Most Plausible Independent Scotland?

[tallwingedgoat]

What would be the best time to establish an independent Scotland that would remain sovereign today?

 

[I Blame Communism]

What is meant by 'establish'? Obviously if we have a PoD before 1707 there are hundreds upon hundreds of PoDs that could avert the union as we know it and gauging their relative 'plausibility' is an impossible task.

 

[Emperor-of-New-Zealand]

I think avoiding the Darian scheme might avoid Scotland's ultimate bankruptcy, and maybe butterfly the Act of Union. But of course the financial issues Scotland faced at the time weren't solely because of that.

 

[The Red]

I think avoiding the Darian scheme might avoid Scotland's ultimate bankruptcy, and maybe butterfly the Act of Union. But of course the financial issues Scotland faced at the time weren't solely because of that.

The Darien scheme was a roll of the dice, the situation would hae been dire even if it was avoided.

 

[Elfwine]

What is meant by 'establish'? Obviously if we have a PoD before 1707 there are hundreds upon hundreds of PoDs that could avert the union as we know it and gauging their relative 'plausibility' is an impossible task.

At least once we get rid of the obvious nonsense ones.

If I remember from a discussion the other day, the argument was advanced (if I'm not mistaken, by you among others) that the Scots wanted the union more than the English did, and the trouble of conquering Scotland...England isn't going to bother at this point.

So if you simply don't have a personal union of the crowns, and the Tudors (or nonStuart successors) and the Stuarts continue on their merry way, it might happen by default with no more trouble than maintaining the division of France and Germany.

 

[I Blame Communism]

The Darien scheme was a roll of the dice, the situation would hae been dire even if it was avoided.

Yeah, the real immediate cause of the crisis was the famine years of the 1690s. Which was climatic, but it seems likely that it wouldn't have brought the country to its knees if not for the rotten century we'd already had.

 

[I Blame Communism]

If I remember from a discussion the other day, the argument was advanced (if I'm not mistaken, by you among others) that the Scots wanted the union more than the English did, and the trouble of conquering Scotland...England isn't going to bother at this point.

The Scottish political elite in particular. It's harder to be sure what the common and middling people thought. The dedications of quite humble members of society in the early 17th C refer to James as "King of Great Britain": a harder line of Protestantism being mainstream may have had something to do with it (Britain as united Protestant empire to gather forces of good, battle anti-Christ Bischope of Rome, bring about End Times etcetera was pretty popular both sides of the border with a certain sort of person), as may a greater sense of loyalty to the home-grown king (he had proclaimed that people ought to call him King of Great Britain, the English just very seldom did), and perhaps the fact that the English thought they were already a great empire and didn't want to see their identity subsumed, whereas from our point of view it was sort of a step up. Who knows. But that was mainly earlier in the century, before Cromwell actually established the unified Protestant empire and we didn't like it.

But that's interesting spraffle but spraffle nonethless: yes, up until 1700 or so this was consistently true.

While a lot of people in Scotland were sincerely attached to the independent kingdom, its symbols, and its institutions, take that out of the picture and the fact is that union of the crowns had all the bad points and none of the good compared to an institutional union of whatever kind. We got dragged along with English foreign and dynastic policy (periodically wrecking French and Dutch trade, with civil wars to taste) without getting a say on it, and were victims of English mercantilism even while we depended on England for trade.

It was when we highlighted this issue - by threatening to change the succession and assert an independent foreign policy - that the English reconsidered their priorities.

Of course, it's Complicated History. The Covenanters were pretty keen on a closer union in Britain; so were the Stewarts; but the two would have been completely different.

So if you simply don't have a personal union of the crowns, and the Tudors (or nonStuart successors) and the Stuarts continue on their merry way, it might happen by default with no more trouble than maintaining the division of France and Germany.

I incline to this opinion. The principle that Scotland should not cut directly across English interests was beginning to be recognised by the latter Jameses (never stopped them, of course...) and after 1560 it was pretty settled. And what were English interests? "Don't ally with France and keep out of our trade, you buggers!"

With separate dynasties, preferably both either Catholic or Protestant, I think Britain is about as likely to unify as Scandinavia.

 

[Elfwine]

The Scottish political elite in particular (it was also true of the middling-to-common people, some evidence suggests; but that was mainly before the wars mid-17th C, and also 'wanted it more than the English' isn't saying very much at all), and mainly earlier in the century; but up until 1700 or so this was consistently true.

