I say the Picts are not like their Celtic neighbors, as, physically, they are described as quite different. They were shorter, with black hair.

I'm aware of the anachronism of using the later capitols of the Pict areas (and it's Cat, not Cait, Cait is a later spelling and has a different pronunciation). However, they are minor anachronisms, as the later Picts in Athfotla, Cat, and Fibb, all claimed their kingdoms to be at least a thousand years old, and based on old tribal regions.

As for Hibernia, it IS important to the Gauls, Iberian Celts, and the Britons, enough to be split in half, if you're not going to do anything to Scotland, as all of them had some legend about it being some kind of promised land (it's why they were so adamant about killing, not conquering, all of the natives). Hibernia itself was rich in silver and iron in the north, and cattle and farming in the south, as well as the mytho-religiosity intents of the Celtic invaders make Hibernia, at least Hibernia, very important.

And if you're going to not divide up Scotland a lot, at least divide it in half. The Caledonii were of Celtic extraction, but the Picts were simply not. They were a completely different race of people, and lumping them all together is a bad inaccuracy. While the Romans would sometime say they were the same people, every description of the Picts, including the Roman ones, is that they were a short, black haired people, while the Britons were tall and fair-headed.