Natal doesn't become part of the Union of South Africa

In 1910, the Cape colony, Orange, Transvaal, and Natal were unted to form the Union of South Africa, the predecessor of today's South African Republic. While most of the white population on the first three provices was composed of Afrikaners, the main white population of Natal was Anglo-African. Natal, like the Cape and unlike the former Boer republics had a income-based suffrage (albeit one less liberal than the one in the Cape, for what I've read); English was it's main "white" language; and it's white population, given their mostly Anglo-African origins, was loyal to the British monarchy, so much that during the republican referendum in 1960, more than 3/4's of the white population there voted against becoming a republic, and there were some ideas for autonomy, and in some cases independence, floating there aftr the referendum. It also mostly voted for the United Party, and their sucessors, the Progressive Federal Party, during Apartheid times.
So, could Natal never had became part of the South African Union, to start? I've seen threads here asking about the possibility of Natal declaring independence after the republican referendum, or about the South African Union never being created. But here I'd ike to ask, as I've already said, if it would have been possible for the South African Union to be formed, but without Natal. And if yes, how would these two state develop apart?
 
Seems rather unlikely the British would march in, do their invasion, then declare that there was a union and everyone needed to take a long Boertrek back to Cape Town to ship out the minerals the British invaded for. Just doesn't seem that cost efficient. Besides, it would mean less of a British base to anchor the two former countries down with, both with railroads and demographics. Not the best of wording, I know.
 
Top