Scotland keeps their independence

drporter357

drporter357

King James the 1st came to power as the king of England in 1603 but that meant Scotland lost their indpendence but what if as was being crowned he asked if Scotland could keep their independence. But the now former king was angry and banished Scotland from the UK so in a way they got indpendence from Britan but at same time they were broke and needed a new system so they started a liberal government with the workings of South African and the Canadian government they were pretty set to rule themselves but firstly they had get rid of the British settlers that were already there until they revealed were from the united colonies and were fleeing from british rule as soon they saw the patch of land without the Union Jack flag they thought it was empty and free to use they didn't think about anybody else being on the Island now kown as Scotland but they didn't mind all too much at least there wasn't conflict or war tore them apart.
1656
Part 2
Pirates come a calling
In 1656 The then chancellor James VII gets a letter from the Spanish king Philip II basically saying Hi mate so some German pirates are going to ruin your country and drive you back to british rule now you don't want that do you?
James's reply was Yo dude me and army buddies have got this so chill buddy BRB getting me army back together.
Anyway on Monday the 4th of June 1656 would be the day that whole of Scotland will never forget kown as the South brigade from Germany sooped down and got there riffles from the portside window and jumped from the rafters and down on to the ground I shall leave it there.
 
Last edited:

funnyhat

drporter357 said:
King James the 1st came to power as the king of England in 1603 but that meant Scotland lost their indpendence
Click to expand...
Not exactly. England and Scotland were still separate kingdoms with their own parliaments, they just shared a royal dynasty. Except for a period in the 1650s under Cromwell, they were not united until 1707.
 

Lalli

Not sure if Scotland can keep its independence that way or would such way be even plausible. Probably you need bit different and perhaps earlier POD.

Latest one would be that Elizabeth I Tudor makes clear decision about her successor and it is someone else as James of Scotland. But even better if you take some earlier POD.

But what surviving independent Scotland would look like? I have not much ideas but Scotland hardly can become markable colonial empire. It has too low population and it is too poor. And it would be still overshadowed by England.
 

marktaha

Banned
Independent Scotland- like Ireland in sectarian conflicts, a backwater with its best and brightest moving to England ?
 

30PrincesAndAKing

Lalli said:
Latest one would be that Elizabeth I Tudor makes clear decision about her successor and it is someone else as James of Scotland
Click to expand...
The problem with that is that James is still likely going to think of himself as the 'rightful' successor, and even if he doesn't, James is too appealing a candidate to Elizabeth's privy councilors by 1603 for them to realistically back any other option. Picking James, they get everything they want; picking anyone other than James, and they get war with Scotland on top of most other problems. Even if Liz had picked someone else, there's no guarantee her privy councilors don't just overturn her decision.

Having Ed VI live longer, or having Liz die while Mary's still alive should do the trick, if one wants a late POD (and one that doesn't involve Liz's marriage, given that dead horse has been beaten enough as it is). Without Liz being a problematic figure in the succession, Mary can be free to appoint Catherine Grey or Margaret Douglas as her heir pretty easily (Catherine being the more likely option, but Margaret being Mary's preferred choice). Either way, neither of them are the King of Scots, and Scotland isn't in a position to enforce their claim as easily as James would by the early 17th C.
 

Hugh Third of Five

If you want an independent Scotland, your best bet is to maintain the Aud Alliance or at least prevent the Union of Crowns. I think a POD after James becomes King of England is too late.
 

marktaha

Banned
30PrincesAndAKing said:
The problem with that is that James is still likely going to think of himself as the 'rightful' successor, and even if he doesn't, James is too appealing a candidate to Elizabeth's privy councilors by 1603 for them to realistically back any other option. Picking James, they get everything they want; picking anyone other than James, and they get war with Scotland on top of most other problems. Even if Liz had picked someone else, there's no guarantee her privy councilors don't just overturn her decision.

Having Ed VI live longer, or having Liz die while Mary's still alive should do the trick, if one wants a late POD (and one that doesn't involve Liz's marriage, given that dead horse has been beaten enough as it is). Without Liz being a problematic figure in the succession, Mary can be free to appoint Catherine Grey or Margaret Douglas as her heir pretty easily (Catherine being the more likely option, but Margaret being Mary's preferred choice). Either way, neither of them are the King of Scots, and Scotland isn't in a position to enforce their claim as easily as James would by the early 17th C.
Click to expand...
He was the rightful hereditary successor.
 

30PrincesAndAKing

marktaha said:
He was the rightful hereditary successor.
Click to expand...
Assuming one holds that hereditary right has any intrinsic value beyond what people at the time believed it to possess, then yes.

Constitutionally speaking, James VI's fitness to hold the crown, legally speaking, depends on whether it matters if Henry VIII's will is signed by dry stamp or not. If dry stamping is okay, then either Lord Beauchamp or Anne Stanley is the legal heir. If dry stamping meant the will was legally invalid, then James's claim holds.

But politically speaking, legal legitimacy doesn't matter unless it's an issue with the political elite making the decision. OTL, Elizabeth's ministers didn't give a hoot or a holler about Henry VIII's will, they just wanted a king that felt correct to them.
 

ECavalier

Atterdag said:
In what world is Ireland a backwater. Literally the second-highest HDI in the world.
Click to expand...
I don’t agree with Marktaha because Scotland unlike Ireland has extensive coal and iron deposits alongside a fairly well developed central government (although I think there’s something to be said for the unification of the market in the British Isles being one of the triggers for the industrial revolution which won’t happen here). Still I find the idea that, in the pre-1900 forum, modern Ireland having a high HDI for the past 30 years (and having net population loss to migration for a large part of that) somehow negates the near millennium it spent prior to that exactly as Marktaha describes rather silly.
 
Last edited:
Atterdag

Atterdag

ECavalier said:
Still I find the idea that, in the pre-1900 forum, modern Ireland having a high HDI for the past 30 years (and still have net population loss to migration for a large part of that) somehow negates the near millennium it spent prior to that exactly as Marktaha describes.
Click to expand...
They referred to an independent Ireland in sectarian conflicts, that brings the mind to modern times.
 
Last edited:
Atterdag

Atterdag

The Professor said:
So prior to 1801 then?
What definition of independent is being used?
Click to expand...
Considering that the post I originally replied doesn’t seem to have counted Scotland as independent post James VI’s union, not in a personal union .

Look, I’m sick of this semantic arguments. Their post made me think of modern Ireland, if they meant Ireland in the 17th then fine. I concede.
 
The Professor

The Professor

Atterdag said:
Considering that the post I originally replied doesn’t seem to have counted Scotland as independent post James VI’s union, not in a personal union .

Look, I’m sick of this semantic arguments. Their post made me think of modern Ireland, if they meant Ireland in the 17th then fine. I concede.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry but you are going to get semantics if personal unions count as dependence since by that token England isn't independent either...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top