Scotland becomes Superpower?
- Thread starter Krakenov
- Start date
short answer: No
Scotland does not have the population or resources to become a world power. If Scotland had no land borders then they may become a world great power or local superpower as they can devote all resources to the navy but while Scotland has to worry about England then they can't devote resources to becoming a Great Power
Quite. You'd have to get some sort of Union between Scotland and England - maybe a Scottish King inherits the English throne in the sixteenth or seventeenth centuries and eventually his descendants create some sort of Combined Kingdom in the early eighteenth century. Through colonial expansion, that union could achieve superpower status by the middle of the nineteenth century.
Cheers,
Nigel
Well it depends on England, then, doesn't it?
Remove any reason for Scotland to be absorbed into England (basically the Darien Scheme), and maybe Scotland stays independent long enough to start functioning colonies elsewhere. So long as they play it smart and stay out of England's way they'd have a chance. Probably not a superpower, so to speak, but a power. Having an independent Scotland would probably hinder English expansion somewhat as well, because they'd be concerning themselves with their northern neighbours.
I'd be interested to see what someone more knowledgeable could come up with.
Remove any reason for Scotland to be absorbed into England (basically the Darien Scheme), and maybe Scotland stays independent long enough to start functioning colonies elsewhere. So long as they play it smart and stay out of England's way they'd have a chance. Probably not a superpower, so to speak, but a power. Having an independent Scotland would probably hinder English expansion somewhat as well, because they'd be concerning themselves with their northern neighbours.
I'd be interested to see what someone more knowledgeable could come up with.
In principle, you could use the same argument to prove that it would be impossible for England to become a world power On the other hand, I agree that it would be quite unlikely.
maybe we have to divert th Mexican Gulf Current to do that, resulting in a warmer scotland and a frozen england
Or there is the "Nessie-riding Higlander Army" option, of course
Last edited:
Indeed, it's mainly that England before the Industrial Revolution had about 3 times (minimum) the population of Scotland and then rocketed to 7-8 times by 1841. It's one of the reasons why James VI had to stay down in England so much when he became its King.
In order to create a larger Scotland vs England we need to forestall the union of the English kingdoms. Have Northumbria maintain its strength against the Vikings and then unify with Alba (Scotland) to create a Scots English Kingdom. Then the Kdm of Alba & Northumbria (Kdm of the North?
) could go on to gain control of the rest of Great Britain etc.How many times the population of Great Britain did India have in 1841?
James VI was King of England by the grace of English courtiers and council. The Scottish Parliament did not hold much control over James VI - the bulk of his taxes was voted by English Parliament.
But imagine a slightly different outcome of Bishop´s Wars. Suppose that England is militarily occupied by the Scots - with the result that the Parliament of Scotland where the English are not represented votes taxes from England and disburses them to pay Scottish regimets recruited from Scotland, deployed in England as occupation army and under commanders who answer to Tables, not to the person of the King Charles I or II.
What next?
How big was the Indian Navy in 1841?
I was pointing out that by 1841 it was too late for Scotland to have more power than England with whom it shared a common border.
Scotland only did so well in the Bishop Wars because the English Parliament withheld payment to Charles who was fighting the Scottish Parliament.
If Scotland tries to occupy all England then Charles will immediately get massive support from the English Parliament to drive them out and possibly subdue them.
In order for the British India analogy to fully work you would need an English Army, recruited from England, but officered by Scots (else the manpower costs alone would be ruinous for Scotland). Ideally, you would also need a much greater devolution from the centralised control of Whitehall. The period around the Bishops Wars/Civil War is realistically Scotland's last chance to acheive this, after this period the gulf between Scotland and England grows too large.
Imho, you would need to wank the ECW a little to ensure there is no clear victor. An exhausted England has battered itself to a stalemate, centralised control is beginning to break down, leaving a patchwork of semi-independent, bickering regional entities. Scotland would then be able to do to England what the British did to India, through alliances and getting their proxies to provide them with 'colonial troops' to help subdue their neighbours etc etc.
