A Nation renewed.

“The memory of this Parliament will be precious to the nation, so long as it has a being.” –George Ridpath.(1)

1702-1704

The majority of Scots had become thoroughly disillusioned with King William long before he died on 20th January 1702. To the Jacobites, he was always a usurper, but he also alienated many of those who considered him a liberator from the tyranny under James VII. His behaviour over Darien showed beyond all doubt that he was prepared to sacrifice Scottish interests to England. Blame for the Glencoe massacre in 1692 also clung to his reputation as a bloody stain. His dying wish was that there should be an incorporating Union between Scotland and England as soon as possible. In essence he wanted to be able to ride one horse instead of two, which were liable to go off in different directions.

This policy was maintained by Queen Anne despite according to Gilbert Burnet(2), many of her closet advisors ‘opposed it with much heat and not without indecent reflections upon the Scotch nation’. Despite this it was in the interests of England to secure its northern frontier against the interests of France and as such the Queen had her way and Parliament agreed to her appointing commissioners for the negotiation of a treaty of Union in November 1702.

Talks proceeded with little enthusiasm and were adjourned in February 1703. English Parliamentarians had never viewed the Scots in the same manner as their monarchs and had no wish for a further association with them. Despite these events, principally the war of Spanish Succession prevailed and persuaded many of their number that their interests required a firm and continuing means of controlling Scotland.

War had been declared in London on 4th May 1702 without the say of Scotland. Since James VI became James I of England, the Scots had no share in deciding matters of war and peace as foreign policy was made and decided by the monarch. As such war was conducted in the name of England and English interests, usually against Scottish interests and dominant trading partners. As they were officially at war, the Scots were expected to contribute men, money and supplies but were forgotten in the benefits which may flow from peace. Such was a consequence of the Union of the Crowns. When Scotland lost her own King, she lost her own foreign policy and much influence over these matters.

England was of course satisfied with the situation. She had a flow of men for the war, and at the same time controlled her northern border against pernicious foreign, French influences as had happened in the past. The imperative was shown in a greater light following the Act of Settlement in 1701 offering the throne to the Electress of Hanover in which the English expected the Scots to agree with.

The Scots responded with the act of Security in 1703. It declared that Scotland shall choose her own monarch upon the death of Queen Anne, and furthermore that it should be different from that of England unless certain economic, religious and political conditions were met. The bill was refused Royal Assent, but was passed in 1704 after Parliament refused to raise taxes and sought to withdraw troops from the war.

George Lockhart of Carnwath(3) was aware after time in London that English attitudes were hardening in the fear that Scotland should turn into a satellite state of France and create a new war on the English border. It was to this effect that he proposed the 1703 Act of Neutrality(4), in which it was made clear that no foreign troops would be allowed to set foot on Scottish soil, with the exception of England should they wish to establish up to four fortresses in Scotland, so long as the English troops comply with local laws.

The bill was created to ease their fears of Scottish influence from France. It was passed by 91 votes to 89 and offset anger in England over the act of Security. As a result by August 1704, English garrisons were being built near Inverness, Ullapool, Dumfries and North Berwick. It was unpopular threoughout Scotland, but understood by its Parliamentarians as the best way to secure Scotlands future.

As a result, Scotland secured itself a renewed independence in alliance with England.


(1) OTL Quote from contemporary book An account of the proceedings of the Parliament of Scotland which met at Edinburgh, May 6th 1703.
(2) The Bishop of Salisbury, again a contemporary quote from OTL.
(3) Scottish writer and politician. In OTL a Scottish Commisioner for the Treaty of Union and later a Jacobite agent.
(4) The POD! See!
 
“We are an independent nation.” Andrew Fletcher. (1)

The composition of the Scottish Parliament in the early 18th Century.


Unlike the English Parliament, based on a House of Commons and a House of Lords, the Scottish Parliament was a single-chamber institution. Parliament House itself had been rebuilt in 1639, at considerable expense to Edinburgh Town Council, and was situated next to St Giles. The Scottish Parliament, in common with European assemblies, was a Parliament of Estates.

By 1707 three estates were represented in Parliament; the nobility, commissioners of the shires and commissioners of the burghs. These were essentially the representatives of the landed aristocracy and mercantile elites. Shire and burgh representatives were elected, whilst the nobility could sit as part of their birthright.

