WI Scottish Estates elect a different King in 1703?

[Don_Giorgio]

Though both England and Scotland recognised Anne as their Queen, only the English Parliament had settled on Sophia, Electress of Hanover, as the heir. The Estates of Scotland had not yet formally settled the question over who would succeed to the Scottish throne on Anne's death. In 1703, the Estates passed a bill that declared that their selection for Queen Anne's successor would not be the same individual as the successor to the English throne, unless England granted full freedom of trade to Scottish merchants in England and its colonies. At first, Royal Assentwas withheld but the following year Anne capitulated to the wishes of the Estates, and assent was granted to the bill, which became the Act of Security in 1704. In response, the English Parliament passed measures which threatened to restrict Anglo-Scottish trade and cripple the Scottish economy if the Estates did not agree to the Hanoverian succession.Eventually, in 1707, both Parliaments agreed an Act of Union, creating the largest free trade area in eighteenth-century Europe.
WI Scottish Estates stuck to their guns and elected a new King of Scotland thus breaking the Crown Union? Who would be the new Monarch?
How is this altering History? Any thoughts?

[mcdnab]

Interesting point - but the Scots Parliament faced one big problem with its insistance on the right to appoint a monarch other than the one chosen by the English Act of Settlement (Sophia of Hannover) - the dearth of Protestant heirs to the House of Stuart (Sophia and her son George were the first Protestant heirs of James VI and I).
I can't see the Scots parliament being willing to offer the crown of Scotland to a Roman Catholic even if they could find one who would be willing to convert. A Catholic would have been as unacceptable to the Scots as it would have been to the English - and with the exception of the Stuart heir James Prince of Wales (111 and VIII to Jacobites) all the next main Stuart heirs were Catholics and in line to the succession of other thrones (France, Sardinia and Spain, Lorraine, Austria etc)

The alternative would have been for Scotland to choose to appoint a Scots Noble (say one of the Hamilton descendants of Princess Mary daughter of James II of Scotland) It could cause deep instability due to resentment over who was chosen and arguements about their rights.

I've always believed that Act in itself was simply designed to get the Scots Parliament the financial deal it wanted from England in the long term.

Had Scotland chosen to go a different way you would almost certainly have a different pattern of colonization in English territories overseas during the 18th century, less Scots emigration perhaps, and the effect on Ireland would be interesting, you also have some major effects on the industrial development of both countries in the 18th Century which might have long reaching effects.

[black angel]

we once had a TL were Sophia of Hannover died before giving birth to George I any way, in case of a No Hannovers the Heir to the Crown in Scotland was Anne Hamilton, or the Jacobite James Francis Edward Stuart

Ann's heir were James Hamilton, 5th Duke of Hamilton (Ann died in 1716 in OTL, James was her grandson born 1703)

as said it is unlikely that a Catholic would be let on the Throne, but there is popular support of the Stuarts, they may have been able to over throw the Hamilton, who would be weak they ether have an old woman or a young boy on the Throne, and in OTL James Francis Edward Stuart took over Scotland in the 15, without English Troops could the Jacobite risings be stopped?