Best place for a Scots Colony?

TNB,

Throw out all the locations in the Caribbean or other tropical regions. The colonies there were nothing but mono-crop and/or resource extraction operations that failed to progress or diversify in any meaningful manner.

But throughout the 18th century they remained Europe's most profitable colonies. So you'd be looking at 100 years, at least, where a Caribbean island would be a great benefit.

A number of the islands were barely settled at this point, though all, I think, had claims. Depending on how the Scots work their alliances, they could potentially swoop in and settle an island claimed by England, etc. The Bahamas were empty enough that decades later they would be vulnerable to absolute takeover by the most famous pirates in history. Most of the tiny islands in the zone between Puerto Rico and Guadeloupe were also lightly peopled and in many cases, totally undefended.

If that still won't work, the British/English had no trouble establishing colonies in Belize and the Mosquito Coast during this time, since the Caribbean coast of Spanish Central America was also almost completely undeveloped. The Scots could fill that niche if the English don't have the opportunity ITTL.
 
Nova Scotia was called such for a reason.

That being said, if it is a colonial empire you want, two would make sense. One in the Indies and one in Africa, both possibly as small as city states but would be defendable and ensure a small profit.


Hmm something along the lines of the Gambia perhaps or Ajuda on the Slave coast would work, but these were fiercely contested areas for this reason in the 1600's b/n the French, Spanish, Portuguese and Dutch primarily, but also the English, Danes and even the Swedes, Brandenburg and Kurland.

here, have the Scots evict the Kurlanders instead of the Dutch from Tobago and West Africa. but just try and keep Dutch paws off if your not paying attn. As for the Indies... you will need a way station on the way to india to trade..Can you get Zanzibar from Oman. Even Oman may be too much to take on in their own back yard , but there is the fall back of the Seychelles as a way station on the way to India, but thats a long way from West Afrika by the standards of the time... a way station, even informally that might develop could probably be had in the Eastern Cape or Natalia ( though the Dutch won't like the proximity) Delagoa Bay would be a better prospect if you get there soon enough and hoist the flag... but prepare for the Portuguese if you haven't laid the groundwork first. then all you need is a port in India somewhere that isn't too obtrusive ( the Danes managed with just a couple just fine). Voila Scots Indian Ocean Mercantile Emporium. That of course would be the point Your best prospect for a Settler colony somewhere would be Delagoa Bay in that case but would not get very large because of the Zulus to the South and Swazis to the West.
 
But throughout the 18th century they remained Europe's most profitable colonies. So you'd be looking at 100 years, at least, where a Caribbean island would be a great benefit.

A number of the islands were barely settled at this point, though all, I think, had claims. Depending on how the Scots work their alliances, they could potentially swoop in and settle an island claimed by England, etc. The Bahamas were empty enough that decades later they would be vulnerable to absolute takeover by the most famous pirates in history. Most of the tiny islands in the zone between Puerto Rico and Guadeloupe were also lightly peopled and in many cases, totally undefended.

If that still won't work, the British/English had no trouble establishing colonies in Belize and the Mosquito Coast during this time, since the Caribbean coast of Spanish Central America was also almost completely undeveloped. The Scots could fill that niche if the English don't have the opportunity ITTL.

The British actually had to fight the Spanish to obtain those rights...and then only to harvest logs...no permanent settlement and sovereignty still rested with Spain. That ended with Napoleon of course.
 
The British actually had to fight the Spanish to obtain those rights...and then only to harvest logs...no permanent settlement and sovereignty still rested with Spain. That ended with Napoleon of course.

...And Guatemala continued to not recognize Belize's existence right into the late 20th century. Of course the Scots would have to fight to establsh themselves securely in any of these places. But all were out on or past the fringes of their respective empires, and were vulnerable, is all I'm saying.
 

Glen

Moderator
Doubtful...

Doubtful? Maybe. Plausible though, plausible. Especially when we are talking about a POD this early in the colonization of North America.

Scotland does not have the population base,

And the Dutch did? You don't need a large population base, just enough space and time; geometric growth will do the rest.

and France didn't have the political will

I think at this point it wouldn't not have the will, either. They'd tried to make the Quebec region a going concern and it was failing. Why not cement the Auld Alliance by being generous with what for France was looking like a bad bet.

so you end up with with a New France sized Nova Scotia instead at best. 70-75,000 by the mid 1700's as opposed to the 11,000 or so OTL and that's based on them having OTL French Acadia minus the Gaspe.

