TL: The UK Overseas Regions

Part 1

Devvy

Donor
And so begins a shortish timeline...
------------------------
1632149237045.png

The Eden Premiership (Conservative, 1955-1960, won election 1955)

The United Kingdom today owes a significant part of it's heritage to the efforts of Anthony Eden. In 1956, Gamal Abdel Nasser nationalised the Suez Canal - as legally allowed, if controversial - and set in to play a series of events for the United Kingdom. Although recognising Egypt's right to nationalise the canal, as long as the flow of traffic was not interfered with and the charging process remained reasonable, Eden was wary of Nasser. In to this mix were the Malta integration talks, headed by the Maltese Dom Mintoff, who was frequently unpredictable. Much of the discussions were financial & economic in subject; Mintoff's desire for economic parity with the UK met with British hesitance over writing a blank cheque every year to Malta. Social programmes would be expensive to fund in Malta due to demographics, whilst the tax earned would be far smaller.

Outline agreement had been found in 1956, and the Maltese national referendum on the matter backed the proposal; just roughly 75% of voters did so to join the UK. In terms of the electorate, just over 51% voted to join the UK, 15% voted against integration, and just over 34% didn't vote - either not caring or abstaining. Integration would see Malta become part of the UK along similar lines to Northern Ireland; a full part of the country, electing MPs to Westminster and a local "Maltese Assembly" taking care of local affairs. In light of the experiences of Northern Ireland, several powers were reserved to Westminster, primarily around the economy given the expected expense of Maltese integration.

Although Eden had decided to not take military action in Egypt regarding the Suez Canal, mindful of the effects of pushing many other Arab countries towards outright nationalism or communism or triggering a wider conflict, the affair had laid clear the separate interests of the United States and the United Kingdom, the former of whom had made abundantly clear it's rejection of any military action and hinted at counter-action if Britain did so. The action highlighted the requirement to be prepared for conflict either in the Atlantic or in the Mediterranean, whilst also maintaining the imperial presence East of Suez. A home base in Malta, outright owned and operated by the Royal Navy would tie in with this objective well, whilst also sitting not far from Egypt where a conflict could quickly arise over transit rights in the canal. The words of Eisenhower, warning Eden not to invade Egypt and failure to back up the UK - who thought they were a key US ally - soured UK-US relations, creating a rift between the two allies.

And so in 1959, Malta acceded to the United Kingdom - then a unique event, and unparalleled since 1801 when Ireland was merged in to the United Kingdom alongside Great Britain for better or worse. Over the next 15 years, Malta would be gradually invested in and economic parity targeted with at least the lower UK regions. The 1958 Act of Union, passed in both Westminster and Valetta merged Malta in to the United Kingdom, although for the first time since the English-Welsh legal union in the 16th century, the flag would remain unchanged. Malta was assigned three constituencies for the sake of elections to Westminster; Gozo, Malta North and Malta South, and a 12 year transition period (having begun in 1958 with the Acts of Union) would work to economically integrate Malta in to the United Kingdom and achieve rough equivalence with Great Britain (in terms of purchasing power parity).

The 1960 election would be the first to elect 3 MPs from the Maltese constituencies. Eden had recognised early on that Malta would likely be Labour leaning, and the alliance of the Maltese Labour Party with the UK-wide Labour party confirmed suspicions that all 3 constituencies would return Labour MPs - at least initially. The electoral fight was for Eden's successor, Macmillan, to conduct however, and the booming economy in the late 1950s led the electorate to return the Conservative Government - but with a far reduced majority.


