What is the largest possible surviving British Empire post Indian independence?

Caribbean and Guayana could be possible. Gambia too is possible. And there could be more dominions too in Africa.
 

LordKalvert

Banned
Not much more than what they have left- and I doubt if they are going to hold onto Scotland, Northern Ireland, Gibraltar and the Falklands much longer

Without Indian money, the Empire was broke and the Americans destroyed the need for the Empire by assuming the defense burden for everyone (which the Empire could no longer provide)/

Without money to buy loyalty and without fear of Japan, Argentina and the rest, there's no incentive to stay and every reason to leave
 
Not much more than what they have left- and I doubt if they are going to hold onto Scotland, Northern Ireland, Gibraltar and the Falklands much longer

Without Indian money, the Empire was broke and the Americans destroyed the need for the Empire by assuming the defense burden for everyone (which the Empire could no longer provide)/

Without money to buy loyalty and without fear of Japan, Argentina and the rest, there's no incentive to stay and every reason to leave

With Scotland being an integral part of the country, I don't see how we're "holding on to them". They are us. We're both British.
We shall see after tomorrow, but I'm very much hoping for a No vote.
Though, I think it's likely that Northern Ireland will eventually unite with the RoI.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Not much more than what they have left- and I doubt if they are going to hold onto Scotland, Northern Ireland, Gibraltar and the Falklands much longer

Without Indian money, the Empire was broke and the Americans destroyed the need for the Empire by assuming the defense burden for everyone (which the Empire could no longer provide)/

Without money to buy loyalty and without fear of Japan, Argentina and the rest, there's no incentive to stay and every reason to leave

...Gibraltar? The Falklands?
That would surprise me, given how the anti-British population of Gibraltar is about 200 people from a population of 30,000. (2002 referendum - 99.8% voted no to shared sovereignty with Spain.) Same ratios apply with the Falklands. (Whether the people would have considered a change in sovereignty before the war, afterwards it was no chance... FFS, at least ten of the thirteen Argentine-born Falkland Islanders voted for remaining a British Overseas territory - there were only THREE No votes!)
 
Yeah, Gibraltar and the Falklands are about the leave the "empire" about the same time.... uh... Kent leaves England. It's just not gonna happen. What are you gonna do with the Falkland Islanders when you hand them over to Argentina? Evict them? What about the just as British Gibraltar? It's just not gonna happen.
 
Hong Kong

After WW2, it is already too late to save too much of it, you might however be able to include Malta and Hong Kong.
Part of Hong Kong, 'The New Territories' were held under a 99 year lease, which ran out in 1997. Unless in an alternate timeline that lease is renewed, realistically the New Territories at least have to go back to China, and without them the rest may not be tenable.
 
Part of Hong Kong, 'The New Territories' were held under a 99 year lease, which ran out in 1997. Unless in an alternate timeline that lease is renewed, realistically the New Territories at least have to go back to China, and without them the rest may not be tenable.

I was going to come to that, my idea for keeping HK ITTL would be for Britain to continue to consider the ROC to be the "Sole Government of China" after 1950 and in return, extend the lease of NT.

I agree that the NT's are needed to retain Hong Kong.
 

LordKalvert

Banned
Yeah, Gibraltar and the Falklands are about the leave the "empire" about the same time.... uh... Kent leaves England. It's just not gonna happen. What are you gonna do with the Falkland Islanders when you hand them over to Argentina? Evict them? What about the just as British Gibraltar? It's just not gonna happen.

Oh, you misunderstand. With the loss of everything else, the English (the sole remaining part of the Empire) aren't going to spend a dime to defend Gibraltar or the Falklands because the English won't have any money left
 
Post-Statute of Westminster (1931) and especially post-WWII, "Dominion" meant nothing but an independent country that maintained the British monarch as their head of state. So while you might have a stronger commonwealth, it isn't really going to be an empire.

Further, Indian independence (1947) is post-WWII. The idea of a permanent empire, such as the old ideas about an Imperial Federation, were long dead.

If you did want a surviving empire - and it would have to be in Imperial Federation form - it would need an early-in-the-20th Century POD. At best it would be: the current UK, possibly with Scotland as a separate "federal realm;" Ireland; Canada, possibly with Newfoundland as a separate realm; Australia; New Zealand; the British West Indies, including Jamaica and Barbados; Guyana; the current British Overseas Territories; a few other small territories in the Pacific and Indian Ocean (such as maybe Mauritius); Malta; and *maybe* South Africa.

