Map of Miott (+ political system + history)

[din]

Several years ago, I made a map of my concountry Miott (where my conlang Tormiott is spoken). It has has gone through numerous major changes and small edits over the years. I hadn't been able to access the map for a while, because I'd drawn it in an old version of Paint Shop Pro, and the only file I had was a PSP native format. Since I bought my new laptop, I've been using Photoshop instead of Paint Shop Pro. Today I found a plug-in for Photoshop which opens PSP files (but only some of the layers, and only one layer at a time, so I had to redo a lot, and I'm not terribly familiar with Photoshop yet).

A brief introduction to my concountry:

Miott is a country in the north Atlantic, exactly where the islet of Rockall is in reality (north-west of Ireland). In fact, I've raised the entire Rockall plateau (which is fully underwater apart from the islet of Rockall) in order to determine the shape of the islands. I took a few liberties, of course, but the overall shape corresponds to the actual seabed in reality. The main island is called Roccal, and the highest peak is called mt. Rockall (Roccal Sam), which is where the islet of Rockall is in reality. I'm considering making the English name for the country Rockall, rather than using the native name Miott.

In terms of size, Miott is a little over 3/4 the size of Ireland. I suppose population density is similar or slightly lower.

» Click here to see the map «

(If that doesn't work, here's an alternative link: https://goo.gl/photos/Yc5R2YASJymZhxTZA)

In case you're interested in the etymology of the names:

Towns and cities:
- Mgonnodd /ˈmʕonːən/ -- Hollowed wood
- Listidosa /ˈlistɪˌðosa/ -- (load) bearing tongue (I've forgotten what I was going for)
- Sincas /ˈsinkɪs/ -- Dewdrop
- Openmahan /ˈowənˌmahɪn/ -- Halfway point
- Arheccaso /ˈaɹkɛsːʊ/ -- Grand harbor
- Gemintharherd /ˈʕəmɪnθaːɹn/ -- Grey fjord
- Dommasiocc /ˈdomːəɕək/ -- Town of Three streams
- Speithia /ˈspəjθja/ -- Accomplished path/way
- Saunigcaso /ˈsoːniːˌkɛsʊ/ -- Pleasant harbor
- Argausioch /ˈaɹʕoːɕəx/ -- Red hut
- Matho Thiadec /ˈmɛθʊˌθjɛðək/ -- High junction
- Sohuiocc /ˈsohwijək/ -- Town of spirits (or fog)
- Huattatgâdo /ˈhwɛtːɪˌtʕɛːðʊ/ -- Wind hook
- Chonniacaso /ˈxoɲːaˌkɛsʊ/ -- Storm petrel's bay
- Cgoddôno /kʕodːoːnʊ/ -- Cleft
- Orra me Mounodd /ˈorːa mə ˈmuːnən/ -- Talon's grasp
- Piarhcian /ˈpjaɹtɕɪn/ -- Industry (in the sense of diligence, hard work)
- Chau me herdîl /ˈxoːmə ˈhəɹdiːl/ -- Old man's bridge
- Picaso /ˈpikɪsʊ/ -- Small harbor
- Codda /ˈkodːa/ -- Knee

Islands and mountains
- Goul ma Emion /ˈʕuːlmə ˈəmjən/ -- Emion's ring (Emion is the dragon in my avatar)
- Tahruop /ˈtaħɹwop/ -- Cloud cradle
- Rohamiunt /ˈɾohamyːnt/ -- Eagle island
- Onsônomiunt /ˈonsoːnəˌmyːnt/ -- Mussle island
- Tuadahpag /ˈtwɛðaħpaː/ -- Kicking foot
- Siethôto /ˈɕəθoːtʊ/ -- Castaway
- Roccal Sam /ˈɾokːal sam/-- Mount Rockall
- Nanc Ou /naŋk uː/ -- Signal peak
- Itt Sam /it sam/ -- Central mountain (or: mountain at the waist)

- -

I'd like to know what you think, and what I could improve.

[cromulant]

I was able to view it once. It looked nice. I've tried to go back a few times, and the pic doesn't show up at all, and I haven't seen fair Miott since. I liked what I saw though, and it made me want to learn more about the language and history. I have this impression that there were no rivers, am I misremembering?

What kind of language is Tormiott?

[din]

Thanks!

Strange, the link seems to work for me (from several different devices, also after clearing my temporary files). Here's an alternative link. Hope that works better for you: https://goo.gl/photos/Yc5R2YASJymZhxTZA

Actually I did draw a handful of rivers. I suppose the color could stand out a little more. None of them are particularly large. There are many small streams, though, as the islands are rainy and mountainous

Tormiott is a relatively isolating language (I guess pretty much on the same level as English, now that I think about it) with few consonants for a language spoken in Europe. It's an isolate. I've got a lot of information on my computer, but none of it has been published, because I keep changing things, so everything always has to be updated. I've been working on it for 9 years, probably.

The dictionary is the most developed part of the language. I often participate in the Lexicon Building thread, and I love deriving words. Tormiott has a lot of prefixes for word derivation which are still productive (anything from "Pointy, sharp; ending, final, concluding" to "On, through or in the skin, or related to the skin", and from "Giving feelings of distress or panic; pertaining to suppression or limitation" to "Jittering, moving quickly and randomly, shivering, trembling", and everything in between, basically).

If you have any specific questions about any part of the language, feel free to ask. I should probably put together a presentation sometime.

As for the people, I've only developed the traditional religion (though they're predominantly Catholic, nowadays), the money, some flags and symbols, and a hand gesture system used for price negotiations... I should really write more about the culture, sometime

[Sevly]

Very nice map. I'm curious about the political arrangement. You said Miott is a country, so I'm assuming the red squares are provincial capitals and Arhecasso is the national capital? What kind of government do they have?

