Scottish Canada

In this scenario, rather than joining with England to become the United Kingdom, Scotland decides to retain its independence and ally itself with France, which provides Scotland unclaimed territory west of France's territories in Canada. How would history be different if Scotland was fed its desire of an overseas empire and retained its independence from England?
 
In this scenario, rather than joining with England to become the United Kingdom, Scotland decides to retain its independence and ally itself with France, which provides Scotland unclaimed territory west of France's territories in Canada. How would history be different if Scotland was fed its desire of an overseas empire and retained its independence from England?

Scotland deciding to keep its independence cannot really happen. There wasn't really a decision so much as a shotgun wedding. So either a successful Darian scheme, or a better idea in the first place. The Scots really didn't have mich of a choice in the act of union it was union of bankruptcy.

Also avoiding James becoming king of both Scotland and England would help - that was the beginning of the end.

The English would not be overly keen on an independent francophile country to their north as it will require them to constantly fear invasion. Border Reavers etc. So Scotland and England will both expand much slower for fear of the other.

Unless Scotland decides to make nice with England too. That's not all that easy, but remaining hostile would not benefit either.

So history would likely be very different. England may still have an empire, but I doubt it would be able to focus completely on expansion with a potential threat on its borders.
 
Scotland deciding to keep its independence cannot really happen. There wasn't really a decision so much as a shotgun wedding. So either a successful Darian scheme, or a better idea in the first place. The Scots really didn't have mich of a choice in the act of union it was union of bankruptcy.

Also avoiding James becoming king of both Scotland and England would help - that was the beginning of the end.

The English would not be overly keen on an independent francophile country to their north as it will require them to constantly fear invasion. Border Reavers etc. So Scotland and England will both expand much slower for fear of the other.

Unless Scotland decides to make nice with England too. That's not all that easy, but remaining hostile would not benefit either.

So history would likely be very different. England may still have an empire, but I doubt it would be able to focus completely on expansion with a potential threat on its borders.

I second this, England would be scared to send there army or navy to far a field in case the Scots invaded while Scotland would be in constant paranoia of the English trying to unite the Isle.

There is not even a way of forming a non-aggression pact as during the early period, most of these pacts were broken in a few years for example the Treaty of London (1518) lasted for a very short time. Wars broke out in a few years including wars between Denmark and Sweden, and between an alliance of England and Spain against France.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Perhaps if the Union was instead a (VERY) loose federation it might work. In other words, where they have some institutions unified but are still treated as separate in other ways - such as colonialism?
 
In this scenario, rather than joining with England to become the United Kingdom, Scotland decides to retain its independence and ally itself with France, which provides Scotland unclaimed territory west of France's territories in Canada. How would history be different if Scotland was fed its desire of an overseas empire and retained its independence from England?

Won't happen. Without a direct route to the sea it is too exposed to political falling out with France.

Besides England controls the other sea routes and an Anglophobic Scotland is not going to keep its North American colonies for long in this scenario (see the Dutch colonies in the 17th century for what would happen)
 
Also, early Canada WAS essentially Scottish. Just look at our earliest Prime Ministers, Premiers, politicians, lawyers, military styling, regiments, minorities, accents, etc.

The Scottish have certainly left their mark upon Canada.
 
In the event that the Auld Alliance holds, England is far more likely to invade Scotland and take it over. Certainly, it would take any colonies Scotland tried to field.

As for a Scotland allied or in personal (but not full political) union, it's certainly possible for them to have their own colonies - but England's not going to give them Upper Canada when they take Canada from France. And, if FRANCE gave Scotland Upper Canada, then the English would take it at the same time they took Lower Canada.

Also, early Canada WAS essentially Scottish. Just look at our earliest Prime Ministers, Premiers, politicians, lawyers, military styling, regiments, minorities, accents, etc.

The Scottish have certainly left their mark upon Canada.
1) what he said
2) 'Nova Scotia'
3) at one point there were more native speakers of Scots Gaelic in Cape Breton than in Scotland
4) why have a couple of dinky little backwater colonies when you can RUN the world's largest Empire?
 
Everyting that Dathi said, plus the fact that France is not going to give up it's fur trade. That's like Canada saying, hey Denmark, how'd you like Alberta?
 
Top