TL: UK Overseas Regions [Redux]

Do BOAC and British airways Merge ? or Does BOAC last longer ? Hawker Siddley and British aerospace ?

along with a commitment to a new high speed rail service between London and Paris through the tunnel.
Euro Star and Thales? Chunnel Train ?
 
Last edited:

Devvy

Donor
Just wondering regarding the 12:08 TL, is that and this TL both in the same universe or being different? Interesting to see how different the British rail network will be ITTL.
Different universe. As you say, sometimes I ponder how the rail/tube will evolve here, and inevitably there'll probably end up being a chapter, but I'll try and mostly keep trains out of this TL :)

I am hoping, though I doubt it will happen is that the incoming Tory government can solve the Rhodesia problem with a transition to democratic, majority party state over a sensible time-frame. It seems less likely a Tory govt would roll the tanks in (though not impossible), and I doubt they will leave things be simply cos they won't want a revolution.
Can't see Rhodesia being massively different, UDI or not. The white minority does not want to hand over power, the black majority demands it. There's no getting round that simple fact, there's going to be a showdown, somehow, at some point.

A different PM than Gaitskell might have pulled off a 'Commonwealth EU', but I suspect it was never a goer with him.
Yep; he's given enough anti-EU comments, I just can't see him wanting to move towards Europe at all.
"Nigeria finally officially became a Dominion" - nice. Wonder if there is a move towards a formal Commonwealth Parliament?
Sadly not. Well, I guess you might have a Commonwealth "consultative assembly" - some members from each Parliament to discuss matters, but nothing approaching a legislative body. There are opportunities for a closer Commonwealth, but by the mid 1950s PoD here, I think those are largely gone.

"the UK-French relationship continued to evolve" - space projects will be fun. With this level of cooperation Britain does not need to be in the EEC.
Yep, the UK and France are rapidly growing closer. At the moment I see it kinda analogous to UK-USA in OTL - but that doesn't replace the need for new economic relationships in the long term. Economic necessity is going to bring the UK to Europe, it'll just be on a different timetable to OTL, and with a closer relationship to France - and without being spurned away twice before getting in (and also without the UK-USA baggage).

"the widespread introduction of the metric system to the United Kingdom." - much earlier, though I expected more pushback, esp on the road sign change. Hopefully companies won't use it as an excuse to rack up the prices.

"decimalised penny coins or 1p, 2p, 5p, 10p, 25p (*5) and 50p" - the 25p coin makes a lot of sense frankly.
Decimalisation is roughly on par with OTL. Metrication is kind of earlier, but the 1966 saw Commonwealth agreement (including the UK) in OTL to switch to the metric system. There's also been dozens of studies done in to it already by this time, basically all advocating it. The note about the British chamber of commerce advocating for it is OTL. The only difference here, is that Gaitskell in power has jumped at it, instead of holding off; the advantage in doing so is being able to have the motorways signed for metric from the start (no conversion costs), and introducing metric driving to people early on - and means that as new roads are built, and speed limits introduced, they will all be in metric as well.

For the 25p, I'll be quite honest I prefer 20p coins, having grown up with them, but equally 25p seems far simpler to switch to given the pre-decimal crown coins (also it doesn't stop the Treasury from introducing 20p later). Doesn't hamper the Canadians either, who are metric and have a 25c coin instead of 20c.

With more money from not doing Concord and BR not doing their 50's modernisation plan, does that mean BR is electrifying, introducing diesel, and phasing out steam in a more sensible way?
Maybe, trying to stay away from trains a bit more in this TL! :) The military and space policy etc is more than enough to fill the lines with text.

"integration with Britain option won the referendum" - now that is a sensible idea for Gibraltar, esp in the face of Spanish aggression.
Linky - enjoy :) The only difference here, is that following the example of Malta and that the UK is clearly open for integration if really desired, that the referendum had the option on the ballot slip.

Wonder if Sri Lankan history might go differently in this world? Are they a Dominion or a dependency? If Bandaranaike does not come to power then a lot of trouble will be avoided.
Probably not; already an independent Dominion before the PoD (Dominionhood: 1948), just going republican later, so can't see much changing there really.

Do BOAC and British airways Merge ? or Does BOAC last longer ? Hawker Siddley and British areospace ?
The BA merger is probably commercially likely, and to be honest I can't see BCal managing to stay independent at the moment, but I'm not completely sure yet. HS/BAe has some implications, but I've sketched out a civil aviation chapter later, so I won't commit myself just yet!
 
Last edited:
Given the way British Aircraft manufactures, Shipyards and others were haphazardly and uncoordinatledly nationalized and merged I’d think they would probably need to be more mature consideration as well as trying not to trade away the family silver were possible.