The Parliament was certainly an elite institution in terms of its social composition. In theory, 33 shire constituencies and 66 burgh constituencies were entitled to parliamentary representation by 1707. Burgh representation was based exclusively on the royal burghs.

The representation of the clerical estate had been abolished at the Glorious Revolution as part of the Scottish Constitutional Settlement of 1689-90. This followed the triumph of Presbyterianism, following its persecution and attempted suppression during the Restoration era, and was in accordance with the traditional Presbyterian differentiation between Church and State. (2)

There was a party system, as far as party systems went in this period. From 1704 onwards, there were effectively three parties within the Parliament. The two main parties were the Court Party and the Country Party with the Squadrone Volante being the third grouping within the chamber. There were 227 members of the Estates.

The Court Party tended to back the monarch on major issues. It composed around 100 members of the Scottish Estates. It was generally led by the Duke of Queensberry(3). The party was generally considered to be the government and its members generally held Government posts.

The Court Party could generally rely on votes from the Squadrone Volante, who were able to rely on the 25 or so members of the Squadrone Volante who were ably led by the Marquess of Montrose and the Duke of Roxburghe.

Opponents of the court, generally known as the Country party, were a loose grouping of factions and individuals. They included leading anti-unionists(4), such as the Duke of Hamilton, Lord Belhaven and Andrew Fletcher of Saltoun, who spoke forcefully and passionately against the union, but they were not disciplined to attend and vote as members of the Court party were. The Court party was thus able to maintain a steady majority over its opponents.

Once the act of Security was passed, the boundaries began slowly to change. Parliament was rife over who would succeed Anne to the throne. On this issue Parliament was openly divided. Many were mentioned, from the Jacobite claimant to the Duke of Hamilton. Talk even began, mainly within the Country party of a Scottish Republic being established. Andrew Fletcher continued to push his limitations. (5)

The divisions were open. The situation was fluid.

(1) OTL Quote. Guess where I got my user name from!
(2) With thanks to the BBC, for saving me extra writing...
(3) Queensberry held the position of Lord High Commisioner from 1700-1703 and in 1706-1707.
(4) Opponents of an incorporating Union. Many within the Parliament were not opposed to some form of federation.
(5) Basically a declaration of rights. I will post shortly if anyone wishes.
 
Last edited:
“The Scots had been very sensible of the visible decay of trade, wealth and inhabitants in this country, even from their first giving away their Kings to the English succession; and, as the sinking condition of their Nation was plainly owing to the loss of their court, concourse of people, the disadvantages of trade, and the influence the English had over their Kings; so it was plain, there was no way to restore themselves, but either better terms of Union and Alliance, or a returning back to their separate self-existing state” Daniel Defoe (1)

The situation by 1705.
Reaction to the settlement agreed over the previous two years divided the Kingdom more than almost anything since the Glorious Revolution.

The Jacobites opposed the movement on the grounds that not only would it separate the Kingdoms of England and Scotland, making a Jacobite restoration to the two Kingdoms more difficult but also that it would secure the Presbyterian government in Scotland in perpetuity ending any hope of an Episcopalian revival.
Many anti-Unionists opposed it due principally to the act of Neutrality, which they feared would turn Scotland into a satellite of England with her court under the pay of the English court.

The Unionist nobility despised the measures, mainly out of fears that many of them had land and property in England which may be confiscated should the Union of the Crowns end. Questions were also raised over nobles who had titles in both Scotland and England and whether they would be entitled to sit in both the House of Lords and the Scottish Estates. (2)

Despite all this, a great many supported the return of the Scottish Court and power to Edinburgh. Following what was considered the papist despotism of James VII and being generally ignored and the poor service of Mary, William and Anne, this was seen as a step forward. Overall, in the lowlands at any rate, the idea of a separate monarchy in alliance with England was supported by the majority of Scots.

This was helped greatly by the general good behaviour of the English troops throughout the country. This was helped by the money the English troops were putting into the Scottish economy, and that compared to the war on the Continent, Scotland was considered a cushy deployment.

Throughout 1705 the candidates for the Scottish throne began to emerge. The Duke of Hamilton was an early favourite, despite the fact he was a member of the Estates . The Earl of Moray was also a contender (3) in addition to which Sophie, the English candidate was also still, despite everything in contention. Out of all the candidates, only James, the Jacobite claimant was ruled out on the grounds that he was a Roman Catholic.

