Someone else would have to take it's place. And that someone may be worse. Especially if that someone is France
p).No Acts of Union? Independent Scotland?
- Thread starter Enigmajones
- Start date
Someone else would have to take it's place. And that someone may be worse. Especially if that someone is France
p).And if England spends effort on doing it, they won't be starved out. There's a reason the situation on Edward I's death is closer to Scottish subjugation than on Edward III's, for instance.
And you can't maintain the threat if English armies continue to come north, smash organized resistance, and burn and sack their way across anything they want.
No matter how nationalistic, the Scots can't keep raising rebellion forever in any and all circumstances.
People are going to get tired of losing and dying.
Where are these Frenchmen against say, Edward I?
I know there were some occasions, but it seems more sporadic than persistent to me.
No Act of Union, and all you end up with is a continuation of the union of the crowns. I'll base my views on the assumption that the negotiations come to nothing, but that the Scots don't call in the Old Pretender's services (which was always unlikely in any case).
There's no reason to suppose that Scotland would inevitably fall into a French orbit - those French are Catholics afterall, and is there's one thing an 18th century Scotsman dislikes more than an Englishman, it's a Catholic. Maintaining our significant trade links with continental Europe may be profitable, but in the long run it will be eclipsed by whatever can be made in the Americas.
There's also no reason to suppose inevitable warfare between Scotland and England. The border region had been fairly stable for a good couple of centuries, so there are no major territorial issues. The economy was already being refocussed towards England and the colonies by 1707, and religiously, the two countries weren't irreconcilable.
The only point upon which there could be potential trouble really is the matter of the shared succession, and Scottish smuggling in the English colonies which was pretty endemic. The other thing to consider is that while England can conquer Scotland, she can't hold it without monstrous military expenditure. Which isn't a desirous outcome for either side, particularly given the English penchant for expensive European interventions reliant on Scottish manpower.
What I could conceivably see happening is - provided the Scots maintain the shared succession, and there aren't any other particularly radical changes - at some stage in the mid to late 18th century, you'd end up with some sort of confederation. Both countries would retain their respective parliaments, but there would be some level - possibly a significant level - of co-operation on a military and economic front. Union lite, if you like.
At some point it would simply make economic sense to allow the Scots access to the British Empire - afterall, we fit the bill perfectly as colonists in terms of education, desperation and motivation. It's a small price to pay for permanent trade and border security, assuming the Scots Parliament doesn't make life difficult for itself.
The Scottish Enlightenment will still happen (butterflies notwithstanding). The conditions for it were in place a long time before the union. And the empire will still happen, probably in more or less the same form as it did in OTL.
You might also have an interesting scenario whereby the Jacobite Rebellions are partially butterflied away. Part of the Jacobite manifesto involved repealling the much-despised Act of Union, but if there's no Act of Union to repeal, James VIII has to trade purely on his personality and 'divine' right to the throne, neither of which are likely to fly outside particularly devout Catholic or Episcopalian circles. A much gentler '15, decisively crushed, means there's very little scope for a '45.
There's no reason to suppose that Scotland would inevitably fall into a French orbit - those French are Catholics afterall, and is there's one thing an 18th century Scotsman dislikes more than an Englishman, it's a Catholic. Maintaining our significant trade links with continental Europe may be profitable, but in the long run it will be eclipsed by whatever can be made in the Americas.
There's also no reason to suppose inevitable warfare between Scotland and England. The border region had been fairly stable for a good couple of centuries, so there are no major territorial issues. The economy was already being refocussed towards England and the colonies by 1707, and religiously, the two countries weren't irreconcilable.
The only point upon which there could be potential trouble really is the matter of the shared succession, and Scottish smuggling in the English colonies which was pretty endemic. The other thing to consider is that while England can conquer Scotland, she can't hold it without monstrous military expenditure. Which isn't a desirous outcome for either side, particularly given the English penchant for expensive European interventions reliant on Scottish manpower.