[din]

Thanks for replying

It is indeed an independent country. The subdivisions are as follows:

>30,000 inhabitants, porign /ˈpoɾiːn/ (sing. porig /ˈpoɾiː/), cities; indicated by a red square on the map
- the word is related to ON borg, castle, and it was originally used for strongholds or fortified towns
1,000 > x < 30,000, niodin /ˈɲoðɪn/ (sing. niodi /ˈɲodʑə/), towns; indicated by a black dot on the map
- the word also means bundle; huddle, crowd.
<1,000 inhabitants, ioccon /ˈjokːən/ (sing. iocc /jok/), not on the map.
- the word can also be used to mean farm, homestead; estate

Arhecasso is indeed the capital city.

The administrative subdivisions are as follows (low to high level):
- Parishes (paroch /ˈpaɾəx/, from Latin parochia). They function like municipalities and take care of local administrative affairs, coordination and execution. Traditionally, each settlement with a church was its own paroch, together with neighboring settlements without a church or regular church services, but many have merged for better administrative efficiency.
- Market towns (alga /ˈalʕa/, which simply means market). They are centered around (traditional) market towns and coordinate efforts on a more regional level.
- Regions (miunt /myːnt/, which means land, area). These don't have much power in and of themselves, but they are nationally very important. They serve as a platform for cooperation between algan, and for the representation of their interest to the national government. Police forces, fire departments and health care are also coordinated on this level, and they serve as school districts and court districts. They're also responsible for budget allocation to the algan and overseeing and coordinating larger projects, for example related to infrastructure. Their seats are generally in the biggest town within their borders.

I think there are about 7 regions. I haven't come up with any borders yet.

The national government's executive branch is a type of 'council democracy' where elected officials from the regional level form a national assembly. Basically, on the paroch level, anyone could theoretically sign up to participate in regularly scheduled councils. Anyone can attend and ask for their issue to be put on the agenda. Permanent representatives have to commit to being present 85% of the time for these councils in order to remain part of them, and the number of permanent seats is limited.

Local councilmen can be internally selected by the council to become representatives on the alga level, and they can be reelected up to 5 times on this level (other levels do not count, and the terms do not need to be consecutive). It is not obligatory to be part of a party or movement, but many of course are. How many councilmen per paroch get to move to the alga level depends on population size, with a minimum of one per paroch (giving an advantage to the parochon with the lowest populations).

Any alga representative can be internally selected by other members of the alga representatives to become part of the (relatively small) miunt government, generally based on their skill or influence in certain domains.

All miunt representatives automatically become eligible for the national assembly (Sôrraio Starade /ˈsoːrːɪjʊ ˈstaɾɪðə/) through quinquennial public elections, and may not refuse participation in these elections (so this is a consideration for any alga representative who wishes to become a part of the miunt government). In these national elections, 128 members are selected (through a system of proportional representation). Votes are personal and cannot be transferred to other members of the party (because not all members are affiliated). If a member drops out at a later date (between elections), or is removed from their position, the other members select through voting a new member from (willing) miunt representatives.

This system ensures that all areas of the country are represented by people who were (at some point) local to that area. If you no longer live in a certain paroch, you cannot continue to be a councilman/woman the next calendar year. Members of an alga or miunt may live anywhere in the miunt of the subdivision they represent, however, and members of any national branch may live anywhere in the country (and usually live in the capital area).

I haven't really decided on the details of the different branches of the national government. It's not exactly my area of expertise, so I'd really need to sit down for it and take a good look at existing systems.

If anyone with a more political background has any comments on the viability (and weaknesses or strengths) of the current system, please let me know.

[Salmoneus]

OK then, a handful of things I'd say...

1. I'm surprised that a European country would not yet have implemented democracy at the regional level - particularly as it's a small country, which you'd think would have been influenced by European democratic traditions at some point.

2. In particular, if there really were islands there, they'd have been claimed by the British, so you'd expect British political traditions to have been imposed.

3. There are three big consequences of this system that I can see. The first is that the system may encourage strong rivalries between regions, if there are any such rivalries to encourage, but that otherwise it will shut out minorities and encourage powerful rule by the majority. The reason for this is that multiple rounds of aggregation favour the 'winner'. This will vary depending on what electoral system is being used here, but generally it's almost always the case that the plurality winner is slightly over-represented (or sometimes massively over-represented), and if you compile that through several rounds then that over-representation grows and grows. The exception to this is if different regions are very different, in which case you could get regional rivalries.
It's also important to note that with multiple rounds of aggregation, you end up extremely vulnerable to gerrymandering.

For instance, assume each parish has 40% Orange voters, 30% Pink, 20% Salmon, and 10% minor parties. Let's say each parish has 10 seats, there are 10 parishes per township, and there are 10 seats at township level (so each parish elects 1 person). In each parish, the councillors have a vote: in each parish, Orange wins, because they have the plurality (assuming there is not a Salmon-Pink electoral alliance). So at township level, already 100% of councillors are Orange. And hence they're 100% Orange at regional level too.

Alternatively, suppose the same distribution of voters as before, but suppose that Pink have historically been in power, and have influenced how parish borders have been drawn up. In each township, they have created 8 parishes in which the distribution is (on average) 37.5% Pink, 35% Orange, 25% Salmon, and 2.5% minor parties, and then 1 parish in which the distribution is 100% Orange, and 1 parish in which the distribution is 80% minor parties and 20% Orange. Each parish elects one representative to the township council, giving 8 seats to pink, 1 to orange, and 1 to the largest minor party (and 0 to Salmon!). The each township elects a representative to the regional council: give 10 seats to pink, and none to anybody else...