The Estates agreed that the situation of not knowing who the next monarch was was untenable and that a convention would be held the following year. The Electress of Hanover hoped for a repeat of the Glorious Revolution with her taking the part of William and Mary. Whatever happened, 1706 was to be interesting.

(1) Quote from OTL book by Daniel Defoe on the History of the Union.
(2) The answer was yes.
(3) The Earl of Moray with thanks to Calgacus and the End of Ane Auld Sang timeline.
 
FletcherofSaltoun

Interesting TL and see where you get your id from.;) Curious as to how this will develop. Could be a fair bit if tension as while the Scots have gained political independence they have also probably lost some influence over the London Parliament. What will be the situation when some trade deal settled in London impacts on Scottish interests. [Accept they have relatively low influence before but suspect it will be less now].

One request please. Could you make the footnotes the same size as the main text please. My old eyes are struggling to read them.:)

Steve
 
FletcherofSaltoun

Interesting TL and see where you get your id from.;) Curious as to how this will develop. Could be a fair bit if tension as while the Scots have gained political independence they have also probably lost some influence over the London Parliament. What will be the situation when some trade deal settled in London impacts on Scottish interests. [Accept they have relatively low influence before but suspect it will be less now].

One request please. Could you make the footnotes the same size as the main text please. My old eyes are struggling to read them.:)

Steve
I think the position is interesting myself. I've butterflied away the Alien act of the English Parliament by introducing the Neutrality act of the Scottish Estates and as such there are English troops in Scotland but Scotland will regain its independence.

As I posted, this gives Scotland far more power than it would have outwith direct parliamentary union with England, which has now also been butterflied away*. This means in the long run Scottish and English policies may diverge but the English are safe in the knowledge that their northern border is secure.

In OTL, the Scots had little influence within London. The Company of Scotland raised hundreds of thousands in England but the Lords rejected it due to pressure from the EIC as an example. As such the reality will mean little difference in influence over trade.

These were interesting times....

*although within the union, the Scots would gain far more influence globally in the long run.


Also not a problem will do.;)
 
Heres Andrew Fletchers limitations.
  1. THAT elections shall be made at every Michaelmas head-court for a new Parliament every year; to sit the first of November next following, and adjourn themselves from time to time, till next Michaelmas; That they chuse their own president, and that everything shall be determined by balloting, in place of voting.
  2. THAT so many lesser barons shall be added to the Parliament, as there have been noblemen created since the last augmentation of the number of the barons; and that in all time coming, for every nobleman that shall be created, there shall be a baron added to the Parliament.
  3. THAT no man have vote in Parliament, but a nobleman or elected member.
  4. THAT the King shall give the sanction to all laws offered by the Estates; and that the president of the Parliament be empowered by His Majesty to give the sanction in his absence, and have ten pounds Sterling a day salary.
  5. THAT a committee of one and thirty members, of which nine to be a quorum, chosen out of their own number, by every Parliament, shall, during the intervals of Parliament, under the King, have the administration of the government, be his council, and accountable to the next Parliament; with power in extraordinary occasions, to call the Parliament together; and that in the said council, all things be determined by ballotting in place of voting.
  6. THAT the King without consent of Parliament shall not have the power of making peace and war; or that of concluding any treaty with any other state or potentate.
  7. THAT all places and offices, both civil and military, and all pensions formerly conferred by our Kings shall ever after be given by Parliament.
  8. THAT no regiment or company of horse, foot or dragoons, be kept on foot in peace or war, but by consent of Parliament.
  9. THAT all fencible men of the nation, between sixty and sixteen, be with all diligence possible armed with bayonets, and firelocks all of a calibre, and continue always provided in such arms with ammunition suitable.
  10. THAT no general indemnity, nor pardon for any transgression against the public, shall be valid without consent of Parliament.
  11. THAT the fifteen Senators of the College of Justice shall be incapable of being members of Parliament, or of any other office, or any pension; but the salary that belongs to their place to be increased as the Parliament shall think fit; that the office of President shall be in three of their number to be named by Parliament, and that there be no extraordinary lords and also, that the lords of the Justice Courts shall be distinct from those of the Session, and under the same restrictions.
  12. THAT if any King break in upon any of these conditions of government, he shall by the Estates be declared to have forfeited the crown.
Any replies to the tl welcome.....
 