The Macmillan Premiership (Conservative, 1960-1963, won election 1960)

The Macmillan Premiership, despite winning the 1960 election, had a reduced majority, and the working majority was quickly too narrow during crunch votes. Despite this, Macmillan was responsible for two major steps in British foreign policy. Firstly, was the decision to back investment in the Royal Navy in the inter-service rivalries of the late 1950s & early 1960s; the US decision to cancel the Skybolt missile in 1962 meant that the air launched nuclear missile strategy the Royal Air Force had been planning on was set back. In addition to this, rapidly improving radar and surface-to-air missiles meant that the chances of getting a bomber through enemy lines was rapidly diminishing. The concentration on the Royal Navy fed in to the procurement of the Polaris missiles, allowing the British nuclear deterrent to be carried by the Royal Navy - a fleet of 5 nuclear powered, nuclear deterrent armed, submarines. The cancellation of the RAF TSR2 aircraft due to the lack of air nuclear missiles and rising costs meant that the Royal Navy's aircraft carrier projects could continue as well, the later-named Indominatable-class aircraft carrier.

The other notable step by Macmillan was the "Wind of Change" speech, given by Macmillan. The speech noted a growing desire for autonomy in Britain's colonial empire, and desire to be more than just colonial subjects of the British Empire. In the UK government, there was a desire to temper and weaken left wing pro-Sovietism in anti-colonial groups, whilst African nationalism in particular continued to grow, following the example of newly independent (in 1957) Ghana (formerly the British Gold Coast). "Autonomy and then Dominionhood or Integration" was the paraphrased message in later years, although the comment about integration was only in response to a question about the decolonisation of Malta, conveniently forgotten in the later summaries. The speech was seen to advocate for introducing and increasing the levels of self-rule in colonies and this was introduced to many British colonies, especially in Africa, during the short Premiership, settings wheels in motion which would lead to several independent nations later in the 1960s; Federation of East Africa, Nigeria, Zambia (*1), Malawi (*1), but not all were successful. The desired West Indies Federation would fall apart in 1965 after only 7 years of operation due to political infighting, with Jamaica dropping out half way through in 1962 to gain independence itself.

Domestically, Macmillan was notable for the passing of the "UK Immigration Act", which began the first limitations on Commonwealth immigration in to the UK. This entrenched attitudes in Malta towards UK integration - a fair number of Maltese left Malta for the UK in search of job opportunities in the booming British economy, and increased the attraction of "full UK membership". Macmillan fell in 1962 in the raucous Parliamentary atmosphere following the Immigration Act passing in to law and a sex scandal involving Profumo, a Government minister. A string of by-election defeats left Macmillan struggling to pass contentious legislation without the backbenchers almost 100% in line with him to enact his agenda, and Macmillan called for an election in 1963, but during the election period news came out about Profumo's affair - despite denying it earlier, news leaked it had indeed occurred. 12 years of Conservative rule came to an end as Gaitskell, waiting in the wings for many years, eventually led Labour to power.

(*1) Both now part of East Africa.

--------------------------
Inspired by a few threads about UK Overseas Regions! (link) - thank you Reflection....

PoD: Eden, during 1953, had surgery which caused issues resulting in him later taking drugs/amphetamines which some think impaired his judgement (particularly on the Suez Crisis). I'll go with this; Malta finds itself within the United Kingdom due to better negotiations with Mintoff, in part due to no Suez Crisis which causes the Maltese base to continue as Britain's eyes over transit through the Suez Canal.

I want to try and keep focused on the United Kingdom itself, but the impact of no Suez is quite the butterfly, and given comments on various threads on this very board about the potential consequences, a more stable Africa (a la East African Federation) is on the cards, but also a continuation of the belief and/or actions of "great power" UK considering it hasn't had it's wings clipped by Suez, which also caused quite an economic hit on the British economy. So here, the UK is a touch more powerful and thus able to integrate Malta *cough* and others *cough cough*.
 
Part 2

Devvy

Donor
The Gaitskell Premiership (Labour, 1963-1971, won elections 1963, 1966, 1970)

1632257780594.png

The close border between Gibraltar and Spain.