Of course it's less extreme when they elect more than one person. But unless the number of people each council sends to the higher level is greater or equal to the number serving on the lower council itself, this effect - which is both overpoweringly biased to the dominant party by nature, and worryingly easy to skew the results of through relatively minor gerrymandering - will be seen. To avoid this being too visible (and because it's so anti-democratic), politicians will probably pretend not to have ideologies or party allegiances.



4. The second big consequence is that you're going to have a clientist system. Because promotion depends on the personal votes of a small number of your personal colleagues, there's going to be a lot of trading of favours, and patron-client empires will emerge. Those who get votes will be those with the most to offer in exchange for those votes - either personally (the rich and powerful) or those who have the patronage of other rich and powerful people, particularly those at higher levels of government. At best, this will favour the privileged and the establishment; at worst, it'll just be flagrantly corrupt.
On which note, note that the smaller the electorate per seat, the bigger the problem of direct bribery. If you only have to bribe 100 voters to get a seat on the parish council, and then 5 parish councillors for a township council seat, and then 5 town councillors for a regional seat, that's only 110 people in total to bribe to get a regional seat, which should be very doable for a lot of people.


5. Because you have to work your way up from the bottom, persuading your senior colleagues to vote for you (probably by 'earning dues', signing up to the network of a big name and voting for their favourites in exchange for them eventually telling their backers to vote for you this time), nobody's going to shoot to political success quickly. Unless they have a lot of money to bribe people with, politicians will have to be long-term careerists who stay in their posts a very long time. This will give stability, but also inflexibility.


6. It's common for small island nations, particularly with young democracies, to have a system based less on structured parties and more on locally famous notabili, individuals with personal clout - businessmen, celebrities, tribal leaders, etc. This will probably happen here, with those notabili, and their less notable colleagues, forming informal parties based on patronage/corruption. Political parties will exist as the vehicles for these networks, and will be short-lived and fluid to mirror the changing alliances among the notables. Those most likely to form organised political parties are those the system works most against: the conciliar system will basically act as a way of preventing undesirables from standing in national elections. Probably a revolutionary communist party will exist, or an equivalent, dedicated to overthrowing the system, and a few other minority protest parties since they have so little chance under this system.


7. There could well be very serious tensions if there are generational shifts in attitude, or public anger over particular crises, as it will be so hard to replace the rulers through the system. First you have to win control of most of the parishes, then you have to hope your candidates don't get corrupted by the ruling networks (who will say 'side with the rebels and you have no future, switch to us and we'll ensure you're promoted!'), then wait for the elections to the townships, then don't get corrupted, then wait for the elections to the regional councils, then don't get corrupted, then win the national elections... and the additional problem is that even if people don't like the national government, the system encourages individual politicians at every level to have strong ties to their personal electorates, making it very difficult to get rid of those incumbants. So revolution looks like a much more attractive option...


8. On the national level, I don't understand your meaning. You say "proportional representation", but then "votes are personal and cannot be transferred to other members of the party" and "not all members are affiliated". These things are surely by definition incompatible? Are you perhaps hinting at a Single Non-Transferrable Vote? It should be pointed out, in that case, that SNTV is a) highly non-proportional, and b) terribly biased toward the most disciplined political parties.


The whole thing doesn't seem unbelievable, and would be quite interesting, but it does sound like something you'd expect from a small pacific nation rather than from a country on the edge of Europe...

[din]

Thank you, Sal, for taking the time to comment on the political system. I guess I have some changes to make in order to achieve what I wanted, so let me explain the idea behind this design while replying to your points at the same time.

1/3. Sure, I agree that it's unusual for a European country. The thing is, I think regional elections are mostly pointless in practice, as generally people don't seem to know much of what happens on a regional level. On the parish level, I tried to get as close to a direct democracy as practically feasible, because the country traditionally has a lot of small farming communities. As they would want their interests heard on higher levels (because they're often very small communities with little power on a higher level), I created a tiered system where only lower level representatives could move higher up.

I hadn't considered quite how strongly this would favor majority candidates. Regional rivalries would be strongest between more progressive and diverse urban regions, and the more traditional rural regions, so this could provide enough plurality on a national level, but I do see the over-representation of majority groups on the township level as a major flaw. However, I don't want to remove the tiered system, so perhaps there'd have to be public elections to elect members of the parish council for the township level.

I still want to keep the internal appointment of representatives for the regional level. I was thinking about putting laws in place for limiting one or two-party dominance, but then everybody would just claim to be independent. However, I think if everyone votes for someone from their own party, it's still unlikely that the top individual candidates are all from the same party, even with a clear majority party. Say the Orange party has a majority on the township level. If everyone from the Orange party votes for the same Orange candidate, they'd only get one person on the regional level, so they would not get any advantage from their majority position. Instead, they'd spread their votes to get more party members elected, but they might risk spreading their votes too thinly and get very few candidates on the regional level. I think this would actually make for an interesting situation that balances itself (provided there is no corruption...)

Gerrymandering could be countered by fixing historic regions in the constitution. Not sure how to prevent gerrymandering through township mergers.

4. Good point, and this consequence is in direct opposition to the spirit of the system. The idea is that anyone with something to say could become a politician (on a local level), and that local issues would be represented on a national level. Do you think that public township elections (as proposed above) would counter this effect sufficiently?

5/7. This was an intended effect. I personally believe that long-term strategies are disfavored greatly by most political system, and I tried to encourage more forward thinking through this system. This is less favorable in highly changeable environments, or with big generational changes, as you mention under point 7, but there are downsides to everything. I hope that the addition of township elections could mitigate these effects a little. Also, I've been considering imposing a maximum length of a politician's political career by setting a maximum number of terms for each level. This way, you can't really have career politicians (encouraging people with 'real world experience' to give politics a try). The only reason I'm hesitant to do so is that you don't want to remove competent people from their post.