“I believe that a Sovereign Independent Monarchie should dissolve its constitution and be at the disposal of England” The Duke of Atholl. (1)

The 1706 Convention of the Estates and the Jacobite Rising.

By May, the contenders for the throne had become clear. Putting their names forward were the Duke of Hamilton, the Earl of Moray and Sophie, the Electress of Hanover. Of this number, Moray and Hamilton were to attend; Sophie sent a letter to the convention making her feelings on the matter clear.

Another possible contender for the crown, Charles Hay, the 13th Earl of Erroll refused to put his name forward, and post haste argued for a Jacobite restoration.(2) It was with this intent that he raised the Jacobite standard at Slains (3) in Aberdeenshire on May 12th. His men, numbering no more than 1,500 marched south towards Perth gaining an extra 500 troops on their way. The intention was to meet up with the Duke of Perth and march on Edinburgh.

The Government in Edinburgh was aware of the situation but was duly unfazed and raised a force to counter Erroll in his intentions of 2,000 men. In addition to this, the English Garrison from the Culloden Garrison was aware of the situation and under the command of General Wade, was chasing the force south.

A force of Scottish Government troops, led by the Cameronian Alexander Montgomerie (4), met the Jacobites between Dundee and Perth, just outside the village of Inchture. Following a brief but bloody bout, the Jacobites were forced into retreat. Erroll himself, fled to Dundee and just escaped on a ship to France. The rising had been quashed.

The Convention carried on unabashed. Hamilton was first before it. In the eloquence that was shown by his leadership of the Country Party, he argued that he would defend Scottish interests against outside influences and maintain the revolution settlement in terms of religion and help increase the power of the Estates. In this he won many votes.

Moray was a quiet, shy, religious man (5). His speech inspired no-one, but he did have the private backing of Queensberry as subsequent letters have shown. He was seen by some as the best way of increasing the power of the Estates. It was believed that he was put forward by Queensberry in an attempt to take some support away from Hamilton and help Sophie secure the Scottish throne.

Following Hamilton and Moray, Sophies letter was read to the convention. In it, she claimed that she was the rightful heir to the Scottish throne by providence of her Protestant faith and the fact she was next in the line of succession. She also promised to maintain the revolution settlement, to allow Parliament extra powers over trade, but announced that should she become Queen she would continue in the tradition of Queen Anne.

Her support mainly came from the fact many of the Lords were in her pay(6). As such she was supported by many within the convention including the Duke of Atholl who went as far as to support full union with England.

The vote was split, but the convention chose the Duke of Hamilton by a margin of seven votes over Sophie. For once the Country Party voted as a bloc, and Morays vote split the Squadrone Volante. Should the Queen die childless, as was now increasingly likely, James, the Duke of Hamilton would become James VIII King of Scotland (7). Both the pretender and the de facto monarch would share the same name and title.

(1) OTL Quote from the Duke of Atholl with the word should a substitute for shall.
(2) In OTL, the Hays were implicated in the 1708, 1715 and 1745 rebellions so fairly predictable although his claim was as strong as Hamiltons.
(3) Slains is the Hay family seat.
(4) In OTL Fought in the battle of Dunkeld with the Cameronians and also went to Darien. He survived. There were rumours he was present at the massacre of Glencoe. This has redeemed his reputation.
(5) In OTL, died unmarried without issue. Not many records of him present.
(6) Quen Anne through Godolphin in London bribed a significant portion of members. Just not enough.
(7) I thought a nice touch!
 
Last edited:
“I welcome and support the coming accession to the throne of your grace to our nation.” James Douglas, 2nd Duke of Queensberry. (1)


The Consequences of the choice of the Duke Hamilton to accede to the Throne.


The choice of the Duke of Hamilton to be the heir presumptive to the throne of Scotland was a controversial one. Despite the fact that he undoubtedly possessed many qualities and provided an air of authority in what was a time of stress for the Kingdom, he was not seen to be the next in line by many.

The Jacobites resented him because they believed he was not of true Royal blood. Many in the Court Party feared him because of his allegiance to the country party in the estates. In England, he was accepted, but viewed as a puppet of the crown of England, this view coming to the fore mainly due to the English troops garrisoned within Scotland.