Gaitskell swept to power in 1963, and stayed in power until ill health forced him to retire in 1971. Attempting to rehabilitate the Macmillan's new immigration laws as "nationality and not racially based", he was responsible for several liberal social reforms, including new racial discrimination laws. A gulf with Rhodesia, attempting to unilaterally break away over race relations in the colony, demonstrated a considerable lack of capability of the armed forces however compared to Gaitskell's objectives of more active intervention against the white minority administration. It laid out the context for the 1970 Defence White Paper, setting out future requirements for the armed forces, although the inability to easily act in Rhodesia as Gaitskell wished is now thought to be one of the events which lead to further disputes in future.

Under pressure domestically from his Labour MPs - whether on reasons of principle, financial or other, many other countries proceeded towards increased autonomy or sovereignty - East Africa and Nigeria both finally became Dominions within the Commonwealth, whilst several other smaller states (often in the Pacific) moved towards what was called "dependency" status - the UK only providing defence, foreign affairs and ensuring "good governance". The British Empire accordingly shrunk and the British Commonwealth swelled in membership, but this was predominately larger countries, whilst smaller territories remained dependant on the United Kingdom, usually for financial reasons with small populations, whilst it was also often seen as undesirable and diluting in the Commonwealth to admit a large number of tiny states. Despite this "triumph" of independence of new nations and Dominions, the presence of large and powerful countries on the Commonwealth made it more difficult for the UK to maintain it's figurehead position; the old guard (often now known as the "White Commonwealth") were frequently opposed by the new powerful members, eager to realise their national policy objectives. The likes of India and Pakistan, who often focused on racial issues within the Commonwealth, were swiftly joined by Nigeria and East Africa (although South Africa had left in 1961), all large and significant member states. Economic and foreign relations inevitably began to change from the historic imperial relations, to new geographical neighbours; a focus on opposing Apartheid in South Africa. The UK-French relationship also began a new chapter, with joint technological projects to split costs forming early on. Concorde, the early stages of the Channel Tunnel, and several joint military projects all owe their genesis to co-operation at this time, even if some never made it to fruition.

Within the UK, the sovereignty dispute between the UK and Spain over Gibraltar continued to escalate with Spain attempting to make the border difficult, difficulties over telecoms and other actions. This led to a counter-reaction from Gibraltarians, who despite UK politicians making clear that Malta was a sui generis case, saw a large upswing in support for UK integration on so-called "Ulster Model". The new Chief Minister, Robert Peliza, sought to emulate Malta and rapidly sought negotiations over integration of Gibraltar in to the United Kingdom. In later years, Franco was said to have gone ballistic when he found out, but was unable to do much about it other then trigger a conflict with the UK - and then by extension with NATO, given Gibraltar's position in Europe, within NATO's geographical scope. Franco was left to diplomatically protest, fully close the border between Spain and Gibraltar, as well as refuse air space permission for planes to/from Gibraltar airport - which simply redirected over Portugal instead en route to Great Britain, adding some time but eliminating any air space issues. Some questioned the Treaty of Utrecht, which had granted Gibraltar to Britain, but it merely noted that Gibraltar was ceded by Spain "to the Crown of Great Britain" (preceding union between Great Britain and Ireland); Gibraltar would still be under the same crown, just in a different constitutional capacity.

The small population in Gibraltar - about 26,000 in 1965 - made negotiations between the United Kingdom and Gibraltar far easier, along with the important Royal Navy base guarding the entry to the Mediterranean. Despite all the legislation and statements of Gaitskell's premiership, the small and largely British-apparent population (English language, English surnames, and mostly white) likely eased the political hurdles to integration of "the Rock", and full integration would be rapidly completed, in time for Gaitskell to see it himself and declare Gibraltar fully integrated. The move, beyond that of the "unique position of Malta" began a series of dominoes however that would see major ramifications for the United Kingdom. Sir James Mancham in Seychelles, joined a constitutional conference over the future of the small islands in the Indian Ocean, with a desire for integration. In some ways, this freed up a quandary for the British military; ideas had been floated about creating a military base, shared with the United States, in remote islands of the Mauritius. However, if the Seychelles were to become part of the United Kingdom, then the politics became far easier as the islands would be directly subordinate to Westminster law, whilst also providing a remote base for the far, far end of the Suez Canal to secure shipping routes and defend the new UK territory. Aldabra and/or Assumption Island were the targets, but environmental & political pressure led to plans to be scaled back to solely Assumption Island. The use of Assumption Island became included in the integration agreements for the Seychelles, and was duly voted through Mancham's Seychellois Government in 1969. Despite the majority non-white Seychelles people - more an issue in 1960s Britain - Westminster voted to likewise accept the terms of integration, largely on the small population (circa 50,000), defence policy requirements for an Indian Ocean base of operations and enthusiastic proposal from Sir James Mancham.