6. Yes, that's more or less what I had in mind, too, so I'm glad you got the same impression.

8. Yes, you're right. I changed my mind and forgot to remove the sentence on 'proportional representation'. SNTV is what I was going for. Sure, there may be a bias (but there's the dilemma I outlined under point 3), and you said yourself that political parties are likely to be quite fluid in this country.


2. I intentionally didn't make the system too typically European, as it's on the periphery of the continent (so I believe I have a little more flexibility), and the country wasn't ruled by either the Danish or the British in the past 200 years. How this was possible, I have yet to figure out, haha, but that's my aim.


Thanks again for your reply

[din]

I've come up with some regions, which I've placed on a political map. The regional borders mainly follow mountain ranges (besides the coastline, obviously)

You can view this map here:

>> Political map of Miott <<

You can zoom in with the tool in the top-right corner.

A list which explains the etymology of the names of the regions:

Regions
- Oiporig /ˈʊjpəɾiː/ -- Capital
- Nanc Saman /ˈnaŋk ˈsamɪn/ -- Signal mountains
- Ou Corherden /uː ˈkowəɹdən/ -- the Valleys
- Ammanas /ˈamːɪnɪs/ -- Lee side, downstream
- Tahruop /ˈtaħɹwop/ -- Cloud cradle
- Paretih /ˈpaɾətɪɕ/ -- Four peninsulas
- Goul ma Emion /ˈʕuːlma ˈəmjən/ -- Emion's ring

Let me know what you think! I'd be especially interested to know if the regions are distinguishable for people with colorblindness

[hwhatting]

Interesting system. Looks a bit like the initial versions of socialist council (soviet) sytems, where only local soviets were directly elected and then people were delegated from lower layer councils to upper layer councils.

Gerrymandering could be countered by fixing historic regions in the constitution.

Which could lead to problems if population patterns change, but the number of delegates of a region stays the same, resulting in underrepresented areas (e.g. fast-growing cities) and rotten boroughs (depopulated villages keeping the same number of delegates).
OTOH, a reasonable protection against gerrymandering is handing drawing of the constituency borders (or setting the number of delegates per region if the borders are fixed historically) to an independent commission or a court.

What are your ideas on the history of Miott? As Sal noticed, it doesn't seem to have come under British rule, but the lexicon and your decription seem to assume that at least some parts of European history happened as we know it (the Roman Empire, the Catholic Church).

[din]

Thanks for replying, HW; it was indeed partly inspired by the Soviet system. Your idea on gerrymandering is not bad, actually. I'll take note. Perhaps the regions can be constitutionally fixed, but the number of representatives from each region can be reevaluated periodically on the basis of population changes.

As for the history, I really haven't given it too much consideration (my project was mainly just a conlang in a particular location for the longest time). The country was definitely converted to Christianity at some point, and the lexicon does contain a lot of influences from Norse and English (and to a lesser extent French, Latin and Greek, through scholarly traditions).

That said, the idea was that the area has been able to maintain its independence throughout (most of) its recent history. So that would mean either that the area is not terribly interesting strategically or economically, or that the people are very proud, nationalistic warmongers. Or, possibly, that they were able to maintain most of their culture and practices under foreign rule (either because they were on the periphery, where they were able to keep the foreign influence to a relatively low level, or because their culture and language was strong enough to survive among the layers under the foreign elite).


I'd appreciate your input, because much like forms of government, European political history isn't my strongest subject.

[hwhatting]

If European history otherwise is supposed to have gone as we know it, the biggest danger to Miott's independence would be Britain. In order to keep Miott Catholic and relatively un-touched by British political traditions, I think it's necessary that Miott developed a relatively strong monarchy early (e.g. in defence against Viking raids or by Vikings founding a dynasty), to avoid the division into clans and petty principalities that allowed England to conquer Wales and Ireland. A Catholic monarchy would then also allow for dynastic alliances with the pe-eminent Catholic powers (first Spain, then France) for protection against Britain. In such a small country with such a mighty neighbour, there would probably exist a strong tradition of local popular militias or military levies that also may be one of the sources of the municipality-based democracy. You don't say anything about the head of state - Miott could have preserved the Catholic monarchy or could have become a republic in the 19th or 20th century. (In a country with a tradition of power-sharing, chances for keeping the monarchy would be good, but you never know - one stupid king in the 19th/20th century, when monarchies fell out of fashion, could be enough to cause a revolution.)

[mèþru]

Ideas for Miott:
I imagine Miott would have passed from hand to hand several times. At first, they would struggle for independence from Ireland, then Vikings, and later the Normans. After Henry VIII started his schismatic policies, the islands rebelled with Spanish help. They subsequently became an autonomous region of Spain like the southern part of Basque Country and the Pyrenees. However, the Treaty of London (1604) gave Miott to England. The islanders launch a successful rebellion during the 30 Years' War and were ignored until the end of the war. Britain realized that the island was not worth the trouble of its inhabitants, and consented to an independent Miott with political neutrality (as a Spanish dependency, it confers military advantages to Spain). High tariffs protect the place from becoming economically dependent on the UK. The island probably has a Switzerland-like refusal to join international organizations based off of its long time policy of neutrality. Occasionally, the Miottese have sent forces to maintain peace between various sides in conflicts in Ireland, a tradition that they have maintained since the Easter Rising. The Miottese joined World War II against the Germans during the Battle of France. Miottese Volunteer Legions have fought on both sides of World War I and the Spanish Civil War.
The Miottese have very good relations with all peaceful parties of Northern Ireland. However, the Miottese have a deep-seated mistrust of the English and have had bad relations with the Republic of Ireland. The Miottese have been neutral on most international issues, to the point where they refuse to join the United Nations (they are an observer member).
The economy has always struggled in diversifying beyond fish and tourism. However, in the late 19th century, a British gun company relocated to Miott and became a very successful international supplier of small firearms.