One man who was not afraid of coming forward to him was the Duke of Queensberry. Over a period of six years now, his ministries had dominated Scotland. He had no intention that the future death of the Queen would inhibit this. As such he began courting Hamilton.

It was in this period that previous colleagues of Hamilton such as Lord Belhaven and Fletcher of Saltoun struggled to gain access to him. Whereas before when power was seen to be in London, power was now being filtered more through Edinburgh.

Privately, as have now been confirmed due to recently found correspondence between Sidney Godolphin (2) and the Duke, it was agreed from Westminster that he would secretly be given an income from the English Exchequer should he continue to agree to the principles of the Scottish Neutrality Act and keep England’s northern border secure. In this Godolphin was successful.

As such, with the knowledge he had from Queensberry that the Court Party would support him, Hamilton switched allegiance. The ministry of Queensberry was safe. This was made even clearer in the 1706 election, where the numbers of the Court party went up from around one hundred, to over one hundred and twenty.

Belhaven, Fletcher and the Country party were dismayed by the situation. The Court party had now dominance in the chamber, and Queensberry his ministry. Jacobitism was seen as crushed. The English troops sat easy in their Scottish garrisons and the Duke of Hamilton stood as the Prince of Scotland, soon to be King.

(1) My first false quote in full of the timeline. Given the character of Queensberry though, I doubt this would have been out of place.
(2) Leading English Politician under Queen Anne and at the time Lord High Treasuerer of England.

(see below) The 2nd Duke of Queensberry.
2ndDukeOfQueensberry.jpg

2ndDukeOfQueensberry.jpg
 
Well, 266 views but one reply. Don't know if folk are enjoying reading it, but I am writing it so I will continue.:p

“Ne’r a nation more at peace with itself whilst at war” The Marquess of Tweeddale.

Political life within the Kingdom of Scotland and the Queensberry Ministries from 1706-1714.


Over the period between the announcement of Hamilton as the heir and his accession to the Scottish throne (1) the economy slowly began to grow. Queensberry’s ministry maintained a policy that attempted to balance the budget above any other considerations. The major principle was consistency and ensuring opponents of the regime were kept down.

In the year 1707, the first achievement of the Government occurred, when what was called the new Alliance was created between Scotland and England. Under the agreement, when the English were in Scotland and vice versa, each would be considered subject of the other kingdom. Free trade would be enabled between the two Kingdoms. It was a significant move and was hailed by all as a further assurance that war between the two kingdoms would never occur again. In Scotland it had extra significance, as it was similar to the Auld Alliance, in England it opened up new trading opportunities. (2)

This deal was a mixed blessing for the Scots. The fact that it opened up trade to the English American colonies was viewed as a positive move and helped the economy grow but the deal also opened Scotland up to competition from south of the border, which harmed considerably the timber and linen trade of the nation. Whilst they struggled, the malt trade openly grew, due to the fact the Scots never taxed malt and the English did (3). The tobacco trade also slowly began to grow which helped Glasgow grow.(4)

In such a climate, many Scottish concerns were purchased by the English nobility, which helped the Jacobites in their claims that the Edinburgh Government was a puppet of England. (5) Support for the Stuarts continued in the Highlands remained amongst the clans, but they were ignored. (6)

In addition to the Jacobites, figures such as Fletcher, Lockhart and others were fearful that Scotland should become a dependency of the Scots southern neighbour. Despite this, fears over actual Scottish independence receded greatly. The Country party retained support amongst many in the nation but they could be ignored.

An underlying factor over this period was the war, which was unpopular.(7) Scottish soldiers fought alongside their English colleagues under a joint command and suffered heavily. The Cameronians for instance, lost very heavily at Blenheim as well as at Steenkirk; it was the Colonel of the Scots fusiliers who led the assault on the village of Blenheim and gave the signal to open fire by striking the palisade with his sword; he was killed there. Despite this many were aware that in matters concerning war and peace, Scotland would be little regarded if at all. This was bourn out in 1714, when the Scots were not given a look in or a mention at the peace of Utrecht.

