Basically Im questioning how different our world would be, if Scotland had remained in a personal union, but politically and militarily independent. What would be the cultural and political effects on world history?
No Acts of Union? Independent Scotland?
- Thread starter Enigmajones
- Start date
a large part of the reason why scotland voted for union was due to wasting a 5th of its wealth to try get into the colonial game against the others...and it was just gonna get worse even if they hadnt from that point on diue to being economically embargoed by those said powers as well...union was the only way scotland could go, unless you somehow manage to get them to be richer before the personal union takes place
Anaxagoras
Banned
It would have been worse for Scotland, worse for England, and worse for the world. In particular, there would have been no Scottish Enlightenment.
Well the idea isn't to explore the reasons of why they joined, which were obviously mutually beneficial for the large part, but rather what the effect of a independent Scotland would be. Im quite the fan of crapsack dystopia's.
I guess in this scenario the personal union is broken once the parliment ousts Charles and the Stewarts renounce their claim on the throne of England. Scotland remains a minor north european nation heavily influenced by France and probably, at least in its souther part, becoming a battleground between England and France as they begin their strugle for domination from the 18th century onwards.
So an independent Scotland could lead to a continual sparring between France and England? Why would England be worse off?
Fletch
Kicked
There would have been as the education system was in place at the time of the union. It would have been more limited in its scope though due to a lack of Scottish influence on world affairs.
I would imagine that in such a scenario, England would be worse off because it would need to focus more on its army and less on its navy; as a result, England does not become the world's primary naval power, and they become more susceptible to invasion/blockades and lose their global influence/absolute hegemony that they held IOTL.
Somehow I highly doubt the lack of a British Empire would negatively effect the world at large.
Why are the Scots, who are still in personal union with England, acting like a completely foreign country with nothing but a land border with England, all of a sudden?
Well I didn't think a personal union would have any effect on government, so just forget that bit. The idea behind the thread is an INDEPENDENT Scotland, so have them independent.
You need a POD that prevents James VI from becoming "and I of England", or any other later personal union or conquest.
Easier said than done.
I am by no means an expert in Scottish or English history. As such, I can't really find a POD, so would you, for the sake of an argument, just help me out with the scenario of an independent Scotland if you could.
Simple enough to start.
Edward VI survives, has male issue, and the dynasty continues until replaced by something other than the Stuarts/Stewarts.
Similarly, James V has a surviving son, etc.
The problem is keeping it that way. if Scotland is a big damn threat in England's backyard thanks to France, England's kings will try to conquer it - and Scotland relative to England is not getting stronger.
I don't think an independent Scotland is entirely viable - not impossible, but England has a lot it can do about it if for some reason it wants to.
And saying that if the Scots who were such a disproportionate amount of the British Empire aren't there that somehow England will do worse - what, so the butterflies keep any Englishmen of ability from taking their place?
Ah yes, but remember that England did try that before the Tudor era, just once or twice. And each time it wasn't the French that saved them, it was that the Scots refused to adhere to treaties which signed England over to Scottish control. Whereas most places would willingly accept the terms of a peace treaty and an imposition of a new overlord as "the natural way of things" - after all, Kings did create and dissolve fiefdoms over time, so people were used to fluctuating control and changing lords - the Scots already had a proto-nationalism which rendered them far less willing to accept English control.
It may well be that until the age of Vauban forts, the English aren't capable of properly holding Scotland, and even after that they may only be able to hold the cities. That gives a plenty long enough frame of time for things to change and alter England's priorities.
Heck, it may even be that another 300 years of having to fund Scotland actually bankrupts France at some point and causes civil disruption on the opposite side of the Channel, making Scotland an ignorable distraction for the English.
And they can be "less willing" all they like, doesn't mean they're going to be able to succeed. That's the problem. "Will rebel" does not equal "will overthrow ____".
I don't think you need Vauban forts to deal with Scots uprisings if you've crushed the national army (as distinct from, in a word, irregulars). A reasonably well held castle is difficult to take or overlook, ask the Welsh.
And the point was less about England inevitably wanting to take Scotland as that a Scotland that's causing problems can and would be treated as in need of a stompin'.
Quite possibly. Although what did France ever do to fund Scottish independence OTL?
I'm pretty sure there were times when Scots riots or reformed armies post-treaty turfed English armies out of castles, but you have a point - now I think about it, the main problem was less that the English lost the castles they controlled, and more that they frequently found themselves bottled up in them. When most of the castles they controlled (and they usually only tried to occupy four anyway - Edinburgh, Stirling, Aberdeen and...I forget the fourth) were not accessible from the sea this meant that the garrisons got starved out and ended up each time having to surrender and march back to England in shame. Same end result.
True, but there's only so many time you can curbstomp Scotland without actually extinguishing the threat before it just gets stupid. And you can't extinguish the threat without the ability to pacify the interior as well as holding the major cities.
They persistently committed troops to either supplementing the Scottish armies, or goading them into fighting (i.e. a "look...here's 5,000 men. Are you sure you can't attack England?") It may not have been a full Corps each time (not that such a formation existed then) but still, sending thousands of troops, sometimes several times in one war, costs money when you are also trying to fund other campaigns. And France wasn't interested in Scotland unless it was also fighting England on a different frontier...