[Salmoneus]

I think the early history is probably pretty much inescapable (unless you want the islands to have produced aggressive conquering pseudo-vikings in their own right):

- Irish monks bring christianity to the islands

- The Norse conquer the islands. Most likely these are Gaelic Norse from the Hebrides/Ireland, although one particular group who might have had a reason to be there were the exiles fleeing King Harald in the 9th century. The norse may have eliminated christianity briefly, but eventually convert - either they convert to the local christianity, or they bring their own gaelic version from britain

After that, most likely Norway conquers the island, because Norway was going around conquering everything. The islands would be vassals of Norway either directly or via the King of the Isles. In the former case, the islands remain Norwegian for a good while. In the latter case, they probably go with the Isles when they're conquered by Scotland.


In the long term, I think there are three viable options:
- the islands remain Norwegian, and then Danish, and then get some measure of self-rule. Basically, the Faroes.
- the islands remain Scottish. They're probably still part of Scotland. Basically, the Shetlands.
- the islands become Scottish, but they're so remote that they're effectively self-governing throughout the middle-ages. Eventually though they fall, probably through marriage, into the hands of a catholic country. Could be Spain, but the obvious option would be France: Scotland just prior to the Reformation was very close to France (the queen mother was french and the queen (Mary Queen of Scots) was married to the heir to France). So it's easy to say that when the reformation sweeps scotland, these remote catholic islands with a Frenchborn owner conventiently revert somehow to France.

The problem with the third option is that having an overtly french- or spanish-aligned protestant archipelago off their coast would probably really annoy the English, who would see it as a backdoor for Catholic invasions and would try to conquer it.

So my instinct would be to go for the "Isle of Man" solution:
- Scotland wins control from the Norse. The islands become property of Scotland
- however, Scotland doesn't care about them much. The King of Scotland imposes a feudal ruler onto the islands, but in practice the Lord of Rockall lives happily in Edinburgh or wherever (just as the Stanleys rarely visited Man), and in practice the island is divided up into autonomous clans with their own local rulers and perhaps local parliaments (as on Man)
- the islands remain officially catholic. The Scots after the Reformation try to import Protestantism onto the island, but only establish it in limited areas (like the Pale in Ireland)
- the French and/or Spanish establish ties with Rockall, and occasionally foster rebellions, but Scotland, and later Britain, suppresses them. They are perhaps temporarily independent during the Civil War era.
- during the 18th and 19th centuries, British rule becomes unpleasant, and British landlords take over much of the land. There is considerable emigration
- during the later 19th century a degree of home rule is granted
- Rockall demands independence some time in the 20th century.


I wouldn't worry too much about culture. The west of ireland managed to preserve its language into the 19th and in many places the early 20th century. Linguistically, I think it would be fine for Tormiott to remain the main language - though I wouldn't be surprised to find an English-speaking area too, and lots of loanwords from norse and gaelic and maybe scots.

I'd expect Rockall to be less populous than Ireland. It's 2/3rds the size of Ireland, sure, but it's the shitty 2/3rds. Sorry... what I mean is, in terms of climate it's going to be more like Connaught than like Dublin. It's north and west of ireland - colder and wetter and less suited for potatoes. And probably historically further from civilisation. So maybe 3 million people?

[din]

Thanks a lot, guys, for your input. It's really helpful.

I really want to keep the Normans and the English out, somehow, so even though I really like your idea, mèþru, I'm going to try to avoid some parts of it. I'm okay with the Norwegians and maybe the Scottish, as they've already had an impact on the Tormiott lexicon I've created over the years, with English influences being much more recent.

Maybe it could have gone something like this:

- Irish monks bring Christianity to the islands

- Frequent Viking raids with some areas (mainly in the west) being settled by Vikings in the 9th century, founding what are now the main coastal cities in the west.


Then I quite like this part of your suggestion, Sal:

- Scotland wins control from the Norse. The islands become property of Scotland
- however, Scotland doesn't care about them much. The King of Scotland imposes a feudal ruler onto the islands, but in practice the Lord of Rockall lives happily in Edinburgh or wherever (just as the Stanleys rarely visited Man), and in practice the island is divided up into autonomous clans with their own local rulers and perhaps local parliaments (as on Man)
- the islands remain officially catholic. The Scots after the Reformation try to import Protestantism onto the island, but only establish it in limited areas (like the Pale in Ireland)

I suppose the influence of protestantism could have been limited later on by nationalist movements who see it as a foreign influence. (I have no problems with protestantism, personally -- it's just not what I had in mind).

Since the islands were given an opportunity for home rule during the Scottish occupation: What if someone manages to unite the population under a strong leader and develops a sense of independence, and takes advantage of the turmoil of the Thirty Years' War by trying to oust Scottish (and, by then English) rule? This would probably get support from the Habsburg States and Allies, and since Scotland and England have more important things to consider, maybe they got their way, to some extent. And then the English Civil War happened, so that movement for independence from England gained even more momentum, maybe with Spanish help. Not sure how England would react to having a hostile (and relatively small) neighbor to the west, though.

Does that sound plausible to you?

Not sure what to do with the Spanish after this period if I do go down this route, however.

- - -

And yes, the climate will probably be quite stormy and rainy. Rockall is, in real life. There are some mountains to divert some of it, though. The area (in real life) has incredible biodiversity (coral reefs, lots of fish), so that's definitely a big economic sector. Potatoes may indeed be a little harder to grow, but there should be an abundance of sheep farming.

