So here is a list of Celtic lands. I.E lands that most people in the country are called Celtic by their leaders in terms of culture. These stats were written in 2007, I have given the 2020 stats in brackets, if no brackets, then things have not changed much.

Scotland 5 million people, (5.5 Million)

Republic of Ireland 4.3 million (4.9 million)

Northern Ireland 1.8 million (1.9 million)

Britany 3.9million including a million or so in the place Nantes is in, called Loire Atlantique, really part of Brittany, (4.4 million) also including a territory called Morhiban, also not in the Brittany department, which was once of the old Brittany.

Wales 2.9 million (3.2 million)

Asturias 1million a bit Celtic culture

Cantabria 0.5million, a bit Celtic culture,

Galicia 2.7million, very much consider themselves a Celtic land at times.

Manx 0.84million

Cornwall 0.55million

West Devon 0.06million, Somerset, and Dorset also have claims to be Celt but I bet less so, and  0.55million Cumbria, and all Devon. Cumbria's sheep markets counting system has numbers using old Brythonic words, with numbers which are very similar to Welsh.  These areas in western England outside Cornwall with this semi Celtic heritage would be reaching a combined population not much smaller than Wales.


Liverpool to be honest has a huge Irish, Welsh and Scottish heritage, and even it's accent as likely formed to a very strong extent by the 19th Century Irish influx. Also Corby a town in the English midlands a strong Scottish heritage,

​

Then what about England itself, or Gaul, well they consider themselves English and French so I will not count them in, but they are Celtic nations in some ways, and for that matter so are more lands in Europe, as it such a undefinable term.

​

Then there is a recently revealed to be Celtic one. indeed, the Faeroes, Iceland, and Medieval Greenland and Vinland. More of that I say below.

​

Few people would see these Viking lands as Celtic territories, but perversely they have Celtic heritage. It seems the Vikings settlers, to Iceland, took along a bunch of Celts, or maybe some of the Irish monks there already added to their population. Whatever the case, as of this, they are more Celtic DNA, than the Shetland and Orkney Islands are of Viking or Norse DNA. (Shetland and Orkney have much more Celtic DNA than a majority, and the Viking DNA is less than a third, much less) I and must confirm, anybody who lives in a Celtic land can consider themselves a Celt and is one, wherever their ancestors came from, as of them being in a Celtic land, as historically most people who live in such lands are even in some cases, just to a small extent, but many, to a large extent, descendants of many peoples who came to these lands over many centuries of time.

The Faeroes even more so has a Celtic element to the population again, some say it is half Viking half Celt. Many say it is as the Vikings took Celtic spouses there, though you never know, maybe there were some Picts there already, or Irish monks (They were famed for long voyages for reasons of faith), and maybe some Vikings were Celticised, in places like the Norse colonies in Dublin and Mann, and then arrived there.

Medieval Greenland also had a Celtic element of their DNA (Similar to the strength of what exists in the Faeroes), before the plague and climate change and new economic factors, and expansion of Inuit tribes saw their society vanish. Thus so being, any settlers in Vinland their brief colony in North America, likely would have been so as well, but they were hardly in that Medieval kind of Newfoundland area for long. Vice versa, amazingly some DNA tests have found small amounts of Inuit DNA in Iceland's population from likely the Viking excursions to North America. Though there were times when Inuit (turns out it is not spelt Innuit, though there is a mountain by that name )canoes would be paddled ashore to Iceland, but these were very rare very unusual visits, that would not lead to such exchange.

​

Then in the New World, I list these remarkably Celtic enclaves. as we all know, Canada, the USA, Australia, and New Zealand have big amounts of emmigration from Britain with these 4 places below, being locations where so many arrived, the local population has remained strongly of that group ever since.

​

Cape Breton island in Nova Scotia, 0.146million, very many Scottish

Prince Edward Island 0.144. Million, Very many Scottish

Chubut valley, Argentina 0.004million  Many Welsh

Avalon Peninsula in Newfoundland Canada, 0.23million,  Many Irish

​

Also there are some Irish communities on Carribean islands, like Bermuda, which can go right back to the 17th Century, and number in the thousands, and still keep some pride in their Irish ancestry.

​

Canada has some of the more Scottish communities, with Nova Scotia, still having some Gaelic spoken there.

​

It has to be said, Celtic emmigrants I mean emigrants have integrated into these societies, so for instance, they are in most cases far more connected to their American or Australian identities, than long ago ones. Though still here are some fascinating stats.

​
In terms of the diaspora for the USA, these are stats I found,
Scotland, Scottish Americans
20–25 million in the USA likely have some Scottish ancestry.
Up to 8.3% of the U.S. population
Scotch-Irish Americans
27–30 million have some Scotch Irish ancestry though some crossover with the above stat, and this can be larger and smaller in differing cases. Like some people have more Scottish ancestors than others.
Up to 10% of the U.S. population​

The 1790 the USA estimate was 8 percent of the population were Scots Irish, 4 percent Scottish, out of a population of 3.9 million,

In 2010, as of greater emigration from across the world, and people merging into America's well vaunted and celebrated melting pot, it was now listed on the census as 1.7 Percent Scottish, 1.5 Percent Scotch Irish, in terms of identities people claim, out of 309 million people.

So, as stated, that does not mean that 10 percent figure do not realise they have Scottish heritage, it is just many more identify with their American identity, and of course that 10 percent stat includes people who have ancestry from many lands, in Americas melting pot.

OK, but also then some areas have more people claiming Scottish heritage than others. Maine in it's census has these claims for the returns, 5.1 Scottish and 1.6% Scotch Irish, the highest total for a state, with some counties reaching over 8 percent combined. Though this all may well be as Maine has seen far less migration than other states, either internal, and external since 1789.

Then a lot of people talk about Appalachian Scottish migration.

Well North and South Carolina and Tennesse have the highest Scotch Irish total at just over 2 percent of the state's reportees each.

When you look at county maps, there are some in the west of North Carolina reaching double digits as of that famed Appalchian emigration of the 18th Century from Scots and Scots Irish from Ulster. Indeed Mitchell County in West North Carolina has over 14 percent claiming these identities when put together. In fact it is a rare county I have seen where other than "American" the merged Scottish identities is the most recorded identity. I think in some ways this is more remarkable than what you see for Ireland below, as large sections of this population's Scottish or Scotch Irish ancestors arrived, or were born, before the USA was even a country, and they are still claming a Scottish heritage so long after, despite Scottish emmigration to these areas being very small for the century at least.

