A powerful Britain, without India?

I generally agree with this, but I think that Canada may well end up *less* populated than OTL. Hard to say.

Indeed. Any deal that can defuse the ARW is going to leave the British North American colonies with a great deal of Dominion-like autonomy, which surely includes control over their immigration policy and dealing with the Indian tribes. This ensures that Dominion of North America is going to adopt the same immigration-friendly, native-busting, all-out expansion as OTL US. Not only the OTL US parts of it are going to grow at OTL speed, the Canadian parts are going to grow at OTL US speed, and even up considerably more populated than OTL. Moreover, if Britain is not focusing on India, the Western Hemisphere is going to become the focus of its empire-building efforts, with sizable chunks of the Spanish colonial empire ending in the American Dominion (Louisiana goes without saying).
 
Who says there won't be a market in Mysore without a British colony there?

If Britain had made sure she had free access to the markets (ie. free trade) but didn't engage in active policies of complexity suppression, India would probably have been a better market. Developed and wealthy India can buy more from Britain than poor and backward India can.

Does not compute. If Mysore has the option to buy from Stuttgart or Ghent or Lyons, Birmingham may well get a smaller share of the pie. Also, if Mysore begins making it's own trade goods locally, all the white people are screwed. Britain's profits depended on keeping India a poor and undeveloped market for trade goods.

Indian cotton to Birmingham becomes cloth sold back to India. That's the sort of thing a free market would crush.
 
Except that the thirteen colonies, even including the Canadian colonies, will never match the pure & raw riches, let alone the manpower, of India. If Britain holds onto the Americans and focuses its attention there, expect France and Spain to do the same with their large holdings on the continent.

I'm not convinced the French have the power to hang on. New Orleans was a major target in the Seven Years War, but they decided to use the troops to take Cuba first. The Spanish could hold on longer, but expect large chunks to gradually get carved off, with Cuba, the River Plate, and Bolivia the main targets.

They had the chance to in the Seven Years War, but decided it wasn't worth it.

Actually, news of conquering Manila didn't reach the negotiators until after the peace had been signed, and it reverted under a minor line in the treaty. I'm sure the East India lobby at least would have been very keen to get a foothold in the East Indies. It could also potentially mean early entry into China...

One question on this subject: if you butterfly the American Revolutionary War, either through a failed rebellion or through compromise à la The Two Georges... does still mean Australia is colonised by Britain as per OTL, or by another country?

Not sure. Presumably American colonists would be unhappy about prisoners being imported after a while and somewhere else would be needed. However, the UK might look to somewhere else in the Americas if they still had control there.

I generally agree with this, but I think that Canada may well end up *less* populated than OTL. Hard to say.

I'm not convinced by this. I think the number of Americans that were kept out from immigrating was smaller than the number of additional loyalists that did immigrate.

Does not compute. If Mysore has the option to buy from Stuttgart or Ghent or Lyons, Birmingham may well get a smaller share of the pie. Also, if Mysore begins making it's own trade goods locally, all the white people are screwed. Britain's profits depended on keeping India a poor and undeveloped market for trade goods.

Agreed. If India became successful and rich, there would probably be more money to be made by industrial powers in total, but the UK would get a much smaller share of the bigger pie. They also prevented Indian businesses from competing with British ones based in India, which often had monopolies to prevent supplier and labour costs from rising. That meant there was return that should have gone to Indian labour and Indian entrepreneurs that instead went to the British (and, of course, into a deadweight loss).

Indian cotton to Birmingham becomes cloth sold back to India. That's the sort of thing a free market would crush.

Not convinced this is true. Even today, Britain exports milk and imports cheese, for example.
 
Not convinced this is true. Even today, Britain exports milk and imports cheese, for example.

As the other chap said, I suspect this isn't cheese made from British milk.

If we looked at manufacturing of British cheese (say cheddar, wensleydale etc.), I think it's likely that it's made from British milk. If you looked at cheese imports, I'm pretty sure you'd find that they're mainly cheeses from other regions of the world (edam, halloumi etc.), also made with local milk.

British milk exports are likely at least in part to countries without large local dairy industries (e.g. Singapore or the Gulf States).

In any case it's not comparable with the Victorian cloth trade which depended on extracting raw materials at a very low price from a captive market, converting them to manufactured goods in the home country and then selling them back to the captive market at a profit. Without a foreign stranglehold on the market, there would be nothing preventing said cloth from being manufactured in India itself.
 
Top