Since it's been discussed so often in real life, there's also quite probably some oil. That could make the economy quite similar to Norway's, so they could be doing quite well for themselves. This also makes it very likely that they did not join the EU. They will probably be in the EEA together with Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein.

3~4 million people sounds plausible, to me.

[mèþru]

How big is Miott? I got the impression from the earlier political stuff that this is just some small island nation in the North Atlantic. Your latest post indicates a large population and a good economy. The reason for why Britain ignored Miott during the 30 Years' War in my idea is that Miott is small, has very few resources and has a very small population. England would probably withdraw its troops and send them to Miott if it is highly populated or valuable. It is also very hard for any country to fight against the Scottish except for Ireland and Norway due to its remote location. It is very far from any Catholic powers, so any aide would probably be in the form of advisors and military trainer.

[jal]

In fact, I've raised the entire Rockall plateau (which is fully underwater apart from the islet of Rockall) in order to determine the shape of the islands.

Damn, and I was thinking I did something original when creating Sajiwa... :( :)

Click here to see the map

Really great map! I've been working on a map of Sajiwa a few years ago, but it wasn't nearly as nice. How many layers do you have?


JAL

[din]

How big is Miott? I got the impression from the earlier political stuff that this is just some small island nation in the North Atlantic. Your latest post indicates a large population and a good economy. The reason for why Britain ignored Miott during the 30 Years' War in my idea is that Miott is small, has very few resources and has a very small population. England would probably withdraw its troops and send them to Miott if it is highly populated or valuable. It is also very hard for any country to fight against the Scottish except for Ireland and Norway due to its remote location. It is very far from any Catholic powers, so any aide would probably be in the form of advisors and military trainer.

Well, I don't think this should be a problem. The oil exploitation and the economic growth that came with it could be relatively recent. Before that time, I'd say that the island population mostly consisted of small fishing communities, so back in the day, the area wouldn't have been too interesting.

It's also pretty close to western Scotland (the Hebrides), so in terms of war, that should not be a problem either.


JAL: thanks! Not too many layers, I think. One for the mountain ranges (a gray relief map), one as an overlay for the land, one for the sea, and one for the text and the dots. If we exclude non essential layers, like borders and the compass, that is.

[Salmoneus]

Unfortunately, the massive problem with having a large, catholic island off the west coast of britain, trying to rebel...
...is that we already have that, and we know how that turned out!

personally, I'd struggle to see how the country could remain independent.
OK, maybe I'm just struggling to remember just how far away it is. It is... quite far away. That's certainly tougher than a trip across the Irish sea. I'd still expect invasions from Britain, but maybe it's plausible that they could obtain independence.

Then again, the point when it would be most likely to break away, the Civil War, is also the time when Britain was going around conquering islands around the globe to build up an empire. And it won't be long before somebody notices a giant island with a lot of highly desirable guano on it, conveniently just west of Scotland. So... now I'm skeptical again.

That said, you needn't be too afraid of British rule. It could be very much theoretical-only. Perhaps there's a war of independence in the 1640s, then internal troubles, and then after 1688 William is accepted as King of England, Scotland and Ireland and Lord of Rockall. He keeps some warships there, builds some forts in case James and the Catholics come calling, does his best to collect customs and excise (though there are plenty of smugglers), and sets up a courthouse in the capital to try murder cases and other particularly serious crimes... but other than that, he mostly ignores it. Things go on as they always have, and there's little intrusion of English outside of some terms for trade and fashion and the like.

If you really DO want it independent for a long time, your best bet might be the Jacobites. As a Catholic area, Rockall could make a good staging post for a Catholic invasion; maybe somehow the Jacobites retreat to Rockall, and French support prevents the English from coming and crushing them? But you're walking a fine line there, because that would make the English/Scottish terrified and put conquering Rockall high up on their agenda. It would take a lot of foreign backing, I think... and the problem is that around this time there's no other power that can contend with the British Navy. I suspect cultural traditions would survive best as a neglected realm of the crown than as a militarised front line.

------

On population: actually, I'd probably head toward 2 million. That would mean an island with an average density similar to Sligo, Fermanagh, Longford, Donegal, Tipperary, etc - the less populated western and central counties of Ireland. Or one with an average density more akin to Mayo, Leitrim, Roscommon (the really underpopulated northwest), but then with some more populated areas where the climate is better and the ports are clustered.

This level of population would leave you still five times as densely populated as The Western Isles, or twice as densly populated as Shetland, Orkney or Argyll. Or Norway. And ten times as densely populated as Iceland. In fact that would be a similar population density as the Faroe Islands, which if anything is probably pushing it! [I'd assume it's actually less densely populated than the Faroes in general (big interior rather than convenient coastline) but much more populated in a few urban areas]

4 million would be a similar density to Scotland or Ireland (if Rockall is 2/3rds the size of the island of Ireland (rather than the country of Ireland?)). But note that Scotland has nobody in the west or the north, and the average population density is massively boosted bythe Glasgow-Edinburgh urban corridor in the lowlands. Which I get the impression might be more cosmopolitan than you want.

Wait, damnit, you said 3/4ths the size, didn't you, rather than 2/3rds. That's a really darn big rock. Have you tried making a map of the British isles as a whole, with your Rockall on it?

[jal]

Not too many layers, I think. One for the mountain ranges (a gray relief map), one as an overlay for the land, one for the sea, and one for the text and the dots. If we exclude non essential layers, like borders and the compass, that is.