Ireland's emigration to the USA, was later, than Scotland, in terms of it's big numbers, and so later in integrating as they have of course done into the American mainstream identity. But there are some parts of the USA with huge Irish census figures. Massachusetts has over a fifth claiming Irish heritage, despite the mass of the Irish immigration being over a century ago, and some places within it even more. There are entire towns where half the population state they are Irish on the census, such as parts of Plymouth County.

Now historically Ireland sent even more migrants to the USA than Scotland, so it has even higher figures.

Wales sent many migrants to the USA, and Welsh communities did exist, but as the numbers were smaller, and the Union with England was older, they seem to have integrated more fastly with the American mainstream society, nothing wrong with that they just did. Indeed less than a percent of Americans claim Welsh heritage even though the figure of who has such ancestry is likely a number of times greater than that.

Though there are some places where Welsh identity in the North East is high, Pennsylvania has a area a county with five percent claiming their heritage. Many time's the level for most counties even in the state and the North East. There was also a area of land called the Welsh tract in that state, but this was in South East Pennsylvania, in the 17th Century and is not where the high Welsh ethnicity figures are. That scheme did not get as far as the planners wanted. Surprsingly Wales has a higher one even than this, there is a Welsh heritage Mormon community in Idaho, Mandan County, with 20 percent claiming the ethnicity. This is many times more than the rest of the state. This is as Mormonism was popular among many Welsh migrants as a kind of side issue with the more booming Methodist revivals in Wales of the eras. 

Well I am sure Canada, has areas even more Irish and even more Scottish, the areas where early emigrants arrived, I am not sure about New Zealand and Australia, as their immigration was in a different manner, to the ship loads of whole actual communities landing on the harbour. Though each has very high percentages of Scottish and Irish heritage in some places.

More on Aus, NZ & Canada below.
​
Then again, there are other specially Celtic parts of England. Like Oswestry was taken by Welsh princes in thrusts in the 12th Century, taking back what is North East Wales today. The rest of North Wales stayed Welsh, but Oswestry was retaken back by the English in 1157. There was also a tiny bit of Berwick style Welsh taking of a tiny slip of land, north of Oswestry, Whittington Castle, the last time the Welsh had it,1276. That castle may have been a major site for a British kingdom Pengwern half a millennia earlier. The border area of Ellesmere (Not Ellesemere port) in Shropshire, was given to the prince of Gwynedd in 1177, after Madog of Powys took it back from England between the 1140s in the Anarchy to 1160, it remained Welsh held to maybe with a small gap in the 1200s & 1240s to 1282 when it was taken by England. Its debatable if it was a really a Welsh marcher lordship, till the act of union in the 1530s when it was joined to England, but I would say Oswestry had not been a Welsh marcher lordship, as of such a long English history, except when a Welsh prince held it. In terms of history and territory, I do not think it is right to say all the marcher lordships on the border were Welsh, I would say the ones inhabited and ruled by English people, and not stuck inside Wales, were likely English, but some like Oswestry, had bits that could be regarded as Welsh, like the bits on the Welsh side of Offas barrier, where Welsh was spoken. Maybe Welshness of a territory was just partly territorial, but once Wales was conquerred by the English crown, I would say the main identifier, was had it been part of recent princes territory, is it part of modern Wales, and did Welsh speaking communities, either as minorities, bilingual or in the recent past live there, for the 1530s. Like bits of modern East Powys were recently Welsh speaking in the 1530s, but were locals who moved to English speaking, and South East Wales had minority areas speaking Welsh into Monmouthshire, but old Norman towns were expanding like colonies and part of Pembrokeshire yes it was "little England", but it was still a Welsh territory in my view as it was enclosed by Wales, and had been Wales so long. Maybe post conquest, being Welsh was briefly a ethnic language thing, like some nationalities in Eastern Europe were in the early 20th C, rather than a territorial thing, as most of Wales spoke Welsh till the late 19th C, but Anglophone Roy Jenkins, and Dylan Thomas, both ummed about their Welshness, when in nowadays as it should be it would just be seen as anybody born in Wales, is Welsh full stop, whereas for Scotland there was a distinct territorial boundary, like for Wales now and before e.g 1066. 

The more amazing one is what was once part of the Welsh kingdom of Ergyng, a area of West and South Herefordshire called Archenfield today. Which was taken under some Saxon overlordship in the Dark Ages. It was regarded by many as part of Wales well into the Middle Ages, even under semi English and semi Welsh control. It was a kind of debatable land, but many areas round here were. Even after it was defined as part of Herefordshire, it still in the mid 18th Century had mostly Welsh speaking communities and even in the 19th, the language survived. It seems the language finally died out there in the early 20th century.

The Forest of Dean in Gloucestershire, stayed Welsh it seems to the 8th Century, well after Bristol.

​

I have my picture at the bottom of this page of Offa's Dyke.
 

Back further north, Shropshire may have had Welsh speaking communities in some parts of it closer to the later period of pre 1499, so much later than other parts of the English Midlands. Though more so it's area around Oswestry had Welsh speaking communities till the 19th Century, on the Welsh border, partly as of being so close to Wales. Indeed it if you look it is kind of hemmed in on 3 sides by Welsh territory, though you can not call it enclave today as the border is open, but possibly in terms of language a few centuries ago it was.

