United Celtic Isles idea?

[I Blame Communism]

Again though with the talk of a powerful Scotland- IOTL Alba conquered the Lowlands and thereafter steadily became less and less Celtic until the Celts were seen as backwards foreigners living up in the hills with the Scotish rulers and most of the population being English speaking.

This is exagerration. It is true that the heart of power and influence moved gradually down to Edinburgh and the language of teh court became Germanic, but the Highlands weren't seen as "foreign", just having strange (Scottish) customs (on King George IV's visit, the Lowlanders were keen to hijack Scott's romantic protrayal of this "backward" part of the country: it was the actual Highlanders who objected). In any case, the langauge of the Lowlands was Scots, as evidenced by the hiring of "English teachers" and the creation of "Societies to promote the use of English in Scotland" in the 18th C.

This is OTL with Scotland just taking a small far northern chunk of England, if however you're to have them try and compete with England they would need to get the rest of Northumbria- considering that the northern chunk of Northumbria dominated Scotland given the whole lot of it you'd likely see more of a Kingdom of Northumbria ruling Scotland than the other way around despite how it started.

We had pretensions to Northumberland for some time, but this scenario doesn't require Scotland to be on anything like equal terms with England. We're just tipping the balance a bit more in Scotland's favour, giving it plenty of luck, and butterflying English supremacy on the seas in order to fulfil the challenge, a sbest we can, by allowing a Scottish conquest of Ireland.

And even with this they wouldn't be the equal of Southern England. They would have to put a lot of their national effort into defence.

Which assumes England invading every other weak. I think I'd strongly implied some continental entanglement or state catastrophe. Denmark, for comparison, is still there, despite having Germany underneath it.

As to Scotland going over to Ireland....ouch.
IOTL England had a hard enough time with that. A considerably smaller, poorer country is going to have an absolute nightmare trying the the same thing.

Of course, a considerable part of the "English" effort was in fact Scots, and the religious divide can be butterflied, which would help things enormously.

You would have to change Irish and British history from very early on, have Ulster keep its links with Scotland and the Kingdom of the Scots straddling the two islands. 'Civilizing' Ireland somehow a bit more during this time would also be a good idea (though how? Its well away from the continent and England was barbaric enough at the time...)
The vikings will also be a massive problem.

I see absolutely no compelling reason why it can't be accomplished later, allowing Scotland plenty of luck.

Yeah.
But they class the whole of Scotland as Celtic, with England though when they decide to class bits as Celtic they cut them off from England and class them totally different.
Really it should just be the Highlands in the Celtic nations.

Who are "they", and who classes anywhere in England as "totally differant". Anyway, "Celticness" isn't a linguistic identity. The vast majority of Irish people have English as their first language, but their national identity and culture is obviously Celtic. Similarly, in Scotland, there's a general feeling of "Celticness". The Highlands have never had a formal seperate existence until the unitary authorities.

 

[Citizen Samuel]

Who are "they", and who classes anywhere in England as "totally differant". Anyway, "Celticness" isn't a linguistic identity. The vast majority of Irish people have English as their first language, but their national identity and culture is obviously Celtic. Similarly, in Scotland, there's a general feeling of "Celticness". The Highlands have never had a formal seperate existence until the unitary authorities.

What is "celticness" if it isn't linguistic then?

 

[I Blame Communism]

What is "celticness" if it isn't linguistic then?

God knows, but all "national characteristics" are, at one level, imaginary, so I think its adequate to say that it's a feeling of Celticness in terms of history and identity.

 

[MNP]

Isn't Celt (for Britain) just "people living of the British Isles before and immediately after Rome ruled"??

 

[I Blame Communism]

Isn't Celt (for Britain) just "people living of the British Isles before and immediately after Rome ruled"??

No, because there are still communities where Celtic langauges are spoken as mother tongues, and before the industrial revolution these were far more numerous and stable.

 

[Citizen Samuel]

God knows, but all "national characteristics" are, at one level, imaginary, so I think its adequate to say that it's a feeling of Celticness in terms of history and identity.

What is particularly "celtic" about the history and identity of Scotland?

 

[I Blame Communism]

What is particularly "celtic" about the history and identity of Scotland?

This is a circular question. What's Celtic about Scotland's history is that it has historically been a Celtic and later part-Celtic country (and, you know, still is). What's Celtic about its identity is that we've adopted a whole run of symbolism from Celtic tradition. Thanks to Sir Walter Scott, but as I say, all national identity is artificial to an extent.

