Some questions on Scotland's position through 13th to 17th centuries

I have always wondered about the possibilities and consequences of some interesting AH scenarios when it comes to Scotland's history, and simply put, here are my questions:

1 - Margaret Sverre of Norway survives
The little girl-king that died before even putting her feet on Scotland survives, thus, a personal union between Scotland and Norway develops. Are the consequences of such a thing predictable? If so, what would happen?

2 - Scotland becomes Protestant and England remains Catholic
Again, I have no idea of how such thing would happen. Maybe if Catherine of Aragon manages to produce surviving male issue to Henry VIII, and in Scotland somehow the Stuarts break their ties with France earlier... How can this happen? What would happen next?

3 - Personal union between England-Ireland and Scotland never takes place
Once I proposed a scenario in which James VI of Scotland dies as a child and Mary of Scots dies before giving birth to any other children. Thus, the throne of England would likely pass to Arabella Stuart while the throne of Scotland would fall on the head of Hamilton family IIRC. From all the scenarios, this is the most likely to have happened, but again: what would've happened next?

4 - Scotland as a colonial power during the Age of Discovery
I have no vughing idea of how can we turn Scotland into a nation powerful enough to defy or at least be respected in terms of sea exploration by other powers as Portugal, Spain and England itself. Suggestions?

5 - A densely populated Scotland
Compared to its neighbour England, currently populated by some 53 million people, Scotland is almost a wasteland, with some 5 million people living in the country. The nation's entire population is even smaller than London's Metropolitan Region. How can we make it more populated (not as England but at least with some 15 or 20 million people living in Scotland) with PODs happening during the time mentioned in the thread's title?

For now, that's what I have in mind. Help, I wanna learn D:
 
Last edited:
Well in order of your questions:

1. No union between Scotland and Norway. Erik II had a surviving daughter when he died, after the Maid of Norway's death, and was instead succeeded by his brother Haakon V. The only thing that a surviving Margaret of Scotland would do would be to create an early union between England and Scotland, as she was more or less betrothed to the future Edward II.

2. Equally unlikely. Scotland only became successfully Protestant thanks to the help of Elizabeth of England. Without English support chances are the Lords of the Congregation would have failed. So with a Catholic England at the border, I can't see the Scots going, or remaining Protestant.

3. This would be fairly interesting. Considering the historical tensions between the two countries, I'd guess that the new King (I'm assuming the Marquess of Hamilton?) would eventually form an alliance with France, considering the Scottish Royals are no longer in line for the English throne. Really I would guess that it depends on what England does.

4. This one is tough. The only Scottish colony I can think of is the Darien scheme, and that was a disaster. So at the very least they would probably have to start before any union with England, as once the Scottish Monarch got the English throne he pretty much ignored his homeland.

5. Honestly I have no clue about this one. Population isn't my strong suit.

Hope this helps!
 
For the last one, keeping Scotland a separate kingdom might discourage emigration, and thus keep the population higher. Today there are considerably more people of Scottish ancestry living outside Scotland than inside it; most of these live in the former British Empire. But if Scotland is never part of the British Empire, would they have still left?
 
Problem with number 5 is the nature of Scotland.

Its very mountainous compared with the rest of Britain (particularly England), is further North so it is much colder, and is generally less accessable for the continent.

The reason why London became such a major trading hub is because of the Thames which allowed easy access for shipping, plus with better weather and surrounding farm land it makes sense that the larger populations gravitated further south.

Even if you keep Scotland as a separate country its always going to be a fraction of the size of England. Any Scots who want to do any major trading will probably head south, as that is where most of the foreign traders will make for.

You'd need to a have a Scotland that is actively economically in competition with England, but its a vicious circle. It has trouble growing because its too small for people to take an interest. But people don't take an interest because its too small. A few more catastrophes in England, possibly with a divided Kingdom could see more people heading North to a 'stable' Scotland perhaps...
 
The population thing might be helped with a climatic POD. if the medieval warm period kept going or if temperatures even increased to closer to the Holocene Climate Optimum, then Scotland is not only able to support more population, but so would be Scandivania, Iceland, etc., which would make Scotland a better situs for trade.
 
Few thoughts on some of your questions

1) If as was planned the anti-english faction don't prevail and Margaret of Norway survives then Anglo-Scottish union is far more likely at that period.
An earlier union of crowns is likely to mean much closer integration between England and Scotland than in OTL.
2) Scotland's reformation was distinct from England's in that it was bottom up so to speak rather than the English one which was imposed from the top. Prevent Protestant England - means a male heir with Catherine of Aragon or an heir for Mary I of England. And even in those cases you might find an English Catholic council offering support for the Catholic Lords in opposition to the Protestant controlled Parliament.
3) No 1603 union is easy - Elizabeth marries and produces an heir, James VI dies in infancy and Mary produces no more living children, Catherine Grey is brighter and doesn't offend Elizabeth by marrying without consent and instead marries to please Elizabeth with her consent?
 
@Devon Pasty: Hmm yeah I was wondering about Scotland's geography and indeed it is very mountainous and cold (when compared to England), however the Central Lowlands had the potential to be demographically larger.