It would probably be better to set up a cromission to look at the best possible path for it.
 
With no overt British involvement in the Suez Crisis this might mean Canada keeps the red ensign. Supposedly Canada changed away from it since it due to Egypt refusing Canadian peacekeepers due to the flag containing the British flag in the corner.
 
Do you have any plans for the UAE to remain part of the UK in some capacity? In OTL, when Wilson announced Britain was withdrawing from the Gulf in 1968, Sheikh Zayed initially asked the British to stay and offered to take over the cost of British forces in the region. The UAE had outstanding territorial disputes with Iran and Saudi Arabia at the time, and Bahrain was claimed by Iran in its entirety until 1970, so the small Gulf states were keen to keep British protection.

I imagine Oman would still move towards independence during the 1970s, but the UAE, Qatar, and Bahrain could remain protectorates (or maybe a newer status without the colonial connotations) for many years in the future, especially with the Iranian revolution in 1979 and Saddam's invasion of Kuwait in 1990 reminding the Gulf states why they want British protection.

I doubt there would have been much interest in integration into the UK proper from either side given the distance, cultural differences, and long tradition of autonomy, but having Overseas Territory status like Hong Kong could be plausible.
 

Devvy

Donor
Given the way British Aircraft manufactures, Shipyards and others were haphazardly and uncoordinatedly nationalized and merged I’d think they would probably need to be more mature consideration as well as trying not to trade away the family silver were possible.

It would probably be better to set up a commission to look at the best possible path for it.

Quite possibly. It's an area which isn't quite fleshed out entirely yet! I think there is still a scope for British manufacturing in civil aviation; it's not going to be as big as Airbus, but the potential for a continued British manufacturer is definitely on the cards.

Britain becoming more european and french... truly you have created the darkest timeline since AANW 🤣

au contraie

Soon, every Brit will be having croissants and coffee for breakfast! :eek:

So they finally become a civilised people?

Destroy the coffee heresy!
XD
To be fair, I don't think this ATL UK will be massively different from OTL UK. It'll be a bit less Americanised and a bit more Europeanised, but people are hardly having "eggs sunny side up and a cup of coffee" for breakfast here in OTL! I can't see the cup of tea (typed as I drink some PG Tips tea) going anywhere. At the moment in this ATL, France is a close defence, political and foreign policy partner - and it's a growing economic partner, but that economic area will always be separate whilst one country is part of the EEC and the other one isn't.


With no overt British involvement in the Suez Crisis this might mean Canada keeps the red ensign. Supposedly Canada changed away from it since it due to Egypt refusing Canadian peacekeepers due to the flag containing the British flag in the corner.
Yeah I looked in to this, but as far as I can see, Wiki puts it most succinctly when it says:
Wiki: In 1958, an extensive poll was taken of the attitudes that adult Canadians held toward the flag. Of those who expressed opinions, over 80 per cent wanted a national flag entirely different from that of any other nation, and 60 per cent wanted their flag to bear the maple leaf. [4] In April 1963, an opinion poll of 2,262 Canadians found that 52% supported a new national flag for Canada of its own, while 30% preferred using the Union Jack and 18% preferred using the Canadian Red Ensign.[

So I guess it might be a little later given the lack of a direct push, but I can't see the Red Ensign hanging around for long in Canada (federally - I note that Manitoba and Ontario adopted versions of the Red Ensign for their provincial flags).

Do you have any plans for the UAE to remain part of the UK in some capacity? In OTL, when Wilson announced Britain was withdrawing from the Gulf in 1968, Sheikh Zayed initially asked the British to stay and offered to take over the cost of British forces in the region. The UAE had outstanding territorial disputes with Iran and Saudi Arabia at the time, and Bahrain was claimed by Iran in its entirety until 1970, so the small Gulf states were keen to keep British protection.

I imagine Oman would still move towards independence during the 1970s, but the UAE, Qatar, and Bahrain could remain protectorates (or maybe a newer status without the colonial connotations) for many years in the future, especially with the Iranian revolution in 1979 and Saddam's invasion of Kuwait in 1990 reminding the Gulf states why they want British protection.

I doubt there would have been much interest in integration into the UK proper from either side given the distance, cultural differences, and long tradition of autonomy, but having Overseas Territory status like Hong Kong could be plausible.

Would that make them associated states instead of constituent kingdom of the UK?

Maybe Crown Dependencies kind of like Jersey and Isle of Man would work better, they have all the benefits of being British but also retain their own government etc.