I was trying to create a layer per height zone, like many island maps on Wikipedia have. But I have to make due with Inkscape, as I don't want to spend money on a tool I'lll be hardly using. Inkscape is not the most userfriendly program ever. Needless to say that map never went anywhere. I want to redo it one day, but I can't find the time or inspiration currently.

I'd also like to know what scale the map is and/or have an indication of the size of the islands (mèþru also asked).

EDIT: The problem with the map not loading the second time can be solved by pressing Ctrl-F5.


JAL

[din]

Thanks for your reply again, Sal.

To help put things in perspective, I threw together a quick and dirty map (it was a 15 minute effort, so nothing I'm trying to showcase). The original map had an unusual perspective for a local map, so I suspect it's part of a world map. I had to distort things quite a bit to make everything fit, but it was the first map of the region that I could find which also mapped the depth of the ocean floor.



As you can see, it is quite a bit further out than Ireland, through certainly not hard to get to. And yes, it certainly is not just a rock (like Rockall in real life); it is approximately 3/4 the size of (the Republic of!) Ireland, taking the distortion into account.

That said, you needn't be too afraid of British rule. It could be very much theoretical-only. Perhaps there's a war of independence in the 1640s, then internal troubles, and then after 1688 William is accepted as King of England, Scotland and Ireland and Lord of Rockall. He keeps some warships there, builds some forts in case James and the Catholics come calling, does his best to collect customs and excise (though there are plenty of smugglers), and sets up a courthouse in the capital to try murder cases and other particularly serious crimes... but other than that, he mostly ignores it. Things go on as they always have, and there's little intrusion of English outside of some terms for trade and fashion and the like.

I quite like this idea. I'm really not opposed to (part of) the country converting to Protestantism (because I've only really developed the pre-Christian pagan traditions to some extent). I'm not hung up on the idea of full self governance; I just want to make sure the influence from its neighbors on language and culture is relatively limited. The influence of neighboring languages on Tormiott is large enough to be explained by regular trade, but too small to be able to justify centuries of foreign domination. (I know it makes more sense to work the other way around, but I've been working on this language for 10 years, and I only started considering the details of the political history this week).

On population: actually, I'd probably head toward 2 million. That would mean an island with an average density similar to Sligo, Fermanagh, Longford, Donegal, Tipperary, etc - the less populated western and central counties of Ireland. Or one with an average density more akin to Mayo, Leitrim, Roscommon (the really underpopulated northwest), but then with some more populated areas where the climate is better and the ports are clustered.

This level of population would leave you still five times as densely populated as The Western Isles, or twice as densly populated as Shetland, Orkney or Argyll. Or Norway. And ten times as densely populated as Iceland. In fact that would be a similar population density as the Faroe Islands, which if anything is probably pushing it! [I'd assume it's actually less densely populated than the Faroes in general (big interior rather than convenient coastline) but much more populated in a few urban areas]

4 million would be a similar density to Scotland or Ireland (if Rockall is 2/3rds the size of the island of Ireland (rather than the country of Ireland?)). But note that Scotland has nobody in the west or the north, and the average population density is massively boosted bythe Glasgow-Edinburgh urban corridor in the lowlands. Which I get the impression might be more cosmopolitan than you want.

Wait, damnit, you said 3/4ths the size, didn't you, rather than 2/3rds. That's a really darn big rock. Have you tried making a map of the British isles as a whole, with your Rockall on it?

The reason I went for 3-4 million is that, while the population density is likely to be lower than that of the Republic of Ireland (more mountainous, shittier weather), it does have the densely populated south-west. I envisioned the capital and the surrounding suburbs to be a little smaller than Dublin, and Dublin is hardly a metropolis. And then there are a few other cities of average size in the area. If I take 3/4ths of R. of Ireland's population, we get about 4.73 million, so somewhere around 3.5 million wouldn't be too unrealistic, I think. Especially if the country has been doing well thanks to the discovery of oil, which could prevent emigration. Even more so if they've managed to diversify their economy with the help of the investment of oil money.

I was trying to create a layer per height zone, like many island maps on Wikipedia have.

Ouch, that sounds like a pain. I'd strongly advise you to just create a monochrome layer where you use a soft brush to create the effect of height differences (white being higher, black being lower), and then creating a colored layer on top (at for example 75% opacity). I brushed some yellow and white into the green overlay to emphasize the idea of lower levels of vegetation at higher altitudes, but it looked pretty good when it was all green, too.

[jal]

It seems that Rockall would make a better stepping stone to colonize Iceland than Norway is. Wouldn't having an island like Rockall have changed history for Iceland as well? It'd be interesting to read the island's history, but especially it's prehistory.


JAL

[hwhatting]

Well, the existence of Rockall might have changed a lot more in European history. And then there's the question on why it's not submerged like in the real world - e.g. lower sea levels would mean that more of the shelf would be above water elsewhere as well, Britain might not be an island, etc. The question is how far din wants to diverge.

[jal]

I don't think it's lower sea levels, it's just higher sea bed (or well, continental plate). I'm not sure if such a remote place would've influenced Europe much. I don't think, for example, Iceland has.


JAL

[Salmoneus]

I hadn't considered quite how strongly this would favor majority candidates. Regional rivalries would be strongest between more progressive and diverse urban regions, and the more traditional rural regions, so this could provide enough plurality on a national level, but I do see the over-representation of majority groups on the township level as a major flaw. However, I don't want to remove the tiered system, so perhaps there'd have to be public elections to elect members of the parish council for the township level.

This would certainly help keep it representative, yes.

