This is something I read recently. Basically this guy has written a story for how he conquered the world in Medieval 2 Total War playing as Scotland. It's incredibly well written and got me thinking, could Scotland have ever become a superpower at some point in time?
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
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
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
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.
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 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?
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
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.
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? ) could go on to gain control of the rest of Great Britain etc.
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).
A unified state to the north of the Mersey-Trent that calls itself "Scotland"? Is that allowed?
Well, technically it calls itself Alba not Scotland
Well it depends on England, then, doesn't it?
Remove any reason for Scotland to be absorbed into England (basically the Darien Scheme),
I doubt it. Gaelic speakers would be an even tinier minority in uber-Scotland than they were in OTL Scotland.
I don't even think Britain was ever a superpower, witty as many of these responses are.
This is something I read recently. Basically this guy has written a story for how he conquered the world in Medieval 2 Total War playing as Scotland. It's incredibly well written and got me thinking, could Scotland have ever become a superpower at some point in time?
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.