Yes; in short I think the Trucial States will be around for longer as...well, the Trucial States, a British protectorate. They won't be integrated parts of the UK - the UAE in OTL in 1975 was just shy of a million people. It's too big for the UK to swallow, and (sorry to say), for the UK at the time, there will be too much racism over so many people of a different skin colour and different religion, and locking the UK even more to a potential conflict over the territory. Formally I guess they'd be British Protectorates - the UK doesn't hold sovereignty over them, but I guess de facto they would be the same as British Dependencies.

I have an outline for a future chapter on the evolution of the British "constitution make up" of sorts for later.
 
It would be nice to see the Queen send some of the Royals out to govern in places like Guaina or NZ as Governerors to help tie the countires and family closer together.

If not as Governors then perhaps just sending Royals to live out in the Commonwealth, not just visiti so the ruling family is not as distant as Britain is for so many of the people.

The Falklands might make a good posting for Andrew perhaps? :)
 
Quite possibly. It's an area which isn't quite fleshed out entirely yet! I think there is still a scope for British manufacturing in civil aviation; it's not going to be as big as Airbus, but the potential for a continued British manufacturer is definitely on the cards.
with the shipyards I’d try to keep Yarrow, Vickers, Harland & Wolff and maybe Cammell Laird as the big ones and centralise all the smaller operations under them as well as try to get them to modernise.

Aircraft is Harder though one thing my uncle always said was that Hawkers Siddeley and de Havilland was horribly under used and in desperate need of more support same for british engine manufacturers.
 
They won't be integrated parts of the UK - the UAE in OTL in 1975 was just shy of a million people. It's too big for the UK to swallow, and (sorry to say), for the UK at the time, there will be too much racism over so many people of a different skin colour and different religion, and locking the UK even more to a potential conflict over the territory. Formally I guess they'd be British Protectorates - the UK doesn't hold sovereignty over them, but I guess de facto they would be the same as British Dependencies.

I have an outline for a future chapter on the evolution of the British "constitution make up" of sorts for later.

Its interesting to hear this old chestnut time and again because it of course implies that the population of the UK (or any Western Europe state for that matter) have ever been given a specific choice on mass immigration in a a yes or no referendum which would provide empirical evidence to support your contention that the UK was a racist society and unable or unwilling to accept mass immigration.

Yes certain legislation was introduced in the 60s to try and limit automatic rights of immigration from the Commonwealth but if the intention was to stop immigration it was a complete failure as evidenced by the fact that in 2024 something like 20% of the current UK population is foreign born and this figure does not take into account the second and third generations descendants of immigrants who came here in the 50s, 60s and 70s and not factored into these figures. The legislation introduced was pragmatic and realistic and it is far too simplistic to simply call it racist - the populations of commonwealth states such as Nigeria (44 million), India (450 million) and Pakistan (45 million) alone accounted for 550 million in 1960, no country especially one such as the UK (52 million) is simply going to allow unrestricted migration in the circumstances, however what followed over the next 60 years was actually very significant immigration, which has made the UK one of the most diverse countries in the world.

This is not to say there isn't or hasn't been terrible racism, however whilst immigration has always been controversial across the Western world, it has historically been tolerated as a side effect for positive economic growth and has never been an election defining issue in the UK or any Western European state to date, largely in part because it was handled quite deftly and in a staggered way.

I think any person looking at the situation critically in the 1970s would distinguish between the advantages of incorporating say Sierra Leone or Ghana into the UK and what was to become the UAE. There was no advantages to the UK in the former, however the advantages in the 1970s of the UK aligning itself with the super oil rich Middle east territories in circumstances where the British economy was in the toilet in the 1970s and the world was recovering from the oil embargo would have meant that if such an opportunity had presented itself, I doubt very much it would have been an issue explicitly put to the people in any yes or no way or even if it had that such an opportunity would be passed up even if the risk was a million people suddenly turned up.

That said I also think the chances of 1 million people abandoning the oil rich Middle east states to come and live on British council states and pay 70% tax on factory work in the 1970s was quite small and would have worked the opposite way with far more British businesses and people moving to the UAE to be at the core of developing the oil industry.
 

Devvy

Donor
Its interesting to hear this old chestnut time and again because it of course implies that the population of the UK (or any Western Europe state for that matter) have ever been given a specific choice on mass immigration in a a yes or no referendum which would provide empirical evidence to support your contention that the UK was a racist society and unable or unwilling to accept mass immigration.

Yes certain legislation was introduced in the 60s to try and limit automatic rights of immigration from the Commonwealth but if the intention was to stop immigration it was a complete failure as evidenced by the fact that in 2024 something like 20% of the current UK population is foreign born and this figure does not take into account the second and third generations descendants of immigrants who came here in the 50s, 60s and 70s and not factored into these figures. The legislation introduced was pragmatic and realistic and it is far too simplistic to simply call it racist - the populations of commonwealth states such as Nigeria (44 million), India (450 million) and Pakistan (45 million) alone accounted for 550 million in 1960, no country especially one such as the UK (52 million) is simply going to allow unrestricted migration in the circumstances, however what followed over the next 60 years was actually very significant immigration, which has made the UK one of the most diverse countries in the world.