Astonishingly the Welsh language, except in parts of North East Wales, north of Oswestry, was very strong west of Offas Dyke, and less so east of it, and stayed like this for centuries after the Normans even to the 19th century. Also, some have even found strong connections in other ways between the people of Wales and their Welsh counties, to Herefordshire's Archenfield, in DNA and such, but not to such an extent to them for the more Saxonised east Herefordshire. Indicating how the language survived there till the very early 20th Century after dwindling the previous one. At times in the Norman era they referred to the Welsh who were of course in big numbers in Hereford, (The split in Herefordshire between west and east actually was near Hereford) as the main county town, as the hill people. You can say Hereford, Chester and Shrewsbury had strong elements of Welsh to their histories, even when they were very much so in England, at least from the Medieval era, as of their historic trade with Welsh communities over the border. It must be noted that Offa's Dyke with Wat's runs from north to south, near the modern Welsh English border, but disappears in Archenfield. This is likely not as of the rivers being fine boundaries, but as the fact the Welsh and English speaking population of West Herefordshire, were within England's orbit, this complicated the creation of a boundary dyke there.  Possibly the rivers on either side of the Archenfield were a boundary plus the fact there was a Welsh speaking population, within Mercia's orbit complicated that. Whatever the case, possibly the geography, the more hilly land of the west, and the rivers helped keep Welsh as a distinct culture here, causing no man made boundary to be feasible, and helped Offa, or local deciders, decide on no dyke being needed, or possible here. Instead the Monnow marked the western boundary of this Welsh speaking area of Herefordshire with Wales proper itself, and the Wye as it runs through Hereford the boundary at some points between more English Herefordshire and Welsh. This Archenfield thus had mixed ties, culture with Wales, political in many ways, with Wales, more so with England, and some extent to itself quite automomously for a long time. 
So there are 3 slips of land in England, that could be called once Welsh speaking in modern history, i.e the 19th Century. The large one, Archenfield, which is half of Herefordshire, and still affects local names and culture, including Hay on Wye. Indeed as I say, you could say it is the size of Flintshire or many Welsh counties in area.
That tiny slip of a few parishes west of Oswestry, which actually includes Old Oswestry Hillfort. Though it has to be said that hillfort must have been in Saxon territory as it was part of Offa's Dyke, so surely was part of their defences. Though seeing it is part of what we could term Wales over the border, (I have just invented this term) you could say that it is a tiny bit Welsh territory.
Then last of all a tinier slip of land in south west Shropshire, again west of Offas Dyke, though put in England as of the act of union in the fifteen thirties under Henry the eighth.
The first of all these lands is the size of a small Welsh county, the last 2, just small parishes. I am not sure how late that tiny area in South Shropshire stayed Welsh speaking, but Welsh bards of the sixteenth century with very Welsh names were still being born there, so likely it was a while. Though it is likely the area was English speaking by the mid 18th Century, as Wales by then had some portions of land in it, that combined would be the size of 2 Monmouthshire's spread about the principality, that were majority English speaking by then, which included a portion of Welsh lands bordering here. Though likely the people had just learned English rather than be replaced. Though as I say it did survive there to the Elizabethan era. There may be some doubt about that as the same map indicates Monmouthshire, which was very Welsh speaking in the Elizabethan era, to have become massively English speaking by the mid 18th Century, but other sources prove the Welsh language was strong over notable parts of Monmouthshire, even in the mid 19th Century. It seems Welsh may have had a similar history in Monmouthshire to the Archenfield, weaker at the start of the 19th century than Archenfield, but though having declined, stronger especially in the west, at the end of it, and even so at it's trace levels in the east and majority of the county as well.

For that South West corner of Shropshire, of half a parish, by Clun, I note Welsh services, unlike the rest of Wales, were ended in the 1730s, in a neighbouring village, Beguildy, in Wales. So perhaps it was finishing around then, like with some other eastern parts of Radnorshire, where Welsh, was being replaced by English there. So likely it was at least bilingual, at the middle to end of the 17th Century, though Radnorshire's east had started seeing Anglicisation begining even before then, unlike most of the rest of Wales, a process that in this pocket of Wales was gathering pace at least a century, even at this mid 18th Century point, or so, before of the rest of Wales.  It seems some parts of mid and south border Wales, like in Radnorshire, tiny slips of it, may have started moving towards bilingualism, or even English monoglotness, from Welsh monoglotness, even from the Elizabethan era, though most waited a while for that, as shown by how late parts even had bilingualism, on the border. Unusual that when Archenfield styed Welsh for so long, I says I think that.

​

So Offas Dyke, seems to have made the language border where it was for centuries, Further north, it seems more to be about Wat's Dyke, which for example runs east of Holywell, but there, places like Flint east of it, were bilingual in the 19th Century. Maybe that is to do with the expansion of Gwynedd after the start of the 2nd millenium. You do see Bangor on Dee, is east of these lines and was a rare English majority, not even bilingual location in North Wales, so these dykes did mark boundaries. There is a path that heads from mid Wales, to Prestatyn, along the Clwydian Hills, way west of there, called the Offa's Dyke path, that leads to Chepstow, and the area in the north between Wat's and the path were disputed between Welsh and Saxon, then English leaders, but it seems, to have had little effect on the big block language boundary As the late 19th and then 20th Century wore on, many many Welsh speakers adopted English, infact the vast majority of the population, only halted in terms of a trend in the later part of the era.

I must say, when I drive over the hills and high lanes of West Herefordshire, Archenfield, you do sense it is a different geography and higher, than eastern areas of the county. Much more lanes, winding over numerous hills, which could explain how it stayed British, or Welsh. It does explain why there are some thoughts that Owain Glyndwr spent some of his last days here, while on the run from the English crown.

 

For that matter when driving in the area of South West Shropshire, near Herefordshire, with a slip of land with Welsh village names, and a degree of Welsh surnames actually, around Clun's western villages, it has a lot of Welsh upland style, 1 lane roads, as well. Though Welsh did not survive there as long as Archenfield, it did for a long time.

 

I was reading that it is possible that Wales or Welsh princes held Pengwern till the mid 7th Century, indeed some speculate that the Wrekin, was a Welsh llys site to 656, but thats only a theory. 

 

With some speculation, according to Cambrian Chronicles on Youtube, that Brythonic may have been spoken by economically marginalised groups across England, till the 8th Century, you know, the people not in the elite. And that overtime the Prestige model, saw these people adopt English, or plus be outpaced in population growth. 

