If the Darien Scheme had been successful

[Ken Johnson]

If the Darien Scheme had been successful, what would Scotland be like today? Would the rest of Europe be any different?

 

[Arkenfolm]

First off, they'd better not settle in one of the worst regions of the Western Hemisphere in terms of making a colony. Even Spain mostly ignored the place. To this day that region isn't connected to South America, nowadays because of environmentalist/cultural concerns, but originally because of how hard making a good road in that region was. Granted, that doesn't mean automatic failure, but planting your colony in the middle of the Spanish Empire in the New World probably means you'll fail.

The investors and others should never have funded it (to an educated modern reader of the idea, it would sound utterly ridiculous), and once it was obvious the idea was risky, pulled their money out and never let the thing go any further.

 

[Krishna123]

my reading of history is that it was the last chance for the merchentile interests in scotland to grap some independence from England (which of course was directed by the english into the stupidist place possible!) after that they poured their money/effort into 'UK' colonies

 

[Napoleonrules]

The Act of Union only came about because of the failure of Darien. If Darien were placed somewhere else, or some how was successful at that location through the god of hand-wavium then there would simply be no Act of Union, no Kingdom of Great Britain despite James' attempt at uniform coinage and flags, even then the Union Jack flag was not uniform until the Act of Union, prior to that the Scottish had the white cross of St Andrews (the X) in front of the red St George's cross. Great Britain would continue to be a dynastic union, and possible that would end with Cromwell's Republic and the Scottish taking the opportunity to simply not return to any English domination. Or possible that the Hanoverian dynasty would not be accepted in Scotland. England can, and would, still dominate Ireland and world history probably wouldn't turn out much different as far as "British" domination.

 

[Napoleonrules]

First off, they'd better not settle in one of the worst regions of the Western Hemisphere in terms of making a colony. Even Spain mostly ignored the place. To this day that region isn't connected to South America, nowadays because of environmentalist/cultural concerns, but originally because of how hard making a good road in that region was. Granted, that doesn't mean automatic failure, but planting your colony in the middle of the Spanish Empire in the New World probably means you'll fail.

The investors and others should never have funded it (to an educated modern reader of the idea, it would sound utterly ridiculous), and once it was obvious the idea was risky, pulled their money out and never let the thing go any further.

I believe the reason it isn't connected to South America is the fact that it is in North America and there's no economic reason to want to be connected to the south when economics show better conditions north (eg- would rather trade with Costa Rica than Colombia)

 

[Autocrat]

The Act of Union only came about because of the failure of Darien. If Darien were placed somewhere else, or some how was successful at that location through the god of hand-wavium then there would simply be no Act of Union, no Kingdom of Great Britain despite James' attempt at uniform coinage and flags, even then the Union Jack flag was not uniform until the Act of Union, prior to that the Scottish had the white cross of St Andrews (the X) in front of the red St George's cross. Great Britain would continue to be a dynastic union, and possible that would end with Cromwell's Republic and the Scottish taking the opportunity to simply not return to any English domination. Or possible that the Hanoverian dynasty would not be accepted in Scotland. England can, and would, still dominate Ireland and world history probably wouldn't turn out much different as far as "British" domination.

The Act of Union didn't only result from the Darien debacle. I mean the Darien disaster occurred in 1699, the Act of Union occurred 8 years later. All Darien did was ruin the Scottish economy and sweep away remaining resistance. Without the Darien incident you will still have the English pushing for the Act of Union and there will still be plenty of Scottish pushing for it as well.

 

[Arkenfolm]

The Act of Union only came about because of the failure of Darien. If Darien were placed somewhere else, or some how was successful at that location through the god of hand-wavium then there would simply be no Act of Union, no Kingdom of Great Britain despite James' attempt at uniform coinage and flags, even then the Union Jack flag was not uniform until the Act of Union, prior to that the Scottish had the white cross of St Andrews (the X) in front of the red St George's cross. Great Britain would continue to be a dynastic union, and possible that would end with Cromwell's Republic and the Scottish taking the opportunity to simply not return to any English domination. Or possible that the Hanoverian dynasty would not be accepted in Scotland. England can, and would, still dominate Ireland and world history probably wouldn't turn out much different as far as "British" domination.

True, but certainly you could pick a better place. The West Coast of North America might produce some better returns through the fur trade, hide and tallow trade, most of the colonists not dying of tropical disease, etc. It isn't like Spain (still the enemy, as in Darien) was remotely competent in California in 1698 since that was the fringe unlike the middle of the Spanish New World. It might do something for the investors if you put it there which will thus alter Scotland and it's ruling class's experience in the soon to be United Kingdom.