Such a federation wouldn't be quite like any other modern "state." All the units would probably be internally self-governing, with their own currencies, but there would common citizenship, free trade and movement of labor within them (or at least to a broad degree), and a common foreign policy backed by an integrated armed forces. It would be a little like a NAFTA+NATO type arrangement.
 
Not much more than what they have left- and I doubt if they are going to hold onto Scotland, Northern Ireland, Gibraltar and the Falklands much longer

Though, I think it's likely that Northern Ireland will eventually unite with the RoI.

Northern Ireland isn't going anywhere until somebody comes up with the €12 billion a year block grant to give the ROI in order to give it to NI. Northern Ireland is an economic deadweight that only a G20+ level country can carry. Give it to the Republic and it's economic disaster time.
 
Oh, you misunderstand. With the loss of everything else, the English (the sole remaining part of the Empire) aren't going to spend a dime to defend Gibraltar or the Falklands because the English won't have any money left

Are you suggesting that Scotland and Norther Ireland will breakaway from the UK...somehow (55.3% is a pretty solid "No" vote, and Northern Ireland has shown zero appetite for breakaway, to the best of my knowledge) Spain and Argentina will just gobble up the Falklands and Gibraltar because clay?

Yeah, excuse me if I take that with a grain of salt.
 
Below is a Maximum of What I think would have been possible to keep. However, I am under the impression that these places cost more to run than they were worth, hence Britain granting independence to small places like the Gilbert and Ellice Islands. France for its part kept its smaller colonies, but they subsidize them with over €1 billion per year.

Basutoland, Bechuanaland and Swaziland were all dependent on South Africa, so perhaps they'd remain self-governing territories. Seychelles and Mauritius are small and rely on European tourism, perhaps they'd be offshore banking havens like Bermuda. Gambia is fairly small and remained a Commonwealth Realm until 1970. Sierra Leone was a realm until 1971 and apparently the creole minority did not want independence (they even asked Britain to take them back in the 2000s).

Brunei relied on Britain for defence, so it could have remained a protectorate I suppose. Sarawak and North Borneo were pretty distinct from Malaya and also could have remained British. Singapore, could have been like Hong Kong was until 1997. The Maldives are very small and the Laccadives could have not been turned over to India (same with the Andaman and Nicobar Islands).

Malta almost voted to become a part of the United Kingdom, so that's feasible. Most of the Caribbean Islands have a strong British culture and would have probably become just like the Cayman Islands or Bermuda. In Jamaica there was a poll a few years back where people said they were better off under the British. I've also spoken with St. Lucians who speak jealously of people in Martinique and how they get money for being French.

In the Pacific, Fiji has had recurring ethnic conflict between the native Fijians and ethnic Indians. The Gibert & Ellice Islands are so tiny, I imagine Britain dumped these simply to not have to pay administrative costs.

British Guiana would be the same as the Caribbean territories. However, I'd imagine more West Indians and Guyanese would want to settle in Britain itself. Prior to the altering of the nationality in Britain in 1981, I believe many more people from the colonies would have settled in Britain (mostly the cities).

British Honduras makes sense, since it did face a possible invasion from neighbouring Guatemala. Newfoundland and Labrador could have voted to remain British and eventually become a self-governing territory.

As for the various small protectorates in the middle East, perhaps the British would have stayed to protect them militarily from more aggressive neighbours. In South Arabia at the behest of the various rulers wanting to remain in power (same as in Zanzibar).

AFRICA
Basutoland
Bechuanaland
Gambia
Mauritius
Seychelles
Sierra Leone
Swaziland
Zanzibar

ASIA
Aden
Andaman and Nicobar Islands
Bahrain
British North Borneo
Brunei
Laccadives
Maldives
Sarawak
Singapore
South Arabia
Trucial States

EUROPE
Malta

NORTH AMERICA
Antigua & Barbuda
Bahamas
Barbados
British Honduras
Dominica
Grenada
Jamaica
Newfoundland & Labrador
St. Kitts and Nevis
St. Vincent and the Grenadines
Trinidad & Tobago

OCEANIA
British Solomon Islands
Fiji
Gilbert & Ellice Islands (Kiribati & Tuvalu)
Tonga

SOUTH AMERICA
British Guiana
 
Top