 

So I say it makes sense, as they were likely still speaking Brythonic or Latin long after the Anglo-Saxon conquest, those people who were farming the soils, the tillers, and such. So some say there are 8th Century sources for the Fens, in East England, which makes sense, as it was a more apart bit of Eastern England, as of its waterways, where Welsh was spoken by part of the community, when surely most of the rest of East England, including the tillers, had been Anglified in culture by then. It seems certain that Brythonic was spoken among tillers, and such in Wessex, or Southern England till then, maybe even part of the 9th century. With Bath and Gloucester only taken by the Saxons off the West Welsh/ Cornish in 577, this seems likely. With Glastonbury and Somerset only lost by Brythonic kingdoms in 658 to Wessex. Exeter had a English abbot in the year 680, So it is possible the Saxons had claims on South West England as far as modern Cornwall in the 7th century, but the Kingdom of Dumnonia stretched from Cornwall to Devon and further east in the early 8th Century. With the Brythonic speaking people and their now split kingdoms, in conflict with the Saxon kingdoms, across that century but Saxon kingdoms, able to have authority over bits, and certainly over almost all Devon by the year 999. The last recorded king of Cornwall died in 875, but Cornish and British culture and such survived after. I mean how long Brythonic was spoken after then in Devon etc is unsure, but Cornish survived well past 1000 till the 19th Century, in Cornwall, the modern county, how long Brythonic survived elsewhere in Southern Britain, elsewhere outside of West Devon, and English border counties with Wales, maybe to just before 1000 in some parts, but maybe it had died out much earlier in all East England, and most of South Central England, way before then. With the population of Saxons and Britons merging in terms of DNA in those areas. So populations that had, been tillers, or elites, slaves, peasants or aristocrats merging in terms of their localities in terms of dna, but Celtic dna elements stronger the further west and north west and upland, you went possibly, from in terms of the initial Saxon landings.  

 

There are also thoughts that some of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, were Brythonic ones, who turned into Saxon allies, and kingdom, for convenience, so Brythonic kings were merged into the Saxon kingdoms, in the early days of the Saxon arrivals, such as in Lincolnshire, and more. 

Of course England's border town of Berwick was a major Scottish borough till it's brutal

sacking and capture by the King of England in twelve ninety six, and was on and off part of either kingdom, till it was last in Scottish hands properly in 1482, (It was taken by Scotland when England was weak, during the war of the Roses, in 1461, in typical national machinations using each other's weak times) when a English siege took it. Now of course it has a identity unlike any other town in England, which has a kind of dual Scottish English identity essentially that can be called Berwicker. A nice sign of the peaceful proud friendship Scotland and England have had between eachother, a very valuable thing, for centuries now, very much so really, replacing the horrible times of conflict, with peaceful times of good relationships ever more.

Last of all Elmet, with West and South Yorkshire does seem to be a few percent of more Celtic than the rest of that county, which is the most Viking in England. So it seems the old idea that Cumbric and Brythonic influences extended along the spine of the Pennines to North Derbyshire, with the language dying out there likely before the Norman conquest, the further north, the later, may be true. There is some opinion it lasted after the conquest in parts of Cumbria, but it is hard to know for sure. It is felt Cumbric lasted in Scotland longer than in England. Indeed it is likely Celtic identities  and people would have kept that link longer in some upland areas of the spine of Northern England, for longer, affecting demography of the area even relatively recently. Some wonder if Cumbric died out in the 10th Century in England, but some think it maybe survived in Lanercost east Carlisle, to the 13th century, or even the 1300s, maybe like a few last words in the vernacular as happened to Cornish, when it had officially died as a language, but older people were still using some words for a century or so after. Perhaps Pictish died out the same way. While Cumbric died out maybe in the 13th Century in Scotland perhaps just south of Edinburgh in a similar way, maybe lasting a bit longer as a properly spoken tongue, but dying out a similar way, in being added words to the dialect. It could be Cumbric died out a century before then even. With Gaelic and English replacing it. It seems possible seeing there were Gaelic speaking communities in Southern Scotland in the 18th Century, with the language dying out then, that Pictish lasted a long time, but died out before records could mention it, as it was a mentions tongue.  

Cornish seems to have existed in small numbers in parts of West Devon to the 12th or even 13th, some even say the 14th century. 

 

The Channel Islands, seems to be similar to England in terms of how Celtic it is. This is that, it has 2 strands before this century, of population influence, which were the initial Neolithic, Beaker people, and Celtic, people population, that could be termed surely as Celtic Channel Islander, and that then in the Dark Ages, this population was affected by Viking, but not Saxon influences. Then after the Kingdom of England had the territory, with it's orbit and then after the UK had it, the population was influenced by English and British as a whole populations. So I would say it is like England, but more Viking in terms of DNA, as in about 2 thirds Celtic, and 1 third, Saxon and Viking, except the Channel Islanders, is more Viking than England. So England is about 2 thirds English Celtic, with a bit of that being recent immigration from other Celtic lands, and Channel Islands is 2 thirds Channel Islander Celtic. Normandy must have it's own Gaulish Celtic influences like that with some Viking, and later French, while Brittany is more Brittany Celtic, and later British Isles Celts, and stuff. Like all these, it just depends on where you arbitrarily draw the boundaries, as like it is more, Cumbria Celtic, or Surrey Celtic, or Jersey Celtic, and within them, they were all mixing with border groups and other groups over time. You can in a sense no more say the Channel Islands were Celtic, than you can say the French were, so they have just as much a claim as they does.  Though it does seem, some Britons from Britain also occupied the isle in the Dark Ages, possibly they were more like a elite, who had less affect on the population than the Vikings, but some little affect surely on pre Norse, language and DNA. But it had been speaking a local version of Vulgar Latin before then, maybe or something like that, maybe influenced by Celtic, like Gaul, and South East England. I am not sure, but it must have been a version of a Celtic language or Latin, and then this or a Latin implant from Normandy developed from before the 11th Century on the isle. . I think maybe it was a local vulgar Latin that became the Jerrais etc. Now like Manx, and Cornish  this language has lessened, but it is not in itself a Celtic language, more a Latin one, that has been replaced almost wholly by English. 

​

The Channel Islands, spoke a kind of Romance Latin language till about 2 centuries ago, and overtime that language declined, it was influenced by French, and also to a small degree English, Norse and Breton, and surely historically the Channel Islands Celts.

 

P.S I am not anti immigration, I am just stating what it was like, there was no policy that made it like this, it was just geography and history that made this the story, and I like to see where we come from as a world. The modern economy is another change in history and naturally sees more internal and external emigration and immigration, and the incomers, will be as much integrally part of future DNA, as the more long ago, arrivals, so I say, you can be pro or anti migration, but I have benefitted from migration, but of course if some people say otherwise, for themselves, they are perfectly entitled to believe so.  