Wherever Hamilton went during this period, he was seen as being popular. He became the talk of Scottish and English society. On his several visits to London over this period, he was feted by the London elite, despite the fact he was disliked by the Queen. He famously won a duel in Hyde Park with Lord Mohun. When he travelled Scotland, crowds gathered to view him. He was seen as the future ruler of Scotland. On the 1st August 1714 Queen Anne died childless. The Duke of Hamilton had achieved his goal. The very next day he was pronounced from Parliament Square in Edinburgh as King James VIII, King of Scotland. The union of the crowns had ended. The House of Hamilton became the new Scottish monarchy.

(1) In OTL, the Duke of Hamilton was killed in a duel in 1712. In this timeline he wins the duel so survives to take the crown.
(2) The English destroying any chance of the Scots allying with France, opening new trade further and allowing their upper classes to buy Scottish land.
(3) In OTL, at the time of union it was promised that malt would not be taxed in Scotland. Following the Union this pledge was reneged and it was harming the Scottish economy. In ttl, malt is still taxed in England so the Scots have an advantage here.
(4) An OTL consequence of the Union, in ttl a consequence of the Anglo-Scots alliance.
(5) England had troops in Scotland, owned several businesses in Scotland and Scottish regiments fought under English command.
(6) As in OTL Edinburgh was as remote to the gaels as London.
(7) Not much difference from OTL.

See below, King James VIII of Scotland.
James.jpg

James.jpg
 
“Door of the seas……..Keys of the Universe.” William Paterson. (1)

The Second Colonial Attempt by the Company of Scotland 1712-1719

Despite everything following the failure of the Darien Scheme, the Company of Scotland was still in existence(2). The trade agreement with the English granted them a huge opportunity. Access to the English colonies in the Americas meant that the door was open for a Scottish colony in Africa which would centre its economy on the slave trade.

In the headquarters of the Company of Scotland in Edinburgh the directors of the Company argued about whether it was possible for the company to make a new attempt at creating a colony. Supporters ranged from Paterson, the man behind the Darien disaster to Tweeddale, who supported it on political grounds. By the year 1712, the company had accrued enough capital to have four ships fit for a future colonial voyage. Despite opposition from directors such as Erskine of Carnock, the company agreed in principal to make a second attempt at colonialisation. The only question was where.

The answer came on Mayday 1715. English naval Captain, Terrence Broadfoot whilst in Edinburgh approached the company with a suggestion. He suggested a location less than one hundred miles south of Douala, a slave trading centre owned by no nation. He argued that the area was a tropical paradise, which although heavily forested, was ripe for a power establishing a colony there. Not wishing to repeat the mistakes of a decade earlier, the company interviewed several slavers about the move. In general it received a positive response. On August 21st 1715, the company decided that the area was to become a Scottish possession. (3)

The first expedition, two ships with several hundred souls left Glasgow on Febuary 12th 1716. Their voyage was swift and aided by the winds and by the time they reached Madeira on May 2nd, only five colonists had died. Following a week of refilling with supplies, they continued their voyage south passing Sierra Leone and Douala stopping at their location. The arrived on June 26th planting the company flag and the saltire standard on African soil for the first time.

The village was quickly overwhelmed by the Scots, who began building their colony. The slavers of Douala resented competition on the African mainland and the colonists had to endure several skirmishes, alongside the toll malaria was causing them over the next few months. Despite this the colony was still there when the next two ships arrived on October 1st with its first settlement named New Perth..

Hundreds had died in building the colony, but by mid-October the first shipment of slaves made their way from the colony to the Americas. The colony was established, despite the high attrition rate. By Febuary when the third load of Colonists arrived the combination of slavery, ivory and timber had ensured the colony a future. Aside from this the settlement was viewed as an alternative to Douala for vessels who wished to reach the Cape.

By 1719, the share price of the Company had attained the heights which it reached before the Darien disaster had become apparent. It was agreed though that the colony should be the only possession of the company on Western Africa.

The disadvantage of the colony however was the high attrition rate due to malaria. This had led to fears amongst the general public. The head of Government, Argyll however was a large investor in the company, as was the King which led to the Criminal act of 1719 passing the estates. It was agreed that Criminals would be sent to do labour in the colony.

Life in New Perth was tough, but there was life. The colony was named the HamiltonState, in honour of the Royal household. The company was alive and kicking.