This is not to say there isn't or hasn't been terrible racism, however whilst immigration has always been controversial across the Western world, it has historically been tolerated as a side effect for positive economic growth and has never been an election defining issue in the UK or any Western European state to date, largely in part because it was handled quite deftly and in a staggered way.

I think any person looking at the situation critically in the 1970s would distinguish between the advantages of incorporating say Sierra Leone or Ghana into the UK and what was to become the UAE. There was no advantages to the UK in the former, however the advantages in the 1970s of the UK aligning itself with the super oil rich Middle east territories in circumstances where the British economy was in the toilet in the 1970s and the world was recovering from the oil embargo would have meant that if such an opportunity had presented itself, I doubt very much it would have been an issue explicitly put to the people in any yes or no way or even if it had that such an opportunity would be passed up even if the risk was a million people suddenly turned up.

That said I also think the chances of 1 million people abandoning the oil rich Middle east states to come and live on British council states and pay 70% tax on factory work in the 1970s was quite small and would have worked the opposite way with far more British businesses and people moving to the UAE to be at the core of developing the oil industry.

I did start tapping out a reply, but suffice to say I respectfully disagree with many of your assertions regarding race politics in the UK. However, I don't want to start a) a current politics discussion in here and risk it being locked, and b) get sidetracked in to a racism debate.

What I will say is that I think this discussion is a tad academic. Ignoring all racism points, I don't think the Trucial States would have asked anyway for UK integration proper even if the option had been theoretically available. They have a globally desired commodity in oil, and can sell to the highest bidder without UK interference. All they want and need from the UK is protection and some systematic support for some functions - all of which can be done under a protectorate system, especially given that they were willing to pay for it in OTL.
 
Do you have any plans for the UAE to remain part of the UK in some capacity? In OTL, when Wilson announced Britain was withdrawing from the Gulf in 1968, Sheikh Zayed initially asked the British to stay and offered to take over the cost of British forces in the region. The UAE had outstanding territorial disputes with Iran and Saudi Arabia at the time, and Bahrain was claimed by Iran in its entirety until 1970, so the small Gulf states were keen to keep British protection.
Yes; in short I think the Trucial States will be around for longer as...well, the Trucial States, a British protectorate. They won't be integrated parts of the UK - the UAE in OTL in 1975 was just shy of a million people. It's too big for the UK to swallow, and (sorry to say), for the UK at the time, there will be too much racism over so many people of a different skin colour and different religion, and locking the UK even more to a potential conflict over the territory. Formally I guess they'd be British Protectorates - the UK doesn't hold sovereignty over them, but I guess de facto they would be the same as British Dependencies.

I have an outline for a future chapter on the evolution of the British "constitution make up" of sorts for later.
I don't think the Trucial States would have asked anyway for UK integration proper even if the option had been theoretically available. They have a globally desired commodity in oil, and can sell to the highest bidder without UK interference. All they want and need from the UK is protection and some systematic support for some functions - all of which can be done under a protectorate system, especially given that they were willing to pay for it in OTL.
To be honest...while I feel like ITTL, even if the British would have decided to stay when Sheikh Zayed ask like in OTL (so probably the Trucial States would have a similar arrangement as OTL Brunei between 1971-1984), I feel like outside circumstances that would probably still happens (Yom Kippur War and the subsequent Oil Crisis, and in particular the Islamic Revolution) could actually pressure the Trucial States to ask for independence anyway...since even just having protectorate status could be perceived as the British having too much interference...
TLDR: I expect ITTL, the Trucial states will have a similar arrangement to OTL Brunei...(i.e.: still hold protectorate status but would eventually still gain its independence in the 1980s)

P/s: Perhaps the butterfly flapping around is enough that if independence would still eventually happen, Qatar and Bahrain could be integrated with the rest of the UAE ITTL...

Edit: Is the unraveling of the sterling area as OTL as well... I was wondering about that while (re)watching a video about Singapore reserve currency diversification that occur during the devaluation of the pound...
 
Last edited:
I think that ITTL some of the world events should not happen due to no Suez, the British-French relationship, the Commonwealth being closer, Anglo-American distancing, etc. Sure the US and USSR are practising dollar diplomacy which will have an effect on British influence and sterling, but a lot of the events of OTL are rolls of the dice that can go very differently ITTL due to said changed circumstances.
 
Top