 

[Tyr]

This is exagerration. It is true that the heart of power and influence moved gradually down to Edinburgh and the language of teh court became Germanic, but the Highlands weren't seen as "foreign", just having strange (Scottish) customs (on King George IV's visit, the Lowlanders were keen to hijack Scott's romantic protrayal of this "backward" part of the country: it was the actual Highlanders who objected). In any case, the langauge of the Lowlands was Scots, as evidenced by the hiring of "English teachers" and the creation of "Societies to promote the use of English in Scotland" in the 18th C.

The English of the regions away from England would have been just as alien as Scots at the time, it wasn't particularly special.
But a language is a dialect with a army and navy I suppose. Nonetheless due to the way things are today I'd class Scots as still a sort of English.
I suppose this all comes back to that argument we had ages ago; its unfortunate the southern nation is England not Sexeland so to call Scotland English even though they are in the true, original sense of the world carries bad connotations with the modern use.

We had pretensions to Northumberland for some time, but this scenario doesn't require Scotland to be on anything like equal terms with England. We're just tipping the balance a bit more in Scotland's favour, giving it plenty of luck, and butterflying English supremacy on the seas in order to fulfil the challenge, a sbest we can, by allowing a Scottish conquest of Ireland.

Anyone can conquer Ireland, its not the conquering thats the problem. Its ruling the place.

Which assumes England invading every other weak. I think I'd strongly implied some continental entanglement or state catastrophe. Denmark, for comparison, is still there, despite having Germany underneath it.

Not really, even if there's no actual war with anything short of very friendly relations you still have to keep your forts maintained and all that sort of thing. A big part of Scotland being a lot poorer than it should have been in the 16th century and before was having to keep its military spending a challenge to that of England.

Who are "they", and who classes anywhere in England as "totally differant". Anyway, "Celticness" isn't a linguistic identity. The vast majority of Irish people have English as their first language, but their national identity and culture is obviously Celtic. Similarly, in Scotland, there's a general feeling of "Celticness". The Highlands have never had a formal seperate existence until the unitary authorities.

They being the celtic nationalist nutters.
I disagree on this, Irish culture isn't particularly 'Celtic' to any special degree more than English culture is, we don't all go dancing ceilis every Friday night afterall, the Irish go drinking in much the same way as the Brits. I'm quite fond of those people these days who like to use the term Anglo-Celtic culture for the English speaking world (so no one feels left out).
I would agree that there is a feeling of a national identity of celticness in both Scotland and Ireland but I really feel that much of this is greatly mistaken and comes about through comparing themselves to London too much. In Ireland its there a bit more due to the schools shoving Gaelic down everyones throats but still I'm rather opposed to the idea of Celts being somehow special.

 

[I Blame Communism]

The English of the regions away from England would have been just as alien as Scots at the time, it wasn't particularly special.

Except that there wasn't any Society for the Promotion of the English Language in Nortumberland.

But a language is a dialect with a army and navy I suppose. Nonetheless due to the way things are today I'd class Scots as still a sort of English.

"Still"? Very few people still speak Scots. I know I don't. I can understand the Edinburgh standard, but so can any educated Scotsman and most educated Anglophones.

I suppose this all comes back to that argument we had ages ago; its unfortunate the southern nation is England not Sexeland so to call Scotland English even though they are in the true, original sense of the world carries bad connotations with the modern use.

There's such a word as Anglophone.

Anyone can conquer Ireland, its not the conquering thats the problem. Its ruling the place.

And I suggested that removing the religious issue would help this enormously.

Not really, even if there's no actual war with anything short of very friendly relations you still have to keep your forts maintained and all that sort of thing. A big part of Scotland being a lot poorer than it should have been in the 16th century and before was having to keep its military spending a challenge to that of England.

Again, this scenario is a hypothetical one designe dto bring about a "Celtic state", therefore England is being crippled by some other entanglement or state failing.

They being the celtic nationalist nutters.

Who are these supposed people and is anyone who considers Ireland and Scotland Celtic countries among them?

I disagree on this, Irish culture isn't particularly 'Celtic' to any special degree more than English culture is, we don't all go dancing ceilis every Friday night afterall, the Irish go drinking in much the same way as the Brits. I'm quite fond of those people these days who like to use the term Anglo-Celtic culture for the English speaking world (so no one feels left out).