I think the numbers will be higher as they will attract more of the Scottish immigrants instead of having Scots scattered across the British colonies like in OTL. However, even those numbers are enough to give you a viable Scottish colony, which was the OP target.

Everything was by charter at this time. the King granted the charter (essentially a monopoly) to develop the terr. to PRIVATE interests.

Good point. So, someone forms the Scottish West Indies company for James VI to give the grant to. We can add that in.

These were simply not as a rule given away on a whim to a foreign power except as treaty obligation following a war or for a prid pro quo somewhere else.

Well, we can probably find some situation where it would be worth the French while to do so. Or we just have the French colonies fail entirely, and Scotland step into the breach. That happened all the time in this period, and in fact happened to the Scots, here it could just be the reverse; luck played as much of a factor as anything else.

the crown did not bear any responsibility or risk unless they where a shareholder or investor in the development of the colony. the Charter members ( private individuals ) bore all the financial risk and obligations of bringing people to the colony to develop it. James the VI has no reason to deviate from this norm, especially given that his kingdom is rather poor and "financially challenged" shall we say relative to the other colonial powers...At best they have the resources of the Swedes perhaps... Unless the Charter interests fail miserably a few times or, as was the case with the French, the colony will not be taken over by a cash poor Scots King as a direct perogative of the Crown.

Good points that we might want to include in an actual timeline, but none of them deal breakers in my opinion.
 
Why is population base being brought into it all the time? At the time of the treaty of union, Scotland had around 25% the population of England without the means to support 25% of the population.

That seems a good base for colonists to me if ever there was one. As to finance, Scotlands relative poverty of 1707 was a direct result of the union of the crowns without the political union. Scotlands traditional trade had been severed in the 17th c. That never does an economy well. Scotland would be in no worse a position than any of the Scandinavian states if the colony is to be established with no union of the crowns.

Beacuse something is a logical objection in 1707 in otl does not make it a logical objection for every point.
 
Last edited:

Glen

Moderator
Why is population base being brought into it all the time? At the time of the treaty of union, Scotland had around 25% the population of England without the means to support 25% of the population.

That seems a good base for colonists to me if ever there was one. As to finance, Scotlands relative poverty of 1707 was a direct result of the union of the crowns without the political union. Scotlands traditional trade had been severed in the 17th c. That never does an economy well. Scotland would be in no worse a position than any of the Scandinavian states if the colony is to be established with no union of the crowns.

Beacuse something is a logical objection in 1707 in otl does not make it a logical objection for every point.

Agreed, agreed.
 
I'd go with Australia too.
Not to hard to colonise and survive, weak natives and out of the way and poor enough that no one would much care.

Along the same lines- a early Falklands or St Helena?
Key places for supplies along the routes around the Americas and Africa.
 
An Australian colony would still be pretty expensive to develop and maintain prior to it becoming largely self sufficient. There were plenty of incidents of active indigenous resistance to the colonisation, which required regular military operations and garrisons for some time.

Would Scotland have those resources or the political will to suckle a colony on the other side of the world for several decades while it became established?
 
Without a POD much, much later on, I don't think a Scots Colony in Australia is going to take off. It's simply too far, relative to the marine technology of the time.

Now, somewhere in South Africa, THAT might be worth looking into. A tropical island in the Indian Ocean on the route to India....?

Even then, I doubt it's possible this early.
 
The South Australian coast as far east of Ceduna was charted in 1627, and Abel Tasman charted the south of Tasmania and part of New Zealand in 1642. So ships were good enough.

As for information, that could be fabricated like the Darrien scheme, sending a bunch or two of colonists off on false pretenses and starting a colony near present day Adelaide.
 
The South Australian coast as far east of Ceduna was charted in 1627, and Abel Tasman charted the south of Tasmania and part of New Zealand in 1642. So ships were good enough.

As for information, that could be fabricated like the Darrien scheme, sending a bunch or two of colonists off on false pretenses and starting a colony near present day Adelaide.

A rerun of the Darien scheme is not a good idea. I get what you are saying, but anything mimicking that fiasco, which more or less ruined Scotland, is a bad idea.

Getting to Australia is doable, although supporting a colony will stretch matters. But you will need a good reason to start colonization. Not nearly as familiar as the Americas are.
 
Top