​It is stated 20 to 24 percent of the European settlers to New Zealand from 1840 to 1940 were Scottish, so a pretty big impact there. Dunedin seems to be a major Scottish population centre. A similar fraction claim Irish ancestry. The Welsh population though of many, was not as huge.


Australia with over 20 million people, has around a million each claiming Irish and Scottish heritage, but under half that as a very much that identity. Cornwall and Wales had 770,000 with some of those roots, and way under half that in terms of that being a major part of their ancestry.  The Manx, 40,000 for the first stat, and again way less after that.
 
As of this there are some places in Australia, which have over 12 percent of the population claiming Scottish heritage on the census. Western Victoria and Adelaide seem to have been places in the 19th Century which were over half Scottish. In a sense the more amazing one is the US ones though which have stood the test of time, you wonder if Australian identity will merge these feelings, in a way that has occured in most of the USA. Not that I am saying any of those things are right or wrong.

In Canada 14 percent of people claim to be Scottish, while 41 percent of Prince Edward island claim Scottish heritage, compared with Ireland's fifteen as a whole in Canada, which is likely a small amount under reported in each case. Only 3 percent of Quebec claim Scottish heritage, as of course it is such a French province. Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, and Nova Scotia and New Brunswick are all over one fifth Irish in the census stats. For that matter, New Brunswick, Alberta, and British Columbia and Yukon claim to be over one fifth Scottish as well. Newfoundland is only 7 percent, so quite low, compared to the Irish. It is felt really half of Prince Edward island is Scottish in ancestry, so easily the most Scottish place outside Scotland, and with the Irish, and a percent or so Welsh, it is easily the most Celtic outside Europe. 32 Percent of Nova Scotia's million people claims Scottish heritage the highest for a Canadian province other Prince Edward Island, with 2 percent Welsh. Even in 1931 Cape Breton island, a region of Nova Scotia, which like Prince Edward has over 100,000 people today was  majority Gaelic speaking, though only a small number speak it as their main language now. 40 percent of Cape Breton's most urban area claim Scottish heritage so again it must be as Scottish as Prince Edward Island, and as Celtic, as over a fifth claim to be Irish, and again a notable 1 percent Welsh. I would guess it is even more Scottish than Prince Edward Island, and even more Celtic. Both it can happily be said, also have other groups from Native American to English to Polish in each and loads.

​

The Avalon Peninsula in Newfoundland has strong Irish heritage, it is not as Irish as Cape Breton is Scottish, but there is a Irish loop area, famed for it's Celticness..

​

Also Cumbria was part of Scotland till the late 11th Century and Northumberland, and Cumbria were held by a Scottish king in the mid 12th century, during a English civil war. It is often shown on history maps that King David I, occupied Cumberland, I mean in the Dark Ages, before 1066,most of Cumbria, was still led by Celtic kings of Strathclyde, and with some in the south English, and part of the west settled by Vikings. which is why it has Viking names. Some wonder if Cumbria was the major part of the wealth of Strathclyde rather than Western Central Scotland, before the Normans took it. Actually Viking Northumbria took Cumbria between the 1040s ands 1050s, but then the Scottish kings took it back, in 1061, From then for 30 years the Scots led Cumbria down to just south of Cumberland, so half way south way of the whole of modern Cumbria. Then the Normans took it. Some say the Scottish kings ruled Cumbria from 1018 to 1092, but many would say the rulers before then were just other Scottish kings, of Britons lands. 

​

Then in 1136 the king took advantage of a English Civil war, and took Cumberland, including Carlisle, which is the north of modern Cumbria, plus large parts of Northumbria, with the Bishop of Durham ruling parts of it outside of Scotland authority bit still bits along the Tees being Scottish led. Then in 1141, Scotland taking the Honour of Lancaster and ruling all the way down to the River Ribble. and everywhere north of the Tees, other than a enclave in Northumbria, I mean the modern version. As of taking the Durham lands. There is a feeling King David even held the Honour of Lancaster up to the Mersey so including Liverpool and Manchester,  for Scotland, from 1140 to 1145, or 1145- 1149, 1149, the kings of England renouncing land north of the Ribble for a while during the chaos, but declaring they led it south of the Ribble, in agreement with Scotlands king. Though others say Scotland really only led up to Preston at the very most, maybe some people agreed deals he could take up to the Mersey but he never did. One source I read seems to say Scotland took the Honour of Lancaster up to the Ribble in 1140, some say 1144, and some say up to the Mersey in 1146 or 1147, but surely they were forced back to the Ribble by 1150. I am unsure if Scotland ever held up to the Wirral, or current Liverpool or Manchester, but it did up to the Ribble and Preston for sure. Though some dispute Scotland having even up to the Wirral before 1147, but the furthest South castle seems to have been near Preston. It took till 1157 for England to take back Northumberland and Cumberland, as a strong English king was able to demand now. But Scottish kings led within the orbit of England, but a strangely independent liberty of Tynedale a slip of land in west modern Northumberland today till 1296, So those achievements were, Carlisle for 21 years, much of Cumbria for the same, Lancaster for 5 years, much of Lancashire for 2 -3, and Northumberland for in between amounts of time, plus a strip of land, as a strange semi Scottish territory for over a century. According to the evidence it was brutal time, and the wars were very unpleasant, some think King David wanted to take all the old Kingdom of Northumbria. Its probably fair to say there was some dispute as to whether the Scots held up to the Mersey and maybe in some ways it did as there was a castle built in Cheshire to guard off the Scots at Stalybridge. 

​

As the Ribble was the boundary in the 1140s, then Scotland for a brief period held what is now Blackpool, Preston, and Ingleborough, and Cumbria's unknown Greencastle site. 

