of agriculture (even with the more difficult moutainous topography of the Highlands, etc).

Scotland is mostly mountainous, thus limiting the types of crops they can grow - cereal crops like wheat, barley and oats need flat-ish land to grow and harvest. It also limits housing and such. England, on the other hand, is mostly flat-ish which allows cereal crops to be sown which generally allows for a much larger population. But agriculture is just one of many reasons why Scotland has such a small population compared to England.
 
I would assume there would be some sort of statistics on this, but has the current quite large imbalance in population between England and Scotland been fairly consistent over time, or has it moved in England's favour over the centuries?

The latter, but mostly in the centuries since Union. In 1707, we were about every sixth Briton; now, about every tenth. Urbanisation was the biggy: we've got one big industrial-era urban agglomeration, greater Glasgow, where England has lots: Birmingham and the black country, Manchester, Liverpool, Tyneside, and of course London. These places, especially the last, drew in plenty of Scots; Scots also migrated to the empire in greater proportion.

Also, now this is a VERY dumb question to ask (almost embarassed to ask it), and a bit tangential to the question, but WHY is there such a large population difference (in favour of England) between the two nations in OTL?

Now, obviously, England is larger than Scotland, but not by world standards massively so, so why does it end up with many more people? Perhaps this is my Australian mindset (ie green land = arable land), but my probably misinformed assumption would be that almost all parts of the UK are suitable for at least some form of agriculture (even with the more difficult moutainous topography of the Highlands, etc).

There is a treacherous Aintipodean assumption coming through here: rain = good thing. ;)

It's true that very little of Scotland is actually unfarmable - only the highest Cairngorms - but Scotland is much hillier than England. The Lowlands are not actually very low at all by English, never mind Dutch standards. This means two things:

1) A lot of green land is not arable but pastoral. Under infield-outfield, only about a third of a village's land was actually cultivated at any one time, and the rest was grazing. Pastoral agricultural cannot support such an intensive population.

2) Here's where the rain comes in: the great advances in drainage engineering have made us forget that it was the bottoms of valleys that were the real problem. All the water, and we get plenty of damn water, end up there and they become unusable for any serious agriculture. The common Scottish (and hilly northern English) place-name ending 'Moss' signifies... well... moss...

So yes, Scotland is much less readily farmable than England, especially without potatoes.
 
The butterflies emerging from a Roman invasion of Scotland must be huge. How would this affect the progress of the Saxon invasion?
 
Oh, by the way: there is no really solid evidence that there was a unification of Alba and Pictland in 843. The very first references come from Scottish historians inventing national myths to gain legitimacy several hundred years later, which contain plenty of outright poppycock. The grim truth is that we just don't know what happened to Pictland and probably never will.

Already IOTL the Scots conquering as far south as they did led to the English pretty much taking over the country and taking the name for themselves. Push the Scottish border further south and you'd just get a even more English nation.

The assumption that the Angles pulled a China on the Gaels is a very intuitive one - one which I know I've held to and espoused in the past precisely because it's so seemingly obvious, given what happened - but lately I've been studying the latest research on the matter and it is a lot more complicated and interesting.

The hole in the idea is immediately apparent when you think about it: there were actually lots more Gaels than Angles. Remember, the people of southwest Scotland were still in places speaking Welsh into the 1000s. The Gaels - although they didn't think of themselves as united: 'Scotland' in the earliest middle ages excluded such places as Galloway, Moray, and the Hebrides - were the biggest linguistic group by a fair way.

And when you look at the evidence, it's clear that Gaelic was making advances as a prestige language of some sort in the heart of Anglian Scotland, Lothian. A way outside my native city, the thoroughly Germanic 'Edinburgh', is the obviously Gaelic village of Auchendinny ('Auchan' = 'Achagh an', 'Field of'). So within conquered Lothian, Gaelic must have been advancing.

(A slightly tangential but interesting possibility: Siward of Northumbria, the Anglo-Danish earl who intervened in the dynastic troubles of Gaelic Scotland as documented not-very-accurately in Shakespeare's MacBeth, may have settled his huscarls down in Scotland, helping to put a check on this process and keep 'England, kingdom of the Scots' (as the monks of Dryburgh called their country at about this time) English.)

So what happened? What happened is that Scotland was deliberately made 'English' by the decisions of monarchs from the 1000s on. In one obvious example, they imported lots of actual English people: nearly all the 'Inglistons' and 'Inglestons' in Scotland are near Scotto-Norman sites. These English populated the burghs, meaning that the language of trade became English. It was also the language of the church and administration insofar as these weren't carried on in Latin and French. And so English displaces Gaelic in the Lowlands, but more gradually than is sometimes apparent. There was Gaelic in the southwest into the 1500s (into the 1600s to an insignificant extent); even in 1700, areas which we now think of as Lowland were Gaelic in the hillier interior of northeastern shires like Angus, although to be fair Inverness and Eastern Ross were already substantially Scots-speaking so tits and tats. Still, it shows the danger of thinking about Scotland's language-history in simple terms.

And the remarkable thing is that as Scotland, linguistically and institutionally, became 'more English', the English-speaking Scots ceased to identify themselves as English, as they has always hitherto done. This is 'the paradox of medieval Scotland' about which my professor is dead excited.

The essential point, though, is that it was not a Manchu-in-China process but a Germans-beyond-the-Elbe process, and it was enacted from on high by the kings of Scotland in their effort to establish a feudal monarchy.

So with the right PoDs - say no Norman conquest so that England moves towards medieval modernity in its own way, and Scotland follows that example instead of Normanisation - Scotland could not only stay Gaelic but get moreso.

And I don't see why small conquests in England change this. The Cumbrians, if you bag them early enough, are of course actually Welsh.
 
Last edited:
Top