While a lot of people in Scotland were sincerely attached to the independent kingdom, its symbols, and its institutions, take that out of the picture and the fact is that union of the crowns had all the bad points and none of the good compared to an institutional union of whatever kind. We got dragged along with English foreign and dynastic policy (periodically wrecking French and Dutch trade, with civil wars to taste) without getting a say on it, and were victims of English mercantilism even while we depended on England for trade.

It was when we highlighted this issue - by threatening to change the succession and assert an independent foreign policy - that the English reconsidered their priorities.

Of course, it's Complicated History. The Covenanters were pretty keen on a closer union in Britain; so were the Stewarts; but the two would have been completely different.

Interesting History too. Not sure this is the thread for it, but could you elaborate on that (underlined)?

I incline to this opinion. The principle that Scotland should not cut directly across English interests was beginning to be recognised by the latter Jameses (never stopped them, of course...) and after 1560 it was pretty settled. And what were English interests? "Don't ally with France and keep out of our trade, you buggers!"

With separate dynasties, preferably both either Catholic or Protestant, I think Britain is about as likely to unify as Scandinavia.

That would be an interesting scenario. Scotland presumably is tied to England to some extent whether it grows fond of that or not, but no more than Denmark to Sweden - as in, its a little power and England isn't, and they're neighbors, inevitably that has some effect - but that's far from annexation or conquest or legal union.

 

[I Blame Communism]

Interesting History too. Not sure this is the thread for it, but could you elaborate on that (underlined)?

Whereas they never really got a chance to try it out, the Covenanter's Master Plan was for a Britain-sized version of what they did in Scotland: constrained parliamentary monarchy, strict hierarchical Presbyterianism, Two Kingdoms (ie the kirk is outside royal authority, can criticise the secular authorities, has supreme control of education and moral propriety as well as its own administration, in general justifies our reputation as Protestant Taleban...). The king would sign on to a National Covenant, becoming a member (not the head) of the national Presbyterian church; and he would be strongly beholden to a parliament representing the elite of the Godly nation. And all the various institutional problems for us would be fixed, so, free trade and a say in foreign policy.

Their three-kingdoms sized ambitions led them to intervene in Ireland and to invade England in support of parliament, thinking that the Solemn league and Covenant represented the groundwork for Presbyterian England and closer union. Then along came Cromwell...

Whereas the Stuarts (Stewarts, Stuarts...) wanted a much stronger kingship, able to manage and direct parliament to get the results they wanted, and Episcopalianism under their supreme direction all round (well, James the Worst wanted Catholicism, but that went well...): so, Britain from 1660 to 1688, only united, basically. There was, IIRC, some effort at in the 1670s but it went nowhere. England went very mercantilist at this time.

That would be an interesting scenario. Scotland presumably is tied to England to some extent whether it grows fond of that or not, but no more than Denmark to Sweden.

Yes, I think the dynamics would be similar: a mixture of traditional rivalry with a good deal of cultural similarity, close economic links...

Ireland must be Norway: they're rural and religious and get colonised by both the others.

 

[Elfwine]

Whereas they never really got a chance to try it out, the Covenanter's Master Plan was for a Britain-sized version of what they did in Scotland: constrained parliamentary monarchy, strict hierarchical Presbyterianism, Two Kingdoms (ie the kirk is outside royal authority, can criticise the secular authorities, has supreme control of education and moral propriety as well as its own administration, in general justifies our reputation as Protestant Taleban...). The king would sign on to a National Covenant, becoming a member (not the head) of the national Presbyterian church; and he would be strongly beholden to a parliament representing the elite of the Godly nation. And all the various institutional problems for us would be fixed, so, free trade and a say in foreign policy.

Their three-kingdoms sized ambitions led them to intervene in Ireland and to invade England in support of parliament, thinking that the Solemn league and Covenant represented the groundwork for Presbyterian England and closer union. Then along came Cromwell...

Whereas the Stuarts (Stewarts, Stuarts...) wanted a much stronger kingship, able to manage and direct parliament to get the results they wanted, and Episcopalianism under their supreme direction all round (well, James the Worst wanted Catholicism, but that went well...): so, Britain from 1660 to 1688, only united, basically. There was, IIRC, some effort at in the 1670s but it went nowhere. England went very mercantilist at this time.

Interesting. Thanks for sharing the information.

Yes, I think the dynamics would be similar: a mixture of traditional rivalry with a good deal of cultural similarity, close economic links...

Ireland must be Norway: they're rural and religious and get colonised by both the others.