​

It was in the anarchy that Wales last held territories regarded as English, since well before the Norman conquest, when in 1140, they took Oswestry and Whittington, the reason for not more, they had been so pushed back, they were hard enough gaining back bits of modern Wales, that push back must be partly why Wales had a battle with England near Ewloe castle in 1157, decades after or centuries after even Deganwy was a territory Saxons were after, so the anarchy was major piece of political history in Britain, It is felt Madog who did this conquest later allied to England for a while as of fearing Gwynedd, he was the last ruler of a united Powys that covered up to even Wrexham. As when he died in 1160, Powys had dynastic civil war, just like England had just had. Owain Gwynedd used it to take castles from Rhuddlan to Mold, and up to the border of Cheshire. Caus Castle was raided in the 1150s, in Shropshire, and Hereford was burned that decade as well. Leominster was reached in 1152, Then again Welsh raids caused Beeston castle to built in the 1220s, so Welsh raids extended afterwards. So in the 1140s maybe all that separated Scotland from Wales was Cheshire. Indeed I read in 1140, Acton, in southern central Cheshire had a raid by the WELSH, its near the beautiful town of Nantwich, so in a sense no county of England, separated Wales from Scotland that was not being invaded by the Celtic nations, terrible times for all. 

​

Scottish forces under Alexander II in part with a plotted French invasion reached Dover in 1216, but tactically the invasion did fail. He made homage to the French king who had been selected by English barons to replace King John, but when that King fell, the English barons then united and Alexander had to leave his gains, which must be Northumberland which Scotland must have led for a short period during then. Indeed the French king said he would be able to have Northumberland, so for a slight period in the 1210s, if he as the barons wanted became their English king. So he would have seemed to have been going to rule and keep Northumberland, but by 1219 I think that plan was all in tatters. I think he was also promised Westmoreland and Cumberland by the barons if that plan had succeeded. It sees the barons council said, yes, but then King John undid that,  attacked southern Scotland, then Alexander attacked the territories he was going to have and it had some effect on King John seeing more rebellion in the south, causing him to go south and Alex to follow him. So in a way like the English Civil war when the King in London sent a army north, causing parliament to exploit his weaknesses. You could say Scottish leaders exploiting the kings authority weakening, was used by the barons and parliament to their advantage, A historical coincidence.  Maybe not that amazing then that Scotland's national stadium is named after a English guy who was against some of the kings power. Indeed 

 in both events they invaded deeply into England, for no real effects, And that happened in the 1745 but I dont think it had the same Magna Carta Civil war effects, 

​

In the Civil war Scottish Forces reached Worcester and lost in 1651, at a battle, which is a bit far, in, and it was a attempt to link with the king really. against Cromwell. Scotland also occupied Newcastle, Durham and Northumberland, and Darlington and Sunderland  in 1640. to 1641, and again with Newcastle and Northumberland from 1644 to 1646 including Sunderland and Tynemouth. All in revenge for the King's invasion earlier of Scotland. Firstly of course seizing Berwick for the first occupation and second to support England's  parliament with the second. Scotland only left the North East where they had even besiesged York with parliament in 1647. Even occupying Hartlepool to 1647 and to 1646,  Stockton on Tees, But not Middlesborough. The Scots held Berwick to 1647. Officially the last time before the civil war that ir was Scottish was 1482. 

​

Scotland also held the Isle of Man from 1266 to 1341, when it became part of England, but quite a separate ruling itself territory, well by elites till democratic reforms later when it led itself again. So it was always a Celtic territory. 

​

Interestingly the furthest the last properly separate Welsh prince got into England was Worcester in 1405, which was Glyndwr at Woodbury Hill. Which is the site of a Hillfort. 

​

Plus Bonnie Prince Charlie reached Derby in 1745 with Scottish Highlanders, before turning back

​

Famously Scotland held Doncaster in the time of the 12th Century rule over Northumberland, it is part of Yorkshire today, and was never officially given back, though it was really. 

​

Plus Berwick was always needing parliament to approve in terms of the act that when referring to England it also meant Berwick, which occurred in 1746 and 1972, which showed there was some confusion as to whether it was of some special status as a separate part of the UK, which means it kind of is, if it needs that. Monmouthshire had that for Wales, only clarified as part of Wales in 1972, but whatever it was always a Welsh special status territory or part so, so always was a Celtic territory, like Berwick. 

​

So the most Celtic territories in England, are Cornwall, the Isle of Man, West Herefordshire, South West Shropshire, then Cumbria (Though I think it had much Viking in the west)  then Berwick and the Channel Islands. With maybe Northumberland, especially the north and west as well. Plus some parishes in Western Devon and maybe more of Devon than that. Then maybe bits of West Yorkshire, or rather the West Riding of Yorkshire, though I think the Vikings had effects there. Plus just possibly Northern Derbyshire, and northern Lancashire and Chester and Wallasey the North Wirral. With later impacts as of Celtic immigration affecting most urban areas especially Manchester, Liverpool, London and Corby. Maybe its the further North and West you go the more Celtic, excerpt West Cumbria, and Yorkshire. So thats my answer there, and Midlands, is the closest to each other region as of its position in the centre historically with London also like that as of its immigration. 

​

Also there is a tiny deserted village in West Gloucestershire that was part of Wales till the 10th Century. Lancaut. It is right on the border with Wales. And there is a place called Welsh Bicknor in South Herefordshire, that was part of Monmouthshire till 1844, called Welsh Bicknor, it was much more part of England, than Monmouthshire was, but then again it was part of it so maybe was once in Wales to 1844, but it joined England.  It was so as of its relationship with the celebrated Vaughn families of Wales. It is called Llangystennin Garth Brenni in Welsh. It does not border Wales it borders Glouctershire which is why it was a exclave. I mean these borders could have been quite Balkanised if they had all turned into multiple ethnicities, I mean states have developed out of less, these small border Welsh lands could have become little statelets if Wales and England had a more Balkanised history. Not that that would be helpful for trade of course. The Welsh Bicknor village was owned by a Welsh gentry family in a sense, who owned a mansion above where Henry V lived. The Courtfield Mansion Vaughns were connected to the Hergest ones, of such repute.  The house was also called Greenfield. They were classed as part of the Welsh Jacobites, were the Vaughns of Courtfield, so it was a Welsh territory in a sense. And my family on one side are related to the Vaughns so that is cool. The Vaughan who joined the Jacobite rebellion from here actually died in the late 18th Century in Barcelona as of fleeing. Courtfield, may come from the Welsh Cwrt, then field. But thats me making something in my head. One site I saw mentioned there is mound near the site called Cwrt, which is a Welsh word for court, so maybe the site got its name off it. I mean a cwrt can be a major important site of officialdom, like here. So I think thats great, an indication of Welsh heritage and the DNA, would be of the population who lived in the a, who when they lived in 1844 were in Wales Wales. 