What I could conceivably see happening is - provided the Scots maintain the shared succession, and there aren't any other particularly radical changes - at some stage in the mid to late 18th century, you'd end up with some sort of confederation. Both countries would retain their respective parliaments, but there would be some level - possibly a significant level - of co-operation on a military and economic front. Union lite, if you like.
At some point it would simply make economic sense to allow the Scots access to the British Empire - afterall, we fit the bill perfectly as colonists in terms of education, desperation and motivation. It's a small price to pay for permanent trade and border security, assuming the Scots Parliament doesn't make life difficult for itself.
The Scottish Enlightenment will still happen (butterflies notwithstanding). The conditions for it were in place a long time before the union. And the empire will still happen, probably in more or less the same form as it did in OTL.
You might also have an interesting scenario whereby the Jacobite Rebellions are partially butterflied away. Part of the Jacobite manifesto involved repealling the much-despised Act of Union, but if there's no Act of Union to repeal, James VIII has to trade purely on his personality and 'divine' right to the throne, neither of which are likely to fly outside particularly devout Catholic or Episcopalian circles. A much gentler '15, decisively crushed, means there's very little scope for a '45.
The last really major Anglo-Scots conflict was in the 1540s during the so-called rough wooing - at this point of course France's interest in Scotland was still strong and the resulting treaty led to Mary of Scots marriage to the future Francis II.
A few POD for an independent Scotland in these periods - are
1513 - James IV survives Flodden - continues to produce issue with Margaret Tudor - which provides plenty of male Stewart heirs and removes Margaret Douglas and her heirs from the English Tudor line (Scots law only permitted female inheritance in the extinction of the male line)
1541 - the two young sons of James V survive preventing the succession of a female heir - their sister Mary.
1560s - Mary Stuart remains married to a surviving Francis II - an increasingly dissatisfied Scots Parliament rebel and put the next nearest Hamilton heir on the throne - war with France (with Elizabeth's England supporting Hamilton)
Mary Stuart returns to Scotland as in OTL and dies in childbed along iwth her son - Henry Lord Darnley tries for the crown but loses and the Hamilton's take the throne.
Mary Stuart is deposed as in OTL with her son James VI proclaimed King - the king dies in infancy and one of the Hamiltons prevails.
The lack of a Stuart heir of Margaret Tudor in the English succession will impact at Elizabeth's death in 1603 - with a disputed succession (assuming Margaret Douglas is born - then either a surviving Darnley or his niece Arbella is heir to England)
Under Henry VIII's will which might survive in a changed Scots scenario will mean - either the declared illegitimate son of Catherine Grey Edward Seymour (b1561) or the nearest legitimate descendant of Mary Tudor - Lady Anne Stanley (b1580)
A few POD for an independent Scotland in these periods - are
1513 - James IV survives Flodden - continues to produce issue with Margaret Tudor - which provides plenty of male Stewart heirs and removes Margaret Douglas and her heirs from the English Tudor line (Scots law only permitted female inheritance in the extinction of the male line)
1541 - the two young sons of James V survive preventing the succession of a female heir - their sister Mary.
1560s - Mary Stuart remains married to a surviving Francis II - an increasingly dissatisfied Scots Parliament rebel and put the next nearest Hamilton heir on the throne - war with France (with Elizabeth's England supporting Hamilton)
Mary Stuart returns to Scotland as in OTL and dies in childbed along iwth her son - Henry Lord Darnley tries for the crown but loses and the Hamilton's take the throne.
Mary Stuart is deposed as in OTL with her son James VI proclaimed King - the king dies in infancy and one of the Hamiltons prevails.
