Scotland would probably be dependent on England for its economy until the discovery of oil in the North Sea. Then things might get a little interesting.
As I understand it the act of Union was needed by Scotland because they had basically bankrupted themselves trying to colonise Panama so having a sucessful colonisation of Panama might help prevent the act of union from happening.
At the end of the 17th Century, Scotland was weary after years of war and famine, its trade damaged by England's wars with Europe. William Paterson - founder of the Bank of England - foresaw that global trade from commodity-rich countries across the isthmus of Panama - the slender land bridge that separates the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans - would grant global economic dominance.
Facing English resistance, Paterson raised £400,000 - everyone from farmers, merchants and chambermaids invested in the scheme - and half of Scotland's liquidity flowed to the tropics. Five ships set sail in July 1698 with more than 1,000 passengers on board. But Paterson (right) had never visited Panama, and knew nothing of the region's extreme climate, rampant tropical disease and cruel geography. So the unready adventurers set off with pathos-heavy trinkets, mirrors and combs to trade with the indigenous local Kuna tribe. The Kuna weren't interested. Short of food (poignant letters home detail pleas for a "stone of cheese" and a "case of brandy"), suffering from tropical illnesses, drunken shipwrecks, fires and under constant attack by the Spanish, the few surviving settlers abandoned the colony just over a year after arriving.
However, word of this did not reach Scotland before a second expedition departed with more than 1,000 people aboard, arriving on St Andrew's Day in 1699. Of the total 2,500 settlers that set off, just a few hundred survived. The Scottish economy was ruined. Seven years later, the Scots were forced to beg help from the English. It came at a price - the signing of the Act of Union, effectively ending Scotland's independence.