Must be. And Wales...Wales is just Western Most England for purposes of this, I think. Its not in a good position to be a disputed territory and its not (as of the 17th century) in any position to claim independence for very long, unlike how Ireland can at least cause trouble.

P.S. Sent you a PM on the issue of Scotland and England. Figured it was too off topic to ask here, but...

 

[I Blame Communism]

Interesting. Thanks for sharing the information.

There was also Independent Britain, which briefly managed to actually exist. And the final result, Weirdo Hybrid Britain in which the monarch's opinion on vital questions of theology depends on where he or she is in relation to the Tweed.

Must be. And Wales...Wales is just Western Most England for purposes of this, I think. Its not in a good position to be a disputed territory and its not (as of the 17th century) in any position to claim independence for very long, unlike how Ireland can at least cause trouble.

In Ireland at this time there was also the question of whether it was the Third Kingdom or just a colonial dependency of England what with Poynings Law and all that. The Protestant Irish weren't thrilled at being outside the English mercantilist system either. In fact they issued a "Congratulation address" in 1707 to the new Great Britain saying, in grander language, can we please join pleasepleaseplease, and Great Britain told them to bugger off and carry on being a colonial dependency, which of course eventually led to the Patriots and, even later, the UI.

P.S. Sent you a PM on the issue of Scotland and England. Figured it was too off topic to ask here, but...

Hmm. I don't seem to have gotten it. Could you send again?

 

[Fletch]

Just have Henry VIIIs preffered succession to the English throne followed. No union of the Crowns, Scotland remains independent.

 

[Elfwine]

There was also Independent Britain, which briefly managed to actually exist. And the final result, Weirdo Hybrid Britain in which the monarch's opinion on vital questions of theology depends on where he or she is in relation to the Tweed.

Do tell.

In Ireland at this time there was also the question of whether it was the Third Kingdom or just a colonial dependency of England what with Poynings Law and all that. The Protestant Irish weren't thrilled at being outside the English mercantilist system either. In fact they issued a "Congratulation address" in 1707 to the new Great Britain saying, in grander language, can we please join pleasepleaseplease, and Great Britain told them to bugger off and carry on being a colonial dependency, which of course eventually led to the Patriots and, even later, the UI.

Too bad. Not exactly surprising, but probably not the best way to do it.

Hmm. I don't seem to have gotten it. Could you send again?

Resent, error on my end.

 

[I Blame Communism]

Do tell.

When William III landed in England, stuff started happening in Scotland without any levers being pulled (we actually had a revolution, rather than an invasion and putsch ): the Covenanters, who were a battered minority by the end of the Stuart period, swept triumphantly into power because James had so thoroughly alienated what should have been his own base of supporters, the Scottish Episcopalian Tories. They re-established Presbyterianism in the state kirk, so that the king was no longer its head and there were no bishops in parliament creating a royally-appointed voting bloc (the Scottish parliament was, among other things, unicameral), and to cap it off they abolished the Lords of the Articles, the committee which decided what parliament would debate that had kept our parliament much easier to manage than England's.

This done, they proclaimed their loyalty to William - who had no particular love for Presbyterians, and less for people who were doing their damnedest to undermine royal authority, but was in the middle of a war and needed Scotland to be sending troops out, not in.

For this reason, whenever the British monarch enters Scotland, he or she is a member and not the head of the national Presbyterian church. disbelieving in apostolic succession and sitting to receive communion.

 

[Elfwine]

When William III landed in England, stuff started happening in Scotland without any leavers being pulled (we actually had a revolution, rather than an invasion and putsch ): the Covenanters, who were a battered minority by the end of the Stuart period, swept triumphantly into power because James had so thoroughly alienated what should have been his own his own supporters, the Scottish Episcopalian Tories. They re-established Presbyterianism in the state kirk, so that the king was no longer its head and there were no bishops in parliament creating a royally-appointed voting bloc, and to cap it off they abolished the Lords of the Articles, the committee which decided what parliament would debate that had kept our parliament much easier to manage than England's.

This done, they proclaimed their loyalty to William - who had no particular love for Presbyterians, and less for people who were doing their damnedest to undermine royal authority, but was in the middle of a war and needed Scotland to be sending troops out, not in.

For this reason, whenever the British monarch enters Scotland, he or she is a member and not the head of the national Presbyterian church. disbelieving in apostolic succession and sitting to receive communion.

Interesting. Why do these details always get lost when people try to sum things up too quickly?

These are the kind of things that make the relationship what it was, not Longshanks having a fondness for the smell of burnt Scot (referencing Berwick).