Derek Pullem
Donor
This thread is way too optimistic for UK. It is ignoring WAY, WAY too many close in butterflies. First, you need decide if the UK simply won the ARW or it was avoided. Big, Big difference in TL. Even with a win, you will get different TL from the different win TL. A win because the UK simply decide to keep fighting on land in North American and wins in 1790 is different from a war where the UK prioritized the USA by pulling forces from Asia and the Caribbean. Next, when you change a major global war, the resulting TL is barely recognizable to OTL merely a few decades out. Think about Calbear's WW2 versus our TL where we get issues like the Polish people don't exist anymore and European Russia is basically a big nature preserve with isolated German Farms. And after the USA wins, there will never be a cold war. Or look at the various WW1 TL which rapidly diverge.
Now to some other points. I guess you guys are assuming no ARW due to some modest concession to colonist over the years. If you want a POD - UKWins, you need to state what it was. First item, sure the line of control at the high point of the Appalachian Mountains was a point of friction, but it was a very weak line. All my ancestors were in North America by 1750. They are European. Many of them never lived under UK effective control despite living under what maps identify as UK lands. The line merely slowed immigration. Showed where you got no UK support and very occassionally mostly symbolic raids by redcoats that burn a few houses. These wood houses were easy to rebuild, and at this time people often were moving every decade or so anyway.
Now right after the ARW in OTL, the USA basically stopped taking immigrant flows. ITTL, it continues, maybe at a faster pace. Net, Net, we may well expand faster west than OTL because the population is likely growing faster. Against basically a vacuum. It also has impact on other colonies such as the Aussie ones and NZ. Even if founded, the form up much slower.
In a no war scenario, France has major possession in India. Sri Lanka is dutch. South Africa is likely to stay Dutch. You don't get a OTL British empire plus, what you get is the first British Empire (North America) being the focus of development and to a large extent the second British Empire (South Asia) never being fully born. As one diverts immigrant resources, financial resources, military resources and government focus to North America, it is simply pulled from other areas of the world.
I agree with much of this. The quote in the original post was considering a super British Empire made up of the BNA and India. My point in launching this discussion was trying to imagine the impact on the British Empire of a continuing British North America.
Whilst I do think that a European war is inevitable after the Seven Years War and that this war will result in even more colonies being occupied by Britain or simply seceding like the Spanish and Portuguese colonies, I'm not convinced Britian has the strategic will or resources to administer such a large Empire.
So I think that if the ARW is won or avoided (preferably avoided) then India and Africa will not see as much in resources and attenntion from the UK.