 

Also the Falkland Islands have a very strong Celtic, indeed Scottish component.  Approaching a majority. 

​

Lundy Isle was lost from Wales in the Dark Ages.

 

Also Scotland had a failed attempt at a empire, with a failed colony in Panama at the Dairen Isthmus, and Crab island in Puerto Rico, and a failed attempt in Nova Scotia in the 1620s,  and a attempt in Cape Breton also 1620s,  that never materialised, there was a dual attempt under the union of the crowns, in Jersey in the 1680s, which was merged with the English one so it kind of relatively a success. Then a other 1680s attempt in Carolina, which did not work out. There was also a kind of colony in Georgia, in 1735, but by then this was all under the British crown. The biggest thing you can say about these Scottish colony attempts, was a Scottish settler married a French woman, and maybe more Scots stayed in Nova Scotia when it became French, but most were sailed very generously it must be said back to Britain, though to England, not Scotland, which must have annoyed some, so there was some effect on these areas by the Scots colonies, strangely Scotland then had huge migration to those Canadian areas, in the 19th century, and many Acadians left under British rule when Britain took Canada off the French, many going to other parts of the continent, the French bits, but even that then was like a spread of that micro bit of Scottish imperialism, the French North East USA, Acadians, and Louisianans, and some Scots went to Boston. But this was no more amazing than Scots moving to Brazil under Portuguese rule or Brazilian rule. of Brazil by Brazilians. But then there was a tiny effect of a Scottish empire. At least a few Scots integrated into Boston and the French colonies. Which is in a way significant. ​

​

Other intriguing spreads of Celtic DNA, include, what about when the Turks as pirates in the 17th Century raided North Western Europe, in very small numbers, for slaves, well that may have spread Celtic DNA then, in the Med, but less than the Romans, and Vikings and such. But then the most amazing of all what about when the Vikings took Celtic wives, and followers, well their offspring obviously helped populate the Greenland and Iceland colonies, with famously a vice versa evidence of Inuit DNA in Iceland from that interaction. Well maybe some Celtic and DNA spread into North America as of that. Maybe paradoxically as the men were doing the exploring then North American tribes would not have taken their DNA in, and maybe Polar societies were so isolated, and such that any DNA, would not have spread, but perhaps there would have been some Viking and Celtic lineage spread into North America in 1021, if some of their offpsring merged into the tribes they interacted with. I mean maybe some stayed in Greenland and linked with them, who knows. Its possible. Though we are almost in a situation where the first Roanoke settlers, of England are closer to the Vikings colonies in North America than we are to them, in fact we are, which is why some wonder if the Viking colonies of Greenland that died a couple or more centuries earlier, were part of why Columbus and such were inspired to go to the west, though thats just theory. 

​

Also Robert the Bruce invaded England's colonies Ireland, in the 14th Century and tried to make his brother Edward king of Ireland, he did some successes taking east and Mid Ulster for a while, and reaching down into the south, but failed, even though the plan was to take the Isle of Man back, and inspire a rebelion in Wales, Scotland led the isle of Man from 1266 to 1290, before then it was Viking and Cerltic ruled, some some semi Celtic. Then it took it back in 1313, and may have lost it in 1333, and more firmly in 1346, then raided it in 1388.  Plus Scotland had all those settlements in Ulster, under the union of the crowns, and Ireland had Dark Ages migrations colonies in Wales and Scotland. With Merthyr famed for Irish immigration, and Glasgow, and Leith, and Liverpool, , in the 19th century. So surely the North East Wales, Scouse influenced accent is therefore part Irish influenced. Liverpool is easily England's most Celtic city, with Welsh, Irish and Scottish migration, with, Chester,  Hereford and Shrewsbury affected by such in the Medieval era from Wales. 

​

Lots of places from the USA and Canada, with Aberdeen, Australia and New Zealand, have Celtic places names, even New Guinea has New Ireland, and not far away is New Caledonia, Hong Kong has some Celtic names, and Malawi second city capital Blantyre was named after a Scottish town, but many places in some places have surely rightly in many cases been given back more local name. Like Vanuatu was renamed back from being called the New Hebrides in 1980. There are even place in the Donbass named after Welsh figures, like Hughes, Yuzovka was named after him as of his works there. 

​

Also the isle of Rockall in the Mid Atlantic is said to be either a Scottish or Irish territory, with a few lower lying rocks around it as well,  most people say Scottish, as of landings on it, and its closeness to St Kilda where people did live who were Scots.  Whatever, it is Celtic. I have lots of T Shirts of Celtic countries below for sale via Zazzle. A miss spelling of Monmouthshire is Monmouthshire. A miss spelling of Scotland is Scotland. 

​

Some more facts on the Celts, and thoughts by me. 

When Norman French and Latin were strong in the post Norman conquest era, England, I think its possible Gaelic was spoken by more people in Scotland, Ireland, and the Isle of man, than English, in the the British Isles, as Cumbric still may have existed in England, and the Channel Islands was becoming Norman French speaking I think. Could it be said the Channel Isles are Celtic, as of their Gaulish population, with their Viking and Norman French and later English arrivals. 