The lack of a Stuart heir of Margaret Tudor in the English succession will impact at Elizabeth's death in 1603 - with a disputed succession (assuming Margaret Douglas is born - then either a surviving Darnley or his niece Arbella is heir to England)
Under Henry VIII's will which might survive in a changed Scots scenario will mean - either the declared illegitimate son of Catherine Grey Edward Seymour (b1561) or the nearest legitimate descendant of Mary Tudor - Lady Anne Stanley (b1580)
It would be interesting to see how the Highland-Lowland clash would come to a head in this situation. Could get a lot messier with a more insecure and paranoid lowland population due to not having England to rely on.
Assuming some really early POD yet convergant history- this could really impact on people's idea that England would find it impossible to conquer Scotland (a gross exageration to begin with).
With 19th century romantic nationalism the lowlanders could well begin to see themselves far more as England's fellow anglo-saxons than the old fashioned Scottish identity which ties them to the gaels in the north.
Assuming some really early POD yet convergant history- this could really impact on people's idea that England would find it impossible to conquer Scotland (a gross exageration to begin with).
With 19th century romantic nationalism the lowlanders could well begin to see themselves far more as England's fellow anglo-saxons than the old fashioned Scottish identity which ties them to the gaels in the north.
My guess is that there'd be an empire, sadly, but it'd be necessarily decidedly smaller and slower growing. Maybe Gibraltar, North America, and some rich islands? India'd be right out. There'd also be a small Scottish Empire, of course.
IOTL, the UK COULD afford to put virtually all its elite and most of it men into the Navy. ITTL, if they tried that, they'd lose serious turf. That'd also mean their navy'd be smaller and not dominant, like the Dutch or French navy, because there're only so many men to go around.
Though, OTOH, if our revolution wasn't butterflied, they'd sadly do better against us.
IOTL, the UK COULD afford to put virtually all its elite and most of it men into the Navy. ITTL, if they tried that, they'd lose serious turf. That'd also mean their navy'd be smaller and not dominant, like the Dutch or French navy, because there're only so many men to go around.
Though, OTOH, if our revolution wasn't butterflied, they'd sadly do better against us.
Vastly slower progression of science, no Australia, New Zealand, Canada or U.S, Europe under despotic absolute rule, no industrialisation of India or Africa, slower industrial revolution, no common law in the third world, no abolition of slavery...
Because only with the British Empire would any of those things for the good happen, or any of those things for the bad be averted.
Yeah, none of that would happen as of OTL, but frankly I highly doubt that the world was saved by England's enlightening abilities. Excluding the bits about the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand (which aren't necessarily better for the world as a whole), none of that is absolutely true. The lack of a British Empire means no domination of the world by the British, which in my opinion doesn't sound so bad for an ATL.
But is the obvious alternative - which is probably domination of the world by the French (Britain's big OTL rival, in other words) - an improvement?
Yeah, my point was that domination by Britain is preferable to domination by any of the other contenders.
And that since Britain had the lucky confluence of starting the industrial revolution while simultaneously starting empire, removing the empire is definitely going to retard global scientific and industrial progress. It's very unlikely India and Africa in particular would be as developed as OTL. Without the Raj, India would be a competing mass of various principalities to this day, and Africa historically was at pretty much early Iron-age technology just prior to colonisation.
It's possible to imagine a fairytale land where no British empire develops and somehow the world ends up better - but eliminating the empire without doing anything else is guaranteed to lead to absolutist rule by either France or one of the German states in Europe, empires based on slavery and exploitation rather than free trade, and a lower technology level than OTL.
And that since Britain had the lucky confluence of starting the industrial revolution while simultaneously starting empire, removing the empire is definitely going to retard global scientific and industrial progress. It's very unlikely India and Africa in particular would be as developed as OTL. Without the Raj, India would be a competing mass of various principalities to this day, and Africa historically was at pretty much early Iron-age technology just prior to colonisation.
It's possible to imagine a fairytale land where no British empire develops and somehow the world ends up better - but eliminating the empire without doing anything else is guaranteed to lead to absolutist rule by either France or one of the German states in Europe, empires based on slavery and exploitation rather than free trade, and a lower technology level than OTL.