One of the Gaitskell's later works at Prime Minister were the guidelines for any future territory seeking UK integration. Formed in the aftermath of a foreign policy speech regarding criticism of the UK integration of Malta and the Seychelles as "new colonialism", Gaitskell refuted the accusation. "Colonies are subject to the exploitative rule of external nations. Malta is no colony, the Seychelles are no colony, just as Northern Ireland or Yorkshire are not colonies; all are full parts of the United Kingdom, and part of the democratic process. If Malta makes clear her desire for integration in to the UK with elections and a referendum, who is anyone to tell them they are democratically wrong and a colony once more?" On the back of this, Gaitskell put forth that any future territories wishing for integration should not upset the demographics of the home islands, should be "culturally compatible" and should not be a significant financial burden. This was a balancing act; Gaitskell knew that the United Kingdom wouldn't affect any massive changes to the electoral power of the home nations, whilst several overseas territories were complaining of racism in "allowing the white colonies in, and ignoring the black colonies".

---------------------------
Notes: Serious butterflies creeping in now, with Gaitskell living longer (a 1953/1956 PoD surely means he stands a chance of lupus at least developing very differently?).

Malta, Gibraltar and Seychelles have all integrated in to the UK. The UK has accepted all three due to a) smallish populations (Gibraltar and Seychelles especially), and b) defence policy. All three have had serious integration proposals in OTL around this time. The addition of these three territories means a) the UK military has a far wider scope to defend UK home territory, and so needs further investment, and b) the significant military installations at each serve as a significant economic subsidy to each of the regions. No Suez has meant that Britain didn't get the economic punch it got in OTL, and still sees itself as the powerful, liberal and democratic mother nation of the world; why couldn't you allow a few small territories to integrate to further the British interest?
 
Huh this is interesting watched, have to wonder where else they will try to integrate maybe Guyana Or NewFoundland?
 
Last edited:
Huh this is interesting watched, have to wonder where else they will try to integrate maybe Guyana Or NewFoundland?

If the POD is around mid 50's, surely it's already too late for Newfoundland?

The only possible colonies that could be integrated into the UK are those with low population and those with only a minority leaning for independence, I think it's hard by this point to convince, say, Singapore and Guyana to stay even as "dependencies".
 
If the POD is around mid 50's, surely it's already too late for Newfoundland?

The only possible colonies that could be integrated into the UK are those with low population and those with only a minority leaning for independence, I think it's hard by this point to convince, say, Singapore and Guyana to stay even as "dependencies".
Singapore in the late 1950's is part of Malaysia so is already independent. There might be a chance in 1965 when they break away but I say that's very unlikely.
 
If the POD is around mid 50's, surely it's already too late for Newfoundland?

The only possible colonies that could be integrated into the UK are those with low population and those with only a minority leaning for independence, I think it's hard by this point to convince, say, Singapore and Guyana to stay even as "dependencies".
Sorry to say, but the only British colonies that could be integrated are a bunch of Caribbean and Pacific islands along with Belize except Brunei & Hong Kong. That's not enough territory to keep the sun from setting.
 
Sorry to say, but the only British colonies that could be integrated are a bunch of Caribbean and Pacific islands along with Belize except Brunei & Hong Kong. That's not enough territory to keep the sun from setting.
Surprised to see the suggestion of Brunei for UK integration; was that ever realistic?