I was thinking about a collapse strong enough to make Scotland seem a better place to live than England... Maybe Elizabeth I goes batshit mad and invests on suicidal attacks against Spain, maybe she is defeated by the Armada, maybe she marries Dudley/any other englishman who reveals to be a spy set by the Catholic Powers to (successfully) dethrone her, maybe she reveals to be as insane as Mary I was in terms of religion, but switched to the Protestant faith.

About alternate successions, we can have the following scenarios:

a) Elizabeth I marries Robert Dudley, founding Tudor-Dudley (or the more sophisticated name Tudor-Leicester) dynasty.
b) Mary I manages to produce a surviving child by Philip II of Spain, founding the staunchly catholic Habsburg (or Tudor-Habsburg) dynasty.
c) James VI dies a child and Mary of Scots has no more children, leaving the English throne to his first cousin Arabella Stuart and the Scottish throne to distant cousin John, Marquess of Hamilton.
d) James VI either dies or survives, as king of Scotland solely, with Elizabeth I making justice to her father's will naming Ferdinando Stanley (or his daughter Anne) as heir of England.
e) Catherine Grey is less dumb and marries with the Queen's consent, making the Seymours heirs to the English throne.

By the way, how to make local Scottish culture stronger and make Scottish/Scottlish Gaelic a more spoken and respected language in Britain?
 

libbrit

Banned
By the way, how to make local Scottish culture stronger and make Scottish/Scottlish Gaelic a more spoken and respected language in Britain?

Well, Gaelic isnt and never was even widely spoken in Scotland, never mind anywhere else in Britain. The lowlands never spoke Scottish Gaelic, indeed the linguistic division was one of the major internal divisions within Scottish society.
 
What I can conclude from it all is that Scotland was to England what Brittany was to France: a small country with some degree of cultural and administrative independence but that eventually fell in line to its bigger and stronger neighbour.

I'd be quite happy to see PODs that could have averted it or even switched the roles of England and Scotland in the battle over British hegemony.
 

libbrit

Banned
What I can conclude from it all is that Scotland was to England what Brittany was to France: a small country with some degree of cultural and administrative independence but that eventually fell in line to its bigger and stronger neighbour.

I'd be quite happy to see PODs that could have averted it or even switched the roles of England and Scotland in the battle over British hegemony.

Problem is, Scotland was territorially and climatologically hamstrung. Its weather is poorer and it has less space to build towns due to its mountainous terrain. It also has a much smaller supply of fertile agricultural land with which to support a large population.

The best chance is to somehow contrive to let Scotland sieze and hold parts of Northumbria and Cumbria (which it periodically did invade and claim).
 
Problem is, Scotland was territorially and climatologically hamstrung. Its weather is poorer and it has less space to build towns due to its mountainous terrain. It also has a much smaller supply of fertile agricultural land with which to support a large population.

The best chance is to somehow contrive to let Scotland sieze and hold parts of Northumbria and Cumbria (which it periodically did invade and claim).

What after all made Scotland a kingdom rather than a duchy or Grand/Archduchy, since if compared to other kindgoms in Europe its role and relevance were insignificant?

I was imagining if modern-day North West, North East and Yorkshire and the Humber regions of England somehow passed to Scottish rule. It would make their position less... awkward in terms of territorial significance.

After all, size is not all that counts. We cannot forget Portugal, that even being only a strip of land in Iberian's west coast managed that nevertheless managed to create one of the most powerful and glorious courts that Europe has ever saw.
 

libbrit

Banned
What after all made Scotland a kingdom rather than a duchy or Grand/Archduchy, since if compared to other kindgoms in Europe its role and relevance were insignificant?

I was imagining if modern-day North West, North East and Yorkshire and the Humber regions of England somehow passed to Scottish rule. It would make their position less... awkward in terms of territorial significance.

After all, size is not all that counts. We cannot forget Portugal, that even being only a strip of land in Iberian's west coast managed that nevertheless managed to create one of the most powerful and glorious courts that Europe has ever saw.

Well, i dont think it would be feasible to have Scotland stretching to the English midlands, which is almost what you suggest, but Northumbria and Cumbria are extreamely well supplied with useful agricultural land.

As for what made it a kingdom. Well, what made any kingdom? The right strongmen with the sharpest swords, using them at just the right time.

I think the big difference between Scotland and Portugal, is location. Northern Europe, with the best will in the world, was not where the money was at the time the European kingdoms were coalescing. Portugal took the proximity to wealthy Mediterranean civilisations, and its favourable position when trans-Atlantic trade and colonisation to make it wealthy and powerful. Scotland is looking at trade with Scandinavia. No real comparison.
 
I think some of you are overstating the climatic issue. Yes, Scotland is the coldest part of the UK but it's not that cold, especially compared to most other places at that latitude. Most parts of Scotland have winter temperatures above freezing. In Inverness, for example, the average January high from 1981-2010 was 6.9 degrees C (44 F), and the low 1.1 C (34 F).

I think the mountainous terrain is a bigger issue.
 
Last edited:
Top