There are differences in the English and Scottish and Irish worldviews. Small ones, in the scheme of things, but whatever they are, they exist, and Celtic is as good a word as any.

I would agree that there is a feeling of a national identity of celticness in both Scotland and Ireland but I really feel that much of this is greatly mistaken and comes about through comparing themselves to London too much.

And I think all self-identified Ukrainians are greatly mistaken and comparing themselves to Moscow too much.

National identity isn't "mistaken" it just is. Not that I'd object to Ukraine joining Russia, of course.

In Ireland its there a bit more due to the schools shoving Gaelic down everyones throats

Except that most Irish people don't speak it, as a first or second language. I wish more did, as its lovely (I want all endangered languages to recover), but it's not like there are Baltic-style Language Police on the prowl.

but still I'm rather opposed to the idea of Celts being somehow special.

Who said they were?

 

[Korporal Nooij]

Hm, it is indeed an interesting idea of a nation consisting of all Celtic peoples.

I'm looking at the minimum POD, 900 AD, and maybe it could be interesting to have Galicia stay Celtic in this ATL, and thus also be part of this Union. If i recall, the first Viking invasions of Galicia happened during the 900's and by that time there was little left of the Celtic language, if i'm right. so i guess it would definitely be hard to achieve this.

-Korporal Nooij.

 

[MNP]

No, because there are still communities where Celtic langauges are spoken as mother tongues, and before the industrial revolution these were far more numerous and stable.

Hmm I'm not sure what you're saying. I mean, obviously the descendants of the class of people I mentioned would be celtic. Maybe I'm looking at things too genetically.

Anyhow, a quick word about Ireland and establishing control. Some major reasons it was hard to do was that 1) the economy was based primarily on livestock until the end of the middle ages and only lightly monetized 2) because of all the places to hide (forests, bogs, mountains) people could flee to those areas for a time and just wait out the invader so it was expensive to dig them out.

 

[Tyr]

There are differences in the English and Scottish and Irish worldviews. Small ones, in the scheme of things, but whatever they are, they exist, and Celtic is as good a word as any.

There isn't really.
With Ireland of course there is, they're a different, independent country.
Between Scotland and England though....I really think there's more of a 'Northern British' and 'Southern British' way of things than English and Scottish if we really must only have two groups.
A Yorkshireman would find himself much more at home with a Glaswegian than a Londoner.
This is changing a bit due to the Scottish parliament making a different system exist north of the border but it'll be a long while before (if ever) it totally changes.

Except that most Irish people don't speak it, as a first or second language. I wish more did, as its lovely (I want all endangered languages to recover), but it's not like there are Baltic-style Language Police on the prowl.

Define speak it.
Most Irish people do speak it to the extent I speak French. Its a compulsory subject at school. I remember having to do the basics back when I lived there.

 

[I Blame Communism]

There isn't really.

Have you ever tried living in Scotland your entire life?

With Ireland of course there is, they're a different, independent country.
Between Scotland and England though....I really think there's more of a 'Northern British' and 'Southern British' way of things than English and Scottish if we really must only have two groups.

There are many overlapping divides of indentity among Britons. English/Scottish is just one, but it blatantly exists due to Scotland's seperate traditions and institutions.

A Yorkshireman would find himself much more at home with a Glaswegian than a Londoner.

That depends on the Yorkshireman. And the Glaswegian. And the Londoner.

This is changing a bit due to the Scottish parliament making a different system exist north of the border but it'll be a long while before (if ever) it totally changes.

Protip: the system has always been differant north of the border and was guaranteed as such by the Treaty of Union. Devolution gave the power to change the seperate Scottish body of laws to a seperate Scottish institution.

Why do you think we got our own reform acts?

Define speak it.
Most Irish people do speak it to the extent I speak French. Its a compulsory subject at school. I remember having to do the basics back when I lived there.

Fluency.

 

[Michael B]

There isn't really.
With Ireland of course there is, they're a different, independent country.
Between Scotland and England though....I really think there's more of a 'Northern British' and 'Southern British' way of things than English and Scottish if we really must only have two groups.
A Yorkshireman would find himself much more at home with a Glaswegian than a Londoner.
This is changing a bit due to the Scottish parliament making a different system exist north of the border but it'll be a long while before (if ever) it totally changes.

It is worth noting that at one point there was a divergence in Scotland such that those from the Lowlands and Glasgow/Edinburgh saw the Highlanders as savage barbarians.

