Sazzer said:
Once Queen Anne dies would Scotland select another monarch, would it return to an Absolute Monarchy?
It's possible that - with certain stringent provisions - the parliament might have selected James VIII rather than George I. However, knowing how strong the fear of a Catholic monarch was, I doubt it would have come to that. We'd have settled for George I, possibly with an explicitly Scottish coronation cermeony, but all in all, we were headed for a Hanovarian succession whatever. Expect Jacobite rebellions to continue more or less on schedule.
Sazzer said:
How long before they get over the Darien Scheme and get their economy going again?
Couldn't say - I do know that Darien wasn't
quite as bad as it is nowadays made out to be. But the economy was pretty pants at the best of times, I doubt that would change any time in the near future. Assuming relatively stable trade patterns with England and Europe, Scotland's economy would remain what it had always been - 'surviving'.
Sazzer said:
Would Glasgow become a major city without the shipbuilding industry the Royal Navy & Commercial navy brought it?
There was already an extensive (largely illicit) trade with the western seaboard of America prior to the union. The union simply codified the Scottish merchants' right to do it without being harassed.
Growth of Glasgow might have been retarded in the short to medium term, but given the availability of rich mineral seams in the area, combined with Glasgow's strategic position on the Clyde, a city in the area was always going to develop one way or the other.
Sazzer said:
With a smaller armed forces (the country isn't all that rich at this time) would they attempt another empire?
Doubtful. I could see, maybe on the ASB horizon, picking up a small Caribbean island or something from one of those big, general peace treaties which were periodically signed during the C18th. But no, Darien had whetted our appetitie for colonial expansion pretty comprehensively.
You never know, though, maybe by the C19th, and if the Spanish empire collapsed on schedule, you might have seen a certain level of 'soft' Scottish interference in Panama
Sazzer said:
Would Scotland be more Nordic looking than World?
Certainly it would have been more European oriented in terms of trade. However, there was always going to be Scottish interaction with the wider world, particularly the Americas.
Sazzer said:
What effect upon the colonies with no Highland clearances
A smaller Scottish contribution to the genetic hodge-podge that is the US and Canada, I'd presume. Then again, similar migration might happen naturally - the Highlands were an accident waiting to happen in terms of population pressure versus arable land. That population has to go somewhere, and TBH, outside of migration to the industrial centres of the Lowlands, the Americas is the logical place for that population to go.
Sazzer said:
Would English still be the dominant language?
Doubt it. We'd have undergone similar linguistic revolutions to other countries in the C19th period, and we'd most likely be speaking standardised Scots which, though intelligible with English, would have the prestige of being by now a state language. Our politicians and aristos had been speaking English for a while before the 1707 union, but expect a resurgence in interest in 'the common language' if the age of nationalism goes ahead here as it did in Europe.
Gaelic would still be strongly spoken, assuming less emigration, but then again a Scots-speaking parliament in Edinburgh would probably do it's damnedest to discourage the language, just as it had in the past. The Highlands would remain tribal, probably until the later C18th. What transpired in OTL was, essentially, a more brutal acceleration of what was already happening - the clan chiefs were already Lowland lairds long before Culloden.
Expect a slower, gentler transition to a post-tribal society as the power of the state expands. There will be efforts to enforce a Scots/English curriculum in the Highlands, but the Highlanders will do what they had traditionally done and ignore Edinburgh's diktats. Much stronger Gaelic culture going into the C19th and 20th.
Sazzer said:
During the Napoleonic wars would they join in? If so on which side?
Nappy gets butterflied away methinks. But certainly, it all depends on the sort of relationship that endures with England. Notwithstanding boo-boos on both sides, the Union of the Crowns had been pretty effective up until that point. Its continuance means 'Britain-in-all-but-name" as far as overseas relations are concerned. The English army already had huge numbers of Scots serving prior to the union, and that would probably have continued in its absence.
So, assuming there's still some sort of French tyranny on the continent, you can expect the Scots to still be sending men to fight it.
Sazzer said:
Would they become involved in World Wars one and two or remain neutral like Ireland?
Again with the butterflies.
Sazzer said:
Who would they blame for all problems without a government housed in London (tongue in cheek this one)
Nope, Edinburgh would get the full blame for things going wrong. One of the objections to losing the Edinburgh parliament, according to one woman interviewed long after the union, was that London was too far away to throw stones at the politicians. Can't remember where I read that, but basically the objection was that our politicians were now immune to lynching if they messed up.
Sazzer said:
Would they ever win the World cup?
Doubtful, in pretty much any ATL.
