How would a non-unified Britain have fared in the 18th century

There are probably many ways to achieve this. Perhaps England stays Catholic for longer than it did, or maybe the French-Scottish alliance holds. Perhaps the English Civil War becomes a protracted conflict in which Scotland manages to stay a monarchy while England eventually becomes a true republic. Whatever scenario leads to this disunion, countries like France, Spain, and China would probably end up benefiting. Would this hypothetical English empire be much smaller than the British Empire ended up being? Would Scotland manage to become an independent power, perhaps integrating Ireland in the 19th century?
 
England wouldn't be a world power, I'm guessing. Just a island off the coast of France that has a small collection of colonies in North America. It might even lose control of some of them to more powerful nations, seeing England having to keep a standing army to guard against Scotland.
 
Did Scotland or Ireland significantly contribute to industrialization and the process of primitive accumulation of capital? Honest question, I don’t know. If not, I don’t see why England shouldn’t still become the centre of world capitalism in the 19th century.

It’s not like Scotland wasn’t a security concern in the 18th century after unification, what with all the Stuart loyalists. I’d say it was even worse after unification, as a relatively minor foreign threat that could be neutralized with good relations became an internal security problem directly involved with English dynastic politics.
 
Did Scotland or Ireland significantly contribute to industrialization and the process of primitive accumulation of capital? Honest question, I don’t know. If not, I don’t see why England shouldn’t still become the centre of world capitalism in the 19th century.

It’s not like Scotland wasn’t a security concern in the 18th century after unification, what with all the Stuart loyalists. I’d say it was even worse after unification, as a relatively minor foreign threat that could be neutralized with good relations became an internal security problem directly involved with English dynastic politics.
It's not that they contributed, per see, but an independent Ireland and especially an independent Scotland was something that the English would constantly have to have defense contingencies against. Not needing to devote significant resources to defending their northern border or the Irish Sea on a constant basis allowed the English/British to use those resources to expand without any real enemies in their rear...not dissimilar to how Russia was able to expand all the way to the Pacific without little more than Central Asia and Siberian groups in their way.
 
It doesn't strictly prevent England from being a world power, as if you look at Europe, compare it to other continents, all the 19th century great powers were pretty small in territorial size and population if you compare them with regional powers throughout history. Overall, if the economic situation is tuned such that England has a trade surplus with Scotland and Ireland, then it's not too important that they don't control either directly. They can still block invasions from the continent, just less effectively than in OTL.

However, if France's population grows at a higher rate than OTL it's more feasible for them to launch Napoleonic-style campaigns. Considering how close the "Second" French Empire (as in second colonial empire 1830-1950s, rather than the empire of Napoleon III) was to matching the British, then there is a serious chance of France launching a major invasion of England with the assistance of Scotland. This, though, is only if France doesn't go through a counterrevolutionary era slowing them down.
 
To be honest, how this happens is probably most important for sending England on a path away from an "English Century" (in 19th century in place of OTL British dominance). More than the contribution of not having X amount of extra people, or the immediate military implications. If you're going back and removing Act of Union in early 18th century, much less change than if House of Stuart never ascends to thrones of both Scotland and England. The earlier the change, the more possible the butterflies can change the economic fundamentals, which are what really drive the change and happened in England in the volume that made them matter (despite earlier antecedents in the Netherlands and Scotland).

Though immediate military implications which hold anyway would be that England has to focus more on the army to ward against Scotland and spend more on the army; this could have benefits (they end up better at armies than they were; practice makes perfect, a lack of opposing states probably blunted military innovation in England, and that would just add to their success) or downsides (standing armies can threaten democratic process, cost money). But even a stronger British army as a "positive" scenario would amplify tensions in the continent...

Ireland probably remains a relatively poor, less "developed" society but England and Scotland not involved in it?
 
England, before the unification of the British Isles and after, was home to the majority of the population and an even larger proportion of the wealth of the archipelago. Even in a worst-case scenario, with Ireland and Scotland client-states of the hostile French, England would have the potential. Much depends on how England evolves.
 
England would still be worldpower. The largest population centres were in England after all rather than Scotland. But the situation would be worse. Scotland and Ireland are still in danger of being an enemy base.
 

Kaze

Banned
Did Scotland or Ireland significantly contribute to industrialization and the process of primitive accumulation of capital? Honest question, I don’t know. If not, I don’t see why England shouldn’t still become the centre of world capitalism in the 19th century.

It’s not like Scotland wasn’t a security concern in the 18th century after unification, what with all the Stuart loyalists. I’d say it was even worse after unification, as a relatively minor foreign threat that could be neutralized with good relations became an internal security problem directly involved with English dynastic politics.


Yes - they did contribute to industrialization. Where do you think they got the labor force to work in the factories that spewed smog all over London and other cities? An Irishman or Scot would work cheaper than that of a native Londoner - that is one of the reasons why in the literature of the period many Irishmen and Scots were placed in the role of designated "evil mustache twirling villain". As for the Welsh - well, Wales was known for coal mines, tin mines, and iron mines - they worked there until the mines gave out and the Empire was forced to expand to find coal, iron, and tin and the colonies.
 
Yes - they did contribute to industrialization. Where do you think they got the labor force to work in the factories that spewed smog all over London and other cities? An Irishman or Scot would work cheaper than that of a native Londoner - that is one of the reasons why in the literature of the period many Irishmen and Scots were placed in the role of designated "evil mustache twirling villain". As for the Welsh - well, Wales was known for coal mines, tin mines, and iron mines - they worked there until the mines gave out and the Empire was forced to expand to find coal, iron, and tin and the colonies.