I still want to keep the internal appointment of representatives for the regional level. I was thinking about putting laws in place for limiting one or two-party dominance, but then everybody would just claim to be independent. However, I think if everyone votes for someone from their own party, it's still unlikely that the top individual candidates are all from the same party, even with a clear majority party. Say the Orange party has a majority on the township level. If everyone from the Orange party votes for the same Orange candidate, they'd only get one person on the regional level, so they would not get any advantage from their majority position. Instead, they'd spread their votes to get more party members elected, but they might risk spreading their votes too thinly and get very few candidates on the regional level. I think this would actually make for an interesting situation that balances itself (provided there is no corruption...)

Unfortunately, what actually happens is that parties pretty quickly become very good at distributing votes. They do this even when it's millions of people voting (the classic example is Japan), but when it's a small number of people who know each other and are able to deliberate with one another and make deals? The party will always win. This system will also strengthen parties in the process (whether or not they're officially named). This is why this system (single non-transferrable vote) has been dropped almost everywhere.

4. Good point, and this consequence is in direct opposition to the spirit of the system. The idea is that anyone with something to say could become a politician (on a local level), and that local issues would be represented on a national level. Do you think that public township elections (as proposed above) would counter this effect sufficiently?

No. I think patrons will still be very powerful, particularly in a system in which association with local notables is more important than party orthodoxy.
Note also that the SNTV system itself encourages clientelism.

I'm not trying to tell you you can't do things, btw. But political systems developed as they did for a reason...

--------------


If Rockall had the same average population density as the Republic of Ireland, it would have 4.4 million people in it. If it had the same density as Iceland it would have 200,000. If it were New Zealand, it would have 1.1 million. 1.8 million as Latvia; 2.8 million as Lithuania.

More puzzlingly: why is the southwest populated? That's the part that is wettest and windiest. You'll note that in the British isles, nobody lives on the west coasts. Well, that's an exaggeration of course, but generally the exposed west coasts - Cornwall, western Wales, Cork, Mayo, Argyll, the Highlands and the Hebrides - are very underpopulated, and prone to flooding and storms. I'd expect the population on Rockall to be in Arheccaso and east, rather than Arheccaso and west. Though I guess it's fudgeable (soil types, etc).

----

And now i'm wondering: is it TOO big and TOO far away? Would it be better to see it as Iceland than Ireland - that is, should it stay under Viking/Norwegian/Danish control, rather than go to Scotland?
[An intermediate option might be, say, the Scots take it over later on, with settlers (who then get assimilated)]

----

Great minds etc, btw. For a while now i've been toying with the idea of a conlang/country on islands west of ireland (inspired by St Kilda). Though I was thinking small islands, and I was assuming much further south, in the region of (imaginary) Brasil or Demar. Though now you've got me thinking, because the more northerly location lets the norse come into play, which is interesting...

[din]

Well, the existence of Rockall might have changed a lot more in European history. And then there's the question on why it's not submerged like in the real world - e.g. lower sea levels would mean that more of the shelf would be above water elsewhere as well, Britain might not be an island, etc. The question is how far din wants to diverge.

JAL got it right: The sea levels are the same in this scenario. I only raised the sea bed locally in order to create an island. The rest of the North Atlantic should remain unaffected. It might change some sea currents, wind flows and weather patterns for the surrounding area, but I would feel totally out of my depth predicting the possible outcomes.

- - -

Sal; Thanks again for evaluating the political system. I'll give it another thought to see if I can live with some of the consequences.

If Rockall had the same average population density as the Republic of Ireland, it would have 4.4 million people in it. If it had the same density as Iceland it would have 200,000. If it were New Zealand, it would have 1.1 million. 1.8 million as Latvia; 2.8 million as Lithuania.

Damn, New Zealand is that large? I must have underestimated its size. Anyway, it should definitely be more densely populated than Iceland, as there are no large glaciers or volcanoes, but maybe you're right and 2-3 million would actually be more realistic.

More puzzlingly: why is the southwest populated? That's the part that is wettest and windiest. You'll note that in the British isles, nobody lives on the west coasts. Well, that's an exaggeration of course, but generally the exposed west coasts - Cornwall, western Wales, Cork, Mayo, Argyll, the Highlands and the Hebrides - are very underpopulated, and prone to flooding and storms. I'd expect the population on Rockall to be in Arheccaso and east, rather than Arheccaso and west. Though I guess it's fudgeable (soil types, etc).

Well, the reason is entirely geographical. Because I used the elevation of the current sea bed to determine the shape of the island, I ended up with mountains on the east coast, and flatter areas with easily accessible natural harbors in the west and south west. The narrow area north-east of Arhecasso is quite hilly and has mostly cattle farming (sheep), so the population mostly lives in smaller farming communities, and the flatter south west is better for agriculture. So fishing harbors + trade ports + agriculture all in one region, with the rest of the country being mostly grassy hills and mountains, means that the population density is highest over there.

As for being exposed to harsh weather, yes, I suppose, to some extent. I mean, the temperatures in the area are moderated by the North Atlantic Drift, as the islands are right in its path. The wind can be quite harsh, I suppose, but I've actually seen maps of common wind patterns in the area where the wind hits the west coast of Ireland and then turns back around, so that would be blocked by Rockall's mountain range on the east coast, protecting the towns behind it. I don't really know, though, because this information is kind of hard to find in the public domain. Or maybe I don't know the correct terms to look for.

Also don't forget that Iceland's population lives predominantly on the south-west coast as well (though it is further north).

And now i'm wondering: is it TOO big and TOO far away? Would it be better to see it as Iceland than Ireland - that is, should it stay under Viking/Norwegian/Danish control, rather than go to Scotland?
[An intermediate option might be, say, the Scots take it over later on, with settlers (who then get assimilated)]

Well, it's still closer to Scotland than anything else. Plus, I already gravitated towards the Viking > Scots > English (neglected) > Independence route, so I don't think it's too much of a challenge.