What about the Gulf States?
 

Devvy

Donor
Huh this is interesting watched, have to wonder where else they will try to integrate maybe Guyana Or NewFoundland?

Singapore in the late 1950's is part of Malaysia so is already independent. There might be a chance in 1965 when they break away but I say that's very unlikely.

Surprised to see the suggestion of Brunei for UK integration; was that ever realistic?

What about the Gulf States?

As noted, Newfoundland is well gone to Canada (1949) by the PoD. Singapore and Guyana; I'm not sure from quick memory if they're actually independent, but suffice to say, the wheels are in motion, and I can't see a sizeable territory on the other side of the globe being welcomed in to the UK family. I started with Malta, and then Gibraltar for a reason; they set a precedent, and are also fairly white looking. We're talking about 1950s and 1960s here, without a Suez Crisis having knocked Britain off her perch; racism is still a thing at this time sadly.

The Gulf States have a role to play, but can't see them integrating; they were only protectorates after all. No idea on Brunei (never heard of integration proposals there), but would a Sultan give up the throne for integration? I can't see it happening....
 
If the POD is around mid 50's, surely it's already too late for Newfoundland?

The only possible colonies that could be integrated into the UK are those with low population and those with only a minority leaning for independence, I think it's hard by this point to convince, say, Singapore and Guyana to stay even as "dependencies".
I think it’s still possible for Singapore and Guyana to become part of the uk, since for Singapore the memories of the confrontation and being kick out of Malaysia would be fresh enough that the leaders of Malaysia is probably interested in having the backing of the uk while in 58 the president of Venezuela of that time Pérez Jiménez has a plan to invade it, so if that possible happens in this timeline and the British fight it there is a possibility that they would be interested in joining the Uk, the same could be said with Belize since Guatemala also interested in conquering it
 
The Gulf States have a role to play, but can't see them integrating; they were only protectorates after all. No idea on Brunei (never heard of integration proposals there), but would a Sultan give up the throne for integration? I can't see it happening....
Suggestion for this is that British don’t need to integrate it and let it be allowed to remain a protectorate, i mean the British could push for better oil prices and have the gulf states pay for their military base that is in their soil, confrontation is still fresh so it’s possible to make brunei as a protectorate as the gulf states
 
If the POD is around mid 50's, surely it's already too late for Newfoundland?

The only possible colonies that could be integrated into the UK are those with low population and those with only a minority leaning for independence, I think it's hard by this point to convince, say, Singapore and Guyana to stay even as "dependencies".
If I had to make a list of places the UK probably would want to hold onto if it could would most likely be other than what they have now would be probably Aden, Guyana, Trinidad and Tobago, Belize and also if it could be swung Sri Lanka.
 
if it could would most likely be other than what they have now would be probably Aden, Guyana, Trinidad and Tobago, Belize and also if it could be swung Sri Lanka.
Aden was and would be filled with Insurgencies and Sri Lanka's population is too high to be integrated.
 
Sorry to say, but the only British colonies that could be integrated are a bunch of Caribbean and Pacific islands along with Belize except Brunei & Hong Kong. That's not enough territory to keep the sun from setting.

Agreed on the former but Brunei as an integrated territory ala Malta in this ATL? That's even more implausible considering the sway that the Bolkiah dynasty hold in the protectorate, they could be a dependency as per OP's term but not an integrated member of the UK. Hong Kong.. it really depends on what's the situation in China but it'll be extremely hard for a rump HK surviving and maintaining its standard of living without the New Territories which will be returned in 1998 anyway as per original clause, unless we butterfly the economy growth in HK which came from being the gateway of trade and manufacturing between Mao/Deng era PRC and the non-communist world. Full integration with Britain would be impossible so I won't table that in here, barring a sudden brainwash

Singapore in the late 1950's is part of Malaysia so is already independent. There might be a chance in 1965 when they break away but I say that's very unlikely.