Anyhow, a quick word about Ireland and establishing control. Some major reasons it was hard to do was that 1) the economy was based primarily on livestock until the end of the middle ages and only lightly monetized 2) because of all the places to hide (forests, bogs, mountains) people could flee to those areas for a time and just wait out the invader so it was expensive to dig them out.

You can do it if you have the manpower and/or native allies. England has the first so eventually they achieved it. It also gave them the opportunity to see off the sole attempt by the Scots to do the same. I will concede though the famine and Edward Bruce taking on an army 20,000 with just 2,000 Scots did not help.

 

[Tyr]

There are many overlapping divides of indentity among Britons. English/Scottish is just one, but it blatantly exists due to Scotland's seperate traditions and institutions.

That's better.

That depends on the Yorkshireman. And the Glaswegian. And the Londoner.

Generally.
The culture in northern England is far more 'Scottish' (not that it'd be called that of course) than it is 'London'...'ish'.

Protip: the system has always been differant north of the border and was guaranteed as such by the Treaty of Union. Devolution gave the power to change the seperate Scottish body of laws to a seperate Scottish institution.

Why do you think we got our own reform acts?

Not to too big an extent.
The general population generally isn't too aware of the technicalities of English and Scottish law.

Fluency.

1
So there goes that distinguishing factor totally.

 

[I Blame Communism]

It is worth noting that at one point there was a divergence in Scotland such that those from the Lowlands and Glasgow/Edinburgh saw the Highlanders as savage barbarians.

"At one point"?

 

[I Blame Communism]

That's better.

Than what? I haven't changed my position at all.

Generally.
The culture in northern England is far more 'Scottish' (not that it'd be called that of course) than it is 'London'...'ish'.

So there are some similarities bewteen northerners and Scots. That's a function of history anf geography. Whereas there are major similarities between all Scots (they're Scots) and all English (they're English), and indeed all Britons (we're Britons). Doesn't make Yorkshiremen "Scottish" or "less English".

Not to too big an extent.
The general population generally isn't too aware of the technicalities of English and Scottish law.

We are, however, aware that we're not English. We are also made aware very early that our education system works differantly ("What do you mean the English are still on school holidays?")

1
So there goes that distinguishing factor totally.

That what?

 

[Tyr]

Than what? I haven't changed my position at all.

You did.
You didn't say it was Scottish and English you said there were lots of overlapping ideas.

So there are some similarities bewteen northerners and Scots. That's a function of history anf geography. Whereas there are major similarities between all Scots (they're Scots) and all English (they're English), and indeed all Britons (we're Britons). Doesn't make Yorkshiremen "Scottish" or "less English".

Thats not my point at all.
All Scots have a lot of similarities. However northern English have far more similarities in common with the Scots than they do with London.
Thats just the thing that this doesn't make northerners less English however to non-English people the optimum definition of Englishness is a London one. They see Scots and English as two totally different, totally homogeneous peoples- Scottish nationalists have a habit of doing this to an extent when they look south of the border- but this isn't true. Britain is a varied place and its not neatly split along the borders.

We are, however, aware that we're not English. We are also made aware very early that our education system works differantly ("What do you mean the English are still on school holidays?")

That happens in different regions too, not just England/Scotland.
Even with different religions in the same region, catholic schools get rather different holidays to regular state schools.

That what?

Distinguishing factor.
If your level of fluency required to speak Irish is fluent then to say Ireland is celtic on account of the Irish language is somewhat wrong.

 

[Glen]

This may be a rather implausbile country, but this is an idea for a Shared Worlds State.

With a POD no earlier then 900 AD, how could we get a United Scotland, Ireland, and Wales, perhaps with other lands, but not England, that survives until 2009 OTL.....

Bonus Points if it has colonies

Intermarriage of Welsh and Irish nobility into the Scottish royal family leads to claims on territory in these regions. During the chaos of the various invasions of 1066, Scotland claims overlordship of Wales and the West Country. Various marriages and battles lead to spreading Scottish dominance in Ireland over the next century, until the Scottish Parliament declares the United Kingdom of Scotland, Ireland, and Cymry (Wales). In the 1500s Scotland joins the scramble for the New World, establishing colonies on the Eastern Seaboard and a few of the Caribbean islands (take your pick, with a POD in the 900s, its an open field). While power continues to devolve to the colonies in the modern age, they remain components of a federated Scottish Empire.