(1) Actual quote, but from when he was selling the Darien idea to the Company directors.
(2) In OTL it was abolished by the act of Union and became the Royal Bank of Scotland. No act of Union means company is still going.
(3) Unlike Darien, was not claimed by any power or under dispute. The major risk was malaria, they were close enough to Douala for supplies though.

See below. Company Charter of the Company of Scotland trading with Africa and the Indies.

the Company of Scotland..jpg

the Company of Scotland..jpg
 
Very intertesting stuff. I too was going to mention the footnotes, but I see you've rectified that.
 
“I crown thee James VIII, by the Grace of God, King of Scots.”

From the Coronation of James VIII to the beginning of the Scottish Enlightenment. 1714-1740

The coronation of James VIII was a lavish event in St. Giles. Edinburgh was lit up by a fireworks display and the town celebrated into the night. For the first time since Charles II had been crowned in a very austere fashion the previous century, the Monarch of Scotland had been crowned within Scotland. The sense was great that it was the beginning of what was to be a good century and as such any proper history of Scotland in the 18th Century would begin here.

One of the main objectives of the Government in this period was the effective governance of the Highlands. As such it was an express wish of the Government to garrison the region and create a road network covering the region, to allow for swift movement in emergency. The task was given to the Earl of Stair (1) who excelled in the task. By 1728, he had raised six companies of watch in Perthshire and the Highlands and had constructed over two hundred and seventy miles worth of road. The Earl as such gained the reputation of opening up the highlands. This was important as it was known that the Jacobites were still well supported within the Highlands.

The Duke of Queensberry died in 1714 (2), with his position being taken by the Duke of Argyll. Argyll was an adept politician (3), who over the next sixteen years managed to combine several posts within the Scottish Estates in the most radical changes to the Scottish Parliament since the Glorious Revolution. During his ministry, the posts of Lord High Chancellor, Secretary of State and Lord High Treasurer. He did this through a process of blackmail, bribery and simple power politics. As such he dominated Scottish Political life. He is perhaps most famous for being the first Chancellor of Scotland and effective head of Government.

Argyll did this in alliance with Andrew Fletcher, who was a late convert to the Court party. He did so in as such as he managed to get several of his limitations into statute. Scotland was now clearly under the control of Parliament. James VIII was now a constitutional monarch. Fletcher had died in the knowledge that he had partially achieved his aims for the Kingdom in 1716. (4)

The first major issue he had to deal with was in 1719 when a serious Jacobite rising occurred. James landed in Montrose and made for Perth where his standard was to be raised. The commander of his campaign was the Earl of Mar (5), in which the Government were fortunate. Once he raised his standard in Perth, he held court and debated with Mar for days, by which time the English troops had arrived from both Inverness and North Berwick alongside a Scottish forces under the command of Stair which included men from Argyll himself.

The two sides met just outside Perth in a field by the village of Dunning. Depite holding the numerical advantage of two to one, the Jacobite force was poorly led and held the worse position of the two, facing uphill towards the Government troops. They charged the positions of the Government forces but were met with a solid resistance. Following an hour of bloody fighting, the Jacobite right wing gave way, and fell into retreat. The Jacobite left wing, at the same time gave way and retreated, allowing the Government to follow them. The battle turned into a rout. 2,000 Jacobites lay dead on the field for the loss of just 600 Government troops. James, Mar and the other managed to flee to France. The Jacobite threat was quashed.

At this time, the Company of Scotland was calling for prisoners to be sent to the Hamilton State to be forced labour and help build the colony. Of the Jacobite force on the field that day, 3,000 of them ended up in Africa via an act of Parliament.(6)

By the 1720’s for the first time since the reformation, the dream of John Knox regarding every child in every parish in the land undergoing an education began to become true in all of Scotland but the Highlands. By 1730, it was argued that Scotland was the most literate nation in Europe(7). This was a remarkable feat considering the relative poverty of the nation in comparison to states such as France and Florence.

1730 saw the death of James VIII and his son ascend to the throne. He became James IX. There was an outpouring of grief at the death of his father who was seen as one of the most successful monarchs to rule Scotland. Argyll was satisfied that the new King was still under his control.

The 1730’s also saw figures such as George Turnbull, Frances Hutcheson and Henry Home spring to prominence.(8) They made their fortunes and London society was taken by them. This was only the beginning.