Singapore was not part of Malaya/Malaysia by late 1950's. It already achieved self-rule in 1959 and on the way for the merger with Malaya (Malaysia would only come into being in 1963) under the rule of the PAP with Lee Kuan Yew at the helm. It'll be difficult for Singapore to be a dependency area of this ATL British Empire since by mid 1950's the wind has sailed to the pro-independence camp as the PAP was voted in 1959 on an anti-colonial platform by a landslide. However with a POD of 1955, one could theoretically see if the British were wiser during their talk with the Labour Front in 1955 and agreed to settle for a timed framework for self-rule yet still as dependency, of which I'm not even sure it might last further than the 70's. OTL they didn't do this because they believed that the Labour Front was infiltrated by communists and the then chief minister's fall from popularity after a tiff within his own party, thus moving their backing to the PAP. Full integration with Britain is also not plausible due to Singapore's large population and pro-independent slant of the large chunk of the population.

I think it’s still possible for Singapore and Guyana to become part of the uk, since for Singapore the memories of the confrontation and being kick out of Malaysia would be fresh enough that the leaders of Malaysia is probably interested in having the backing of the uk while in 58 the president of Venezuela of that time Pérez Jiménez has a plan to invade it, so if that possible happens in this timeline and the British fight it there is a possibility that they would be interested in joining the Uk, the same could be said with Belize since Guatemala also interested in conquering it

Singapore wise;
1. Would Britain be willing to shoulder the cost of accepting "suzerainty" of a colony that has once declared independence from their rule? One that contained more than one and half million non-whites of which most does not even speak English at home?

2. Assuming that everything goes as in OTL, the ruling PAP was not remotely attracted for a protectorate status under Britain considering that they parted with Malaysia on amicable terms and continuing trade agreement. You need to butterfly this in order to entice the PAP to accept a British overlord to secure their independence, which means that they will go against their anti-colonial view.

Guyana wise;
1. It was Britain's own veto of the proposal to include Guyana in the West Indies Federation that hurled the independence movement to the fore, to the detriment of the conservative United Forces (TUF) party that advocated for a closer tie with Britain and the less left-wing second largest party, the PNC under Forbes Burnham, the strongman of OTL Guyana post-independence.

2. Guyana by the late 50's was already anti-colonial enough and the start of toxic racial politics between the largest party (PPP) with mostly Indo-Guyanese support and the PNC with mostly Afro-Guyanese backing actually exacerbated the race to independence as each party competed with each other to show their electorates that they're the party that could win the chalice of independence after failed integration plan. I guess Burnham could be enticed for a protectorate status better than Jagan.
If I had to make a list of places the UK probably would want to hold onto if it could would most likely be other than what they have now would be probably Aden, Guyana, Trinidad and Tobago, Belize and also if it could be swung Sri Lanka.

Aden: Nope, Arab nationalism in 1955 was already swinging unless it's a dependency type of territory... of which the boots on ground actually exacerbated anti-colonial feeling in the region.
Guyana: see my points above
T&T: Depends on the fate of the WIF post its dissolution.
Belize: Plausible
Sri Lanka (or probably still Ceylon in this TL) : Very hard for a dependency status since it already achieved self-rule in 1948, impossible for integration.

=====
I think people need to put a distinction in this TL as per OP's POD between plausible

a) Integrated territories ala Malta

and

b) dependency

The former is harder to achieve outside of the Caribbean/Pacific dependencies with <500.000 population while the latter is more plausible yet still hard. Everything also depends on how Britain's exchequer would cash its support on overseas realms as well.
 
Last edited:
Sri Lanka could remain a dominion, but overseas department of the UK is nigh impossible after 1949. Civic nationalism had become too high in the island.