Why is it going to retard global scientific and industrial progress?
And why is India going to inevitably going to remain divided?
As for Africa, why is it going to be worse off with nonBritish colonies?
Empires based on slavery and exploitation . . . sounds exactly like the British Empire.
Not slavery after a while (but certainly initially), but certainly exploitation.
And that absolutist rule will continue without the British Empire . . . I wasn't aware that the Bourbons were overthrown by Britain.
I'm not saying I think the absence of the British Empire would be a good thing, but the idea that it's replacements would definitely be worse is hard to swallow considering what Britain did abroad.
Last edited:
I can see it either way. A lot depends on why no British Empire and what kind of replacements.
"French" is not enough to go on - what happens in France? What happens in Britain (or England, considering this is without the union with Scotland)?
Thats also a point of mine, without Scotland, yes England will be less powerful, but it will still certainly not to be fucked with. A leveled playing field, giving the Dutch, French and Spanish a chance to compete with the English. Scotland and France are bound to remain allied, given their shared enmity of the English, and the Spanish and French will likely retain their dominance of the West Indies. I imagine New France and English America will both end up doings well, so America still may be formed, but it won't be the Anglo-dominated one of our world, as Im unsure if Britain minus Scotland could pull off a dominance of French territory as they did in OTL. Of course there also hundreds of other factors that I will leave to experts of the period, as this is far from my area of expertise.
About as much of a chance as they did OTL. Scotland - as distinct from the Scots - adds relatively little to England+Wales (& Ireland).
When is the POD? Scottish enmity towards England as of Elizabeth is waning, not waxing.
Why is it going to retard global scientific and industrial progress?
And why is India going to inevitably going to remain divided?
As for Africa, why is it going to be worse off with nonBritish colonies?
Empires based on slavery and exploitation . . . sounds exactly like the British Empire.
Not slavery after a while (but certainly initially), but certainly exploitation.
And that absolutist rule will continue without the British Empire . . . I wasn't aware that the Bourbons were overthrown by Britain.
I'm not saying I think the absence of the British Empire would be a good thing, but the idea that it's replacements would definitely be worse is hard to swallow considering what Britain did abroad.
Global scientific process will be slowed because the scientific method won't spread as quickly. The British empire built settler colonies and schooled the people it occupied - look at Hong Kong or Singapore. Its pretty much a certainty that even the idea of science actually happening will be less widespread without Empire.
Industrialy, the U.K pursued free trade whilst every other empire bar the Dutch sought monopoly state power over resources. Its pretty much a given that a spanish or French version of empire will have lower industrial growth - as they did historically.
India will remain divided because "India" doesn't exist except as lines on a map - at this time its a motley selection of Rajputs and petty Sultans with the Mughals looming over the north. The most you'll do without the Raj is a couple of large Hindu states to the southeast and a couple of Muslim ones in the Northwest.
Africa never showed any signs of pregressing past the early iron age at best and stone age at worst. Its not impossible that africa would develop some states with native industry, but its extremely unlikely - and french or spanish controlled africa isn't going to see as much investment - no settler colonies like South Africa, and a lower emphasis on trade means the continent is unlikely to be linked together as it was historically.
As for absolutist rule - the British parliament is the "Mother of parliaments". Only a few countries have the cultural heritage of freemen assemblies to develop into democracies, and of these only the U.K had the teeth to defend this against incursion. Europe would most likely be ruled by a dictator or monarch of either French or German extraction without a wealthy, strong britain that spreads enlightenment ideas, and creates the US to develop liberal democracy.
What the British empire did abroad was nasty by modern standards, but for it's day it was probably the most benign power ever to have developed.
The obvious result there then is to do an Edward I and build some castles that are accessible by sea in key areas. The main challenge of course being to hold the land for the castles long enough to bring in the material needed and build them.