​

The big thing I have been wondering is this, why did Pictish die out, with little memory of it. So I have thought a lot about it, indeed when in 2023, people discussed the claim that men are always thinking about the Roman Empire and its decline, I was thinking, no for me its why did Pictish die out. So the obvious answer was that the Scots speaking Gaelic wiped them out or made them a subject people, like occurred when certain groups conquered other groups in that era, but the modern theory claims that the Picts and Scots unified and if anything the Picts were in no sense conquered by the Gaels, if anything the Kingdom of Scotland was based on Pictish strength, territory, and a population that was not it seems subject to a Gaelic conquest. So the theory would be that Gaelic just replaced Pictish, well why were there not tiny communities left, I mean, Welsh and Cornish lasted to the modern era, and Manx, and even Norman French in the channel Islands, to the 19th Century in a big way, if there was no conquest how did Pictish die out. I mean why not have small communities out in the Highlands, or North East, or Perthshire that lasted, Well most people feel it died out by 1100, but the fact it lasted to then, why not longer, So maybe the answer is, the Scottish Pictish elite adopted Gaelic as their language, and so it spread from there I mean, also Cumbric died out, a Welsh style language in Central and Southern Scotland, and it maybe lasted just a tad longer.  Maybe to get on at the Scottish court you needed Gaelic, and from there all the elites in Scotland spoke Gaelic so from there to get on you had to speak Gaelic. Now, you may say, well why not it stay i a small Pictish community on the inland hills of Kinross, or a isle. well maybe the answer to that is, elite power was so influential and pressures made even the most remote and rural families learn Gaelic. Also the Northern and Western Isles were made into Norse speaking areas to a extent, and even some parts of the coast had Viking influences. thus constricting the Pictish territory, so perhaps then now Pictish was constricted to a narrower belt of territory, and so there was not going to be a far flung area with surviving Pictish spoken. So my answer is this, perhaps compare it to the great Brythonic survivor Welsh, well maybe it is Welsh that is the exception, not Pictish, as Cumbric died out, and to a extent Cornish despite attempts to restart it, which may work. Yes Manx survived very long, and Norman in the Channel Isles, and Norse in the Northern Isles, but maybe it is easier for languages to survive in reasonbly large island communities that cam be self sustaining, and any change in the language for a island needs a big reason. Indeed even Welsh has had periods of it losing large swathes of territory from its hinterland, and when it happens it is very quick a lot of the time, such as how Welsh fell from being the majority monoglot language in Wales in the 19th Century, to a minority language now on the geographical  west, and that with very little mass migration from English people, it was just Welsh people changing their tounge. So I say, what happened is this, Welsh survived as Wales was treated as it still is sometimes today, but less so than before, as a afterthought. So Welsh survived as what language it spoke, and any attempt to make it English speaking was a after thought, to Royal Courts, indeed people moving to Wales in the 17th Century probably just learnt Welsh, and more importantly Wales was in some ways left to itself certainly in cultural aspects after the conquests by the crown, in fact if anything it was realised a Welsh Bible was needed to help Protestantise it, but making the whole land learn English, was never a key policy, . Whereas perhaps in Pictland, the elites had become Gaelic, so they interacted with workers and such in Gaelic, so it spread from there. Maybe if Orkney had stayed Pictish it could have been a Pictish outlier, but all the lands, were very important to the elites. And Scotland has seen this at other times, look at Gaelic, it was replaced by Scots English, not mainly by conquest, but by locals changing their language, by social pressure of the elites in Late Mediveal Scotland becoming Scots English speakers. Then those people, who were descended off Gaels had some bad stuff to say about Gaelic, like James VI, and then after the Act  of Union, Scotland became more London English in its language. With at times some in the elite trying to iron out the Scots dialects, again looking down on prior tounges, Indeed when Welsh declined it had a bit of Welsh cringe, about it that changed, to pride in Welsh, which changed to pride in Welsh, and is why Welsh has survived better than any other languages in the British Isles, a bit like Quebec and French.   I mean I wonder if the Pictish lands were penned in by geography and loss of land to Vikings, so Gaelic could spread from there, by being the elites languages, rather than Cumbric or Pictish. so also like Scotland now has a central belt, maybe the truth is the mountains mean a lot of Scotland, does not have population, so though it is bigger than Wales, the populated areas are penned in by mountains and coasts and rivers in a way that helps defend from invasion from the south, and unites areas to a entity or cultural system that can spread a unified culture, except the more far flung north and west as of their isles and maybe Galloway and the North East, but one was Viking, and the other near to Gaelic lands, and the other the North East firmly in the Pictish kingdom, so able to be transformed into Gaelic, by a strong Pictish kingship wanting that to be so. Whereas in Wales  the population is more spread about, with less of a central area, except in modern times, so the compact valleys were able to keep Welsh alive, I mean I am saying maybe Wales is more localised, like it had no towns in the medical era when Scotland did, and has so many places with similar names in different places, and its post conquest rulers, were either English  kings more interested in their royal courts, and Welsh local gentry, who though Anglifying were under no desire to end their culture, and were perhaps left a bit to their own devices while joining the elite of the kingdom England. Maybe Wales was like dozens of Isles of Man, and Scotland was like a throughfare through its central belt, for the elite to change their people's language, a people, they were interested in, and who were their only subjects, so they were interested in saying the people should speak their lingo, not a different one I dont mean they deliberately changed the language I mean, Gaelic was a elite language and they were far more linked with these people, than the Kingdom of England's rulers were towards Wales and the Welsh populations, While Cornish survived so long for similar reasons, as did Manx. So I am saying Wales is more localised and evenly spread out, while Scotland is more thouroughfare for exchange in the central belt, and from there, domination goes across Scotland, either from it conquering the rest or a other bit of Scotland conquering its dominant importance. While yes Wales had the South Wales Valleys and Cardiff that could do that, but it was just as rural in times past, as the rest of Wales, or far flung from the rest of it, as of its position and Norman conquests cutting it off from the rest of Wales in some ways, for a part of the medical era, . so it had less of a thoroughfare central area, that could use its greater power to spread a culture. Yes, there was no proper central belt in the medieval eram compared to now, but it still would have existed in a sense, as of the mountains and coast, and its plains, and even then there would have been in the past smaller population in the far north, than in the central belt as of the greater resources in the central belt, well thats my theory, I mean central belt was not as high in ratio of population as now, but must always have had some good numbers, and also the mountains and moors of the north must always even with the pre Highland clearances higher population have always have meant the central belt had some high level of population in comparison, so importance. even if you change that central belt area to encompass different places, with it being less about Glasgow or Edinburgh, and more about the Clyde Valley, Ayrshire, Stirlingshire, Lothian, Fife, and to be fair maybe even Dundee and Aberdeen, could be counted as part of that, as some versions of the central belt with a different name, the banana or something, say.  Maybe if things were different Scotland could have been Cumbric, or Pictish in the early middle ages, if the elites had somehow chosen so. I think they chose Gaelic as of its religious teachings and importance to the church and such likes. I like such likes....