I can't see the Sinhalese elites to be enticed for a return to British rule after tasting self-rule to be honest, the Ceylonese Tamil and Muslim elites might consider that if it entails a federation sort of agreement where both Tamil and English are guaranteed as official languages along with Sinhalese and a wide autonomy in the north and the east (Indian Tamils in the centre/south were not politically relevant, sadly). The only receptive populace that I could see to advocate for a dependency like status would be the Burghers and the Ceylonese Malays, of which combined I suppose they wouldn't account for more than 2% of Ceylon's population by the POD.
 
I can't see the Sinhalese elites to be enticed for a return to British rule after tasting self-rule to be honest, the Ceylonese Tamil and Muslim elites might consider that if it entails a federation sort of agreement where both Tamil and English are guaranteed as official languages along with Sinhalese and a wide autonomy in the north and the east (Indian Tamils in the centre/south were not politically relevant, sadly). The only receptive populace that I could see to advocate for a dependency like status would be the Burghers and the Ceylonese Malays, of which combined I suppose they wouldn't account for more than 2% of Ceylon's population by the POD.
I stated dominion in the sense of the commonwealth realms of the commonwealth which still retain the monarchy. The monarchy was largely well liked for the most part in Sri Lanka which is why it survived so long on the island in comparison to the other Indian commonwealth countries. The British Monarchy is the only thing that Lanka can plausibly keep. I agree that turning it into a dependency is nigh on impossible except for a general disaster or something or if India turns ultra nationalistic or communist.
 

Devvy

Donor
As people have commented, it's not difficult to imagine where this TL will go, I'd rather keep it believable. Most territories will want independence themselves. A few smaller ones might ask for integration to the UK, or at least as a self governing dependency depending on external factors. There'll be a further integration territories, but those little effects will force the UK to act a bit differently, and politically look differently, but the UK wont accept a territory integrating if it's going to substantially alter the politics of Westminster, affecting the way the British (ie. Eng/Wal/Sco) rule themselves.

As far as we are at this point, it's a classic UK-style constitutional mashup, but soon the definitions will be clarified out in to the UK "regions", and whatever this TL version of "overseas territories"/dependencies are. Bear with! :)
 
A PoD for Hong Kong could be if it's integrated into the UK fully, the British government could seek to also integrate the New Territories as well either by coming to an agreement with the Chinese government or unilaterally while China isn't in a position to challenge it and is still firmly in the communist camp.
 
I stated dominion in the sense of the commonwealth realms of the commonwealth which still retain the monarchy. The monarchy was largely well liked for the most part in Sri Lanka which is why it survived so long on the island in comparison to the other Indian commonwealth countries. The British Monarchy is the only thing that Lanka can plausibly keep. I agree that turning it into a dependency is nigh on impossible except for a general disaster or something or if India turns ultra nationalistic or communist.

Yes I agree, I was inferring about the dominion status when I wrote about the self-rule part in Sri Lanka. To turn the clock from the political elites back to even a "dependency" would be tantamount to political suicide for the ruling party and neither Senanayake Jr, John Kotelawala or Bandaranaike (all plausible Ceylonese PM during the POD) would be willing to part away from the power.

A PoD for Hong Kong could be if it's integrated into the UK fully, the British government could seek to also integrate the New Territories as well either by coming to an agreement with the Chinese government or unilaterally while China isn't in a position to challenge it and is still firmly in the communist camp.

By 1955 (the POD) it's already too late for the New Territories and still untenable for the HK island. I can only foresee that to happen if Britain could entice China with some very large scale economic aid or rapprochement with the US to assist Mao in any Sino-Soviet split in exchange for acknowledging permanent British ownership/protectorate over HK and an eventual "divorce" between NT and HK when the lease on NT finally expires. Unilateral declaration is tantamount to suicide since HK's lifeline is literally China since the territory was and is not self sufficient in water/electricity and it based its livelihood on trade with China, least you could convince British taxpayers to support millions of non-white, non-English speaking Hong Kongers indefinitely. If Britain want to incorporate HK in this ATL, it needs to court and convince Beijing and the Politbiro to accept the fait accompli of HK as a British possession.
 
Top