AHC: Successful Scottish Colonies?

[Faeelin]

I'm not sure why everyone's proposing Argentina. It was exporting cattle hides and ruled by Spain. Doesn't seem like the best way to go about building a colony.

 

[Dan1988]

I'm not sure why everyone's proposing Argentina. It was exporting cattle hides and ruled by Spain. Doesn't seem like the best way to go about building a colony.

You dinna 'eer? If ve replace dem brown people wiv dem white people, . . .

 

[Joseph Solis in Australia]

You dinna 'eer? If ve replace dem brown people wiv dem white people, . . .

BTW, I'm not talking about replacing brown people with white people and I'm not advocating that anymore. What I'm talking about is the suitability for a Scottish colony and I select Argentina because of its similarity to Scotland in terms of climate especially in Patagonia.

 

[Metro]

This could have been New Scotland.

Problem was that it was on the other side of the world.


Found this on Scots in the Caribbean.

The Scottish connection with the Caribbean started in 1611 with the voyage to the West Indies of the Janet of Leith. It was not until after 1626, however, that Scots actually settled in the Caribbean. In 1627 King Charles I appointed James Hay, Earl of Carlisle, a Scot, as Governor of the Caribbees, and this led to a steady trickle of Scots to Barbados and other islands. While there was a degree of voluntary emigration, it is likely that the majority of Scots in the West Indies had gone there unwillingly. Five hundred Scots prisoners-of-war were transported to the area by Oliver Cromwell in 1654, and felons or political undesirables, such as the Covenanters, were shipped in chains directly from Scotland. In addition, the English Privy Council regularly received petitions from planters requesting Scottish indentured servants. In consequence, a steady stream of indentured servants sailed from Scottish and English ports to the West Indies.

During the 1660s the Glasgow-based organization called the Company Trading to Virginia, the Caribbee Islands, Barbados, New England, St. Kitts, Montserrat, and Other Colonies in America established economic links with the West Indies. By the latter part of the seventeenth century, Scots merchants, planters, seafarers, and transportees were to be found throughout the English and Dutch colonies of the Caribbean. In total, it is believed that as many as 5,000 Scots settled temporarily or permanently in the Caribbean before the Act of Union in 1707. The settlement of Scots in the West Indies was important from the point of view both of the colonist and the home country. Many of the colonists used the islands as a stopping-off point before continuing on to the mainland of America, where they then settled. Alexander Hamilton and Theodore Roosevelt are numbered among those who descend from Scots who initially settled in the Caribbean.

 

[The Kiat]

Perhaps if they had chosen somewhere other than Darien, that would be a good start or get the English to trade with the Scots colonies instead of boycotting them...that would help as well.

It might have helped if they sent some colonists who would actually work, instead of a bunch of gentry. Not to mention some supplies more useful than crates full of combs and bibles.

 

[Julius Vogel]

Poor Scotland, always an auxiliary of empire, never an imperialist

I do however think Scotland did end up with some sort of colonies. I myself grew up in one, as the lower half of the South Island (capital, Dunedin) was practically New Scotland in terms of settlers, culture and institution forming. To this day, I still find it odd when I see non Scottish last names!

 

[Michael B]

Another reason why Scotland fail is because Scotland is numerically and economically inferior to England and from 1500 it was inevitable that Scotland will be absorbed by England that's why there is the United Kingdom that composes England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland led by the English because the English are the most populous of them.

True up to a point. Scotland could have remained independent a lot if the crowns had not been joined.

Looking at the topic from a broader point of view, bigger countries had a better choice to set up colonies because they had more wealth to cover losses and raises forces to protect any colonies. If we look at countries on a scale we would put Spain, English and France at the top and Scotland, Denmark and Sweden near the bottom. Spain put colonies down in Cuba, Mexico, Peru and Argentina which survived. They also put one in Virginia which went to the wall, but they could afford it. In contrast Scotland made one attempt which they blew. Result, Spain went from strength to strength which Scotland went down the crapper.