(1) Given his fathers reputation for the massacre of Glencoe, I found it ammusing having the Earl of Stair opening the Highlands.
(2) Three years after OTL, but hey! Its my tl and they'll die when I want them to!
(3) He was adept in OTL also, as was his son. They gained much power in OTL. I see no difference in ttl.
(4) He gained several of his limitations as they coincided with Argylls lust for power. It was an example of Argyll continuing to consolidate.
(5) In OTL he was incompetent. He was in a position to push home victory and withdrew his force ending the 1715 rising. I see no reason why he should far better in this timeline.
(6) The Act was to send criminals to Parliament. 3,000 rebels were chosen at random. The remainder released on condition they swore an oath to "King James VIII of Scotland from the house of Hamilton"
(7) This was the case in OTL.
(8) With the extremely close relations with England, the stronger economy and the education system doing better from this than in OTL, I see no reason for the Scottish Enlightenment not to happen.

See below, Current Day St. Giles Cathedral at night where the Coronation of the Scottish Monarchs takes place, with Parliament House behind it.


800px-St_Giles%27_Cathedral.jpg

800px-St_Giles%27_Cathedral.jpg
 
Very intertesting stuff. I too was going to mention the footnotes, but I see you've rectified that.
A reply! :D:D I was starting to think folk were ignoring this tl. Either that or it is too good for comment!

Thanks again.
 
In OTL, the Scots had little influence within London. The Company of Scotland raised hundreds of thousands in England but the Lords rejected it due to pressure from the EIC as an example. As such the reality will mean little difference in influence over trade.
[/SIZE]

Do you mean preUnion or post? My understanding is that the Scottish enlightenment was built on trade.
 
Do you mean preUnion or post? My understanding is that the Scottish enlightenment was built on trade.
The Scottish Enlightenment came about due to a number of factors, trade and, considering how poor Scotland was, the best education system in Europe at the time both being major factors here.

If you look at the situation pre-union of the Parliaments, but post union of the crowns, the Scots had the worst of both worlds. They had theoretical independence, but foreign and international issues were under the power of the King which meant that if English and Scottish issues clashed the King had to back one or the other. In general the policy of England was favoured for obvious reasons.

The factor that Scotland never gained equal trading rights with the English but had to follow in effect the dictat of London harmed the Scottish economy greatly. In OTL, the situation from a Scottish point of view was solved by the Union of the Parliaments whereby the Scots gained equal trading rights with the English merchants, and the English secured the Northern border against continental rivals.

In this timeline, I have had the problem solved by allowing the Scots a seperate foreign policy, albiet in a limited sense* because of the neutrality act but in return access to English trade through what effectively is a customs union. That combined with the new colony created by the Scottish company and the begining of a period of prosperity would still bring the same results.

In doing this England has not only secured its Northern border but secured Scotland as an ally. This the issue of trade is not really an issue.

*Think the relations between the US and Canada today but with a customs union. Canada would need America to survive. As such Canada would foster a foreign policy to follow the States.
 
In this timeline, I have had the problem solved by allowing the Scots a seperate foreign policy, albiet in a limited sense* because of the neutrality act but in return access to English trade through what effectively is a customs union. That combined with the new colony created by the Scottish company and the begining of a period of prosperity would still bring the same results.

BTW, given what happens later in the century, I find it ironic that Scotland's colonial empire is based on slave-trading.
 
BTW, given what happens later in the century, I find it ironic that Scotland's colonial empire is based on slave-trading.
I know what you mean but sadly a sign of the times. Opposition to the slave trade will grow though as the century goes on though.......
 
Wow, that's a lot of updates in so short a time! Very interesting work. I wonder how the example of the Scottish Parliament (unicameral, balloting, annual--not sure of the last one) will affect the Enlightenment overall.

Also, I suspect there may be colonial butterflies in English North America, particularly if the English have better expereince granting the Scots something like independence or autonomy.
 
I'm following with avid interest, just don't have enough scots history under my belt to comment
Thanks.:D
Wow, that's a lot of updates in so short a time! Very interesting work. I wonder how the example of the Scottish Parliament (unicameral, balloting, annual--not sure of the last one) will affect the Enlightenment overall.

Also, I suspect there may be colonial butterflies in English North America, particularly if the English have better expereince granting the Scots something like independence or autonomy.
I will be bringing in the Americas and certain events in due course....;)
 
Top