That was England and Scotland combined, and notice that whilst England and Scotland had seperate monarchs they were local powers but that was all. They only began to rise to Great Power status once they had united under the Stuarts. But that was not a Scottish (or English) Superpower but a British one
Exactly. The problem Scotland has versus England is that the land just can't support as many people and hence Scotland will always be at a power disadvantage versus England. At the same time England can still expand it's own power whilst screening Scotland due to this population in balance.
Still neither England nor Scotland could become true global naval powers while they had hostile land borders (with each other). This is because they could not divert their full resources to building up their naval power. However once this hostile land border was removed by the union of the crowns England and Scotland could begin their rise as global powers. But they rose to Superpower status as a union not as individual countries
Possibly the best way to go - ethnically and culturally Northumbria and the Lothian area were very similar. It's also worth noting that in the century before the Norman Conquest, much of these areas were a mish mash of ethnicities; Cumbrians, Scots, Angles, Irish-Norse and Danes who lived in comparitive peace side-by-side (Cumbria, where you have Irish-Norse, English and Celtic placenames being a good example).In order to create a larger Scotland vs England we need to forestall the union of the English kingdoms. Have Northumbria maintain its strength against the Vikings and then unify with Alba (Scotland) to create a Scots English Kingdom. Then the Kdm of Alba & Northumbria (Kdm of the North?
A unified state to the north of the Mersey-Trent that calls itself "Scotland"? Is that allowed?
That was my thought
Well, technically it calls itself Alba not Scotland
Thande
Donor
Well, technically it calls itself Alba not Scotland
I doubt it. Gaelic speakers would be an even tinier minority in uber-Scotland than they were in OTL Scotland.
I Blame Communism
Banned
Personally, I think the word "superpower" gets chucked around too much on this forum. Scotland as a great power? I'd want a PoD way back in the middle ages, but maybe. But as far as I'm concerned, a "superpower" arises from the world-war/cold-war dynamic we had OTL that was hardly iinevitable. I don't even think Britain was ever a superpower, witty as many of these responses are.
I can just about see Scotland remaining independent without the Darien scheme, but it would be in crown union and generally an English semi-dependency (and so in no position to go planting colonies). And the issues with England (succession, Scottish trade privelege) would still have to be resolved, and it's too late to get round the overwhelming advantage England gains by controlling the sea, and hence our trade, so Scotland without the Darien scheme would be England's restless mini-me for the rest of the 18th C, most likely. Assuming Union doesn't happen anyway, which it certainly could. I consider it the most obvious and likley way out of each side's respective policy dead-end.
Absolutely.
Big Scotland probably does mean surviving literary Scots, though. Yay!
I can just about see Scotland remaining independent without the Darien scheme, but it would be in crown union and generally an English semi-dependency (and so in no position to go planting colonies). And the issues with England (succession, Scottish trade privelege) would still have to be resolved, and it's too late to get round the overwhelming advantage England gains by controlling the sea, and hence our trade, so Scotland without the Darien scheme would be England's restless mini-me for the rest of the 18th C, most likely. Assuming Union doesn't happen anyway, which it certainly could. I consider it the most obvious and likley way out of each side's respective policy dead-end.
Absolutely.
Big Scotland probably does mean surviving literary Scots, though. Yay!
Thande
Donor
I don't even think Britain was ever a superpower, witty as many of these responses are.
It's debatable. You could say we were only first among equal of several great powers ("Top Nation"). But it depends on your definition of superpower. One I've heard is to do with global power-projection, but by that definition it's questionable if the USSR was a superpower.
Cuāuhtemōc
Banned
No. And that's not me because I'm English. Unless Scotland has better borders, it's always going to end up being England's bitch.
Susano
Banned
Well I think calling the UK of the first half of the 19th century (and really only then) a superpower would be technically correct - but it would really be far too anachronistic to apply that term. And I dont think even a Scotland including North England could do such a feat, anyways.
And the USSR did have global power projection, it just wasnt necessarily military. Certainly, for a while the world revolved around the USA and the USSR, making them global powers. That I think would be the best definition of superpower - countries forming powerful enough blocs that in the end most international diplomacy is about them. Really, reducing great power and super power status to mere military strength alone is a bit silly anyways...