You might still get Irish and Scots immigration to England ITTL -- if there are better economic opportunities to be found abroad, people will generally move there (cf. the United States during the 19th century).
 
Yes - they did contribute to industrialization. Where do you think they got the labor force to work in the factories that spewed smog all over London and other cities? An Irishman or Scot would work cheaper than that of a native Londoner - that is one of the reasons why in the literature of the period many Irishmen and Scots were placed in the role of designated "evil mustache twirling villain". As for the Welsh - well, Wales was known for coal mines, tin mines, and iron mines - they worked there until the mines gave out and the Empire was forced to expand to find coal, iron, and tin and the colonies.
Sorry, this is all a bit misguided. The labour force and people, in general, was a lot less mobile in the 18th century. The smog over London was later, and it was not caused by factories. It was domestic coal fires. The empire was not built on cheap labour from Ireland and Scotland. The ruling landowners treated all worker equally badly. Whatever was available outside of England, that was needed to run an empire would have been bought. The Scots and Irish landowners, even if independent, would still interested in making money. The mines were not worked out. It was Margret Thacher that closed the mines, many still have plenty of coal.
 
Last edited:
England emerged as a great power during the Elizabethan age - it intervened long-term and successfully in the Netherlands (and somewhat less successfully in Britanny), it was able eventually to establish a controlling position in Ireland independent of the nobility there, and it subordinated Scotland so much that the idea of James VI invading England was pretty fantastic even to the people of the time.

If we then build on this, we could see an Arabellan Succession in England, with James remaining in Scotland. Arabella in favour would have made a different marriage than historically, a lot earlier, and a lot better. James would probably have said a lot, shaken his spears, but not done anything at least while he was essentially the reserve heir.

Once Arabella and her husband start to have a family, James needs to accept his new position, or fight.

A lot will depend on what Arabella and her husband have achieved in the meantime. He would be a Protestant, perhaps co-king, and bring whatever family connection to the support of the Arabellan monarchy.

I find it difficult just to teleport the discussion into the 18th century without considering the entirety of the 17th
 
It was Margret Thacher that closed the mines, many still have plenty of coal.

There is a difference between having coal and having coal that is profitable to mine. Unless Thatcher did something that greatly increased the cost of coal mining (which I doubt) coal mining would have continued. From what I gather she made it easier to close unprofitable or very marginally profitable mines.
 
One thing that could change in this scenario is that the culture of England could become more militaristic. It could become like an island version of Prussia. You could argue the Navy would become more important due to the weaker position against France, but in actuality what usually happened was that the English tried to conquer Scotland and Ireland. However, France would be a counterbalance to anything like that happening. A defensive posture would be more realistic. This defensive strategy could be based on, for once, an army not of fuedal levies but of drafted individuals fighting for the entire country. A New Model Army of sorts, though probably one less expansion-based.
 
One thing that could change in this scenario is that the culture of England could become more militaristic. It could become like an island version of Prussia. You could argue the Navy would become more important due to the weaker position against France, but in actuality what usually happened was that the English tried to conquer Scotland and Ireland. However, France would be a counterbalance to anything like that happening. A defensive posture would be more realistic. This defensive strategy could be based on, for once, an army not of fuedal levies but of drafted individuals fighting for the entire country. A New Model Army of sorts, though probably one less expansion-based.

The Elizabethan army in the Netherlands was professional. It is really intriguing how people know so little about it.
 
The Elizabethan army in the Netherlands was professional. It is really intriguing how people know so little about it.

From what I've heard, it was actually pretty rubbish -- it was usually very under-paid, so it wasn't unknown for garrisons to accept bribes in return for turning their forts over to the Spaniards.
 
From what I've heard, it was actually pretty rubbish -- it was usually very under-paid, so it wasn't unknown for garrisons to accept bribes in return for turning their forts over to the Spaniards.

Rubbish??? It fought and held off the best army in Europe in the Netherlands
 
There is a difference between having coal and having coal that is profitable to mine. Unless Thatcher did something that greatly increased the cost of coal mining (which I doubt) coal mining would have continued. From what I gather she made it easier to close unprofitable or very marginally profitable mines.
I'm not sure why you needed to add this. My response was to the idea that coal mines were worked out in the 18th century. The history of coal mining is well documented and is demise was a political decision. However, Thatcher actually did the right thing. I would not ask any man to work in a mine and burning coal is very bad for the environment.
 

Derek Pullem

Kicked
Donor
Well Scotland would have been bankrupted by the Darien venture and would not have been a credible threat as an economic (and probably as a military) power to England thereafter. To have an independent Ireland would presumably mean no Cromwellian invasion backed up by the Ulster Scots being seen as Scotland's problem. Presumably either Elizabeth has a child or an agreement is reached between James II and William & Mary to get to this point.

I can't honestly see it impacting England' development that much. What it might mean is that Hanover gets detached earlier from the English crown if we've gone the Sophia of Hanover route as protecting England from any Scottish interference will probably rank higher than intervening in Europe.

Might actually mean that England focuses even more on naval and colonial matters - might possibly lead to less intervention against Napoleon if events continue broadly as OTL. Not sure how North America will pan out - could make an argument for many outcomes. Possibly most likely would be an accommodation of some sorts with the colonies given the distractions and past alt-history of the British Isles.
 
Top