I believe the reason it isn't connected to South America is the fact that it is in North America and there's no economic reason to want to be connected to the south when economics show better conditions north (eg- would rather trade with Costa Rica than Colombia)

I don't buy that, especially since it was legally part of Colombia until US influence related to the Panama Canal. A complete "Pan-American Highway" from Alaska to Patagonia held and still holds great potential if you look at from an economic (non-environmental/cultural in regards to the local American Indians) standpoint.

 

[Masked Grizzly]

What would a suitable location for a successful Darien scheme?

If a location in Central America is still possible, would Nicaragua or at minimum the southern part of Nicaragua work given the area's potential as a proposed canal route?

 

[VVD0D95]

The Act of Union only came about because of the failure of Darien. If Darien were placed somewhere else, or some how was successful at that location through the god of hand-wavium then there would simply be no Act of Union, no Kingdom of Great Britain despite James' attempt at uniform coinage and flags, even then the Union Jack flag was not uniform until the Act of Union, prior to that the Scottish had the white cross of St Andrews (the X) in front of the red St George's cross. Great Britain would continue to be a dynastic union, and possible that would end with Cromwell's Republic and the Scottish taking the opportunity to simply not return to any English domination. Or possible that the Hanoverian dynasty would not be accepted in Scotland. England can, and would, still dominate Ireland and world history probably wouldn't turn out much different as far as "British" domination.

That's not actually true. During the reign of Charles ii there were a lot of scots who were looking for the act of union as they'd believed they'd get favourable terms from it.

 

[JonasResende]

True, but certainly you could pick a better place. The West Coast of North America might produce some better returns through the fur trade, hide and tallow trade, most of the colonists not dying of tropical disease, etc. It isn't like Spain (still the enemy, as in Darien) was remotely competent in California in 1698 since that was the fringe unlike the middle of the Spanish New World. It might do something for the investors if you put it there which will thus alter Scotland and it's ruling class's experience in the soon to be United Kingdom.



I don't buy that, especially since it was legally part of Colombia until US influence related to the Panama Canal. A complete "Pan-American Highway" from Alaska to Patagonia held and still holds great potential if you look at from an economic (non-environmental/cultural in regards to the local American Indians) standpoint.

Isn't the west coast of America kinda far from Scotland? But fair enough. Where else could the Scots' establish their outpost? Somewhere in Canada maybe?

 

[Woolly Mammoth]

When I briefly considered a TL on this subject I was going to use one of the West Indies which had been left as 'neutral' by France and England and have the Company of Scotland doing the typical massively profitable but morally abysmal sugar thing.

 

[corditeman]

Scotland provided staff for...

...The Hudson's Bay Company, and could even have been onto a winner there. Established 1670. Had Scotland moved faster on this one, rather than snatching at crumbs in 1695...!

...But the Company of Scotland might have gone for Patagonia, as the Welsh did later. Going for Darien was crazy. Settling Van Diemen's Land might have been more sensible.

 

[Masked Grizzly]

Scotland provided staff for...

...The Hudson's Bay Company, and could even have been onto a winner there. Established 1670. Had Scotland moved faster on this one, rather than snatching at crumbs in 1695...!

...But the Company of Scotland might have gone for Patagonia, as the Welsh did later. Going for Darien was crazy. Settling Van Diemen's Land might have been more sensible.

Quite like the idea of a New World Celtic nation in much of Patagonia, plus possibly some additional Chilean territory to the west of Patagonia south of Temuco.

 

[JonasResende]

Quite like the idea of a New World Celtic nation in much of Patagonia, plus possibly some additional Chilean territory to the west of Patagonia south of Temuco.

There was a TL a couple years ago where James III signs off on the establishment of a colony on the Rio Negro (called the Sauce River for the willow trees TTL), and they establish a Jamestown at OTL Viedma.

However many of the Irish and Scottish settlers found themselves as indentured labourers in Platonia, or settled as a buffer against the ruthless Patagonians further south[6]. Despite several years of devastating raids, more settlers took the place of those lost and soon adapted to the native methods, adopting horses themselves and taking to cattle raising. These “Celtic lancers”, earned the respect of both the Spanish authorities (allowing Spanish colonisation further south) and the natives. When James VIII of Scotland sought to establish a colonial empire, Philip suggested he establish a small settlement at the mouth of the Sauce river[7]. The small settlement, established in 1722, would become known as Jamestown, named after the king and also a reference to the first English colony in America

Could make for interesting times if the Spanish aren't really interested in Patagonia. For now.

 

[Arkenfolm]

Would Patagonia even be profitable? It's mostly good for ranching, in which case the natives will steal or kill all your cattle and possibly you as well. Although I guess if they had good relations with the natives, they might end up lucky and be able to make something out of it, but then what if the Mapuche end up effectively extorting them for protection? Really would hurt the profitability.