Had the Darien Scheme been successful, would the Act of Union happen?

[GameBawesome]

The Darien Scheme was one of the most disastrous colonization attempts in history. It was attempted by Scotland, by the Company of Scotland, to colonize the Isthmus of Panama to make a trading colony between the Atlantic and Pacific. It was plagued by problems, including plague (mostly Tropical Diseases). Some of other factors included:
- Tropical Diseases (As stated above)
- Poor planning and provisioning
-Divided leadership.
-Lack of demand for traded goods, due to an English trade blockade
-Panama's geography and climate
-The Spanish Empire

In the end, the Dairen Scheme was an absolute failure. It costed approximately 20% of all the money circulating in Scotland the failed colony left the entire Scottish Lowlands in financial ruin. This was an important factor for the Act of Union in 1707, creating Great Britain.

What if, everything went right for the Scottish? Provisions make it on time, a good number of Scottish Colonists, failed Spanish response to quash this colony, and a breakthrough to the other side of the Pacific?

Had the Darien Scheme succeeded, would it potentially stop the Act of Union? Or was the Act of Union inevitable, and will come later?

 

[Ato]

The gradual unification of the English and Scottish political classes was already well under way by that point and as long as the union of crowns held full political union was probably likely at some point. Though without the financial stresses of Darien failing it might occur somewhat later.

 

[AltoRegnant]

I think as the nobles gained more land in scotland I think it gets a lot hard to keep scotland independent. Hell, most of their landowners lived in England or even paris, not scotland.

 

[tophatgaming]

the act of union was a fluke that only happened because of a number of specific circumstances

 

[Michael B]

-Lack of demand for traded goods, due to an English trade blockade

Had the Darien Scheme succeeded, would it potentially stop the Act of Union? Or was the Act of Union inevitable, and will come later?

My recollection of events was not that there was an English blockade, but England would not provide supplies to keep the colony afloat. This was partly out of blocking the competition from American to the two kingdoms. Whatever actually happened, the English played a role in the collapse of the colony.

If the colony had not collapsed and financially ruined Scotland then there would have been less incentive for Scottish magnates to "sell" out Scotland in return for a bung.

Running on from this if a more successful colony leads to no Act of Union, there would no exclusion of Catholics on the throne of Scotland. Therefore, it is possible on the death of Queen Anne for the kingdoms of England and Scotland to go their seperate ways and James Stuart (the Old Pretender) become the king of Scotland. A later precedent for this would be Great Britain and Hanover going seperate ways because Queen Victoria could not inherit Hanover on the death of William IVbecause the Electorate could only be inherited by males.

This assumes that the English and Scottish Protestents do not decide to block him.

 

[30PrincesAndAKing]

The best way for the Darien scheme to 'succeed' is for it never to happen in the first place. It was a complete pyramid scheme from the beginning. There wasn't enough money in Scotland at the time to finance a serious colonial venture, and they needed outside investment. IIRC, they tried getting money from William of Orange, but he declined because he didn't want competition for the English (and presumably Dutch) colonial ventures. Their attempts to get foreign investment were stymied by the selfsame William, as he made it clear in no uncertain terms that any foreign investors would have to answer to him if they pledged money for the ridiculous scheme. Even if they had managed to get money from William, it would have turned into a British venture, not a Scotch one.

But if the Scots don't get greedy, and so long as the nobles of Scotland aren't completely bankrupt, the uneasy union under the earlier Stuart kings would probably limp along as it had before then. Hilariously, this might lead to a Scotland-screw at some point in the future as Union had been (more-or-less) economically profitable for Scotland even though it remained deeply unpopular. Even though they had to sell out their diplomatic independence, the 'pan-Britishness' of being in the union meant they got to take full advantage of (the horribly exploitative) British colonial ventures rather than just sit on the sidelines.

Running on from this if a more successful colony leads to no Act of Union, there would no exclusion of Catholics on the throne of Scotland. Therefore, it is possible on the death of Queen Anne for the kingdoms of England and Scotland to go their seperate ways and James Stuart (the Old Pretender) become the king of Scotland.

Catholics would still be excluded; lowland Scotland (where most of the nobles and the plurality of the actual population live) was almost as fervently Protestant at this point as the English were. Only the Highlanders were firm Catholics at this point, and they were not well-liked by the Scottish political elite at the time (James VI called them little more than barbarians and tried to kill the Gaelic language), so support for a Catholic monarch is going to be relatively low.

The Scots also had a firm legal basis for ejecting James II, as they reserved the right to depose their monarch and replace him with a suitable alternative if they felt he was out of line (this was the legal basis for Robert the Bruce's kingship, but it was also evoked when Mary queen of Scots was deposed).

If Scotland really doesn't want the same (Hanoverians) rulers as England when Queen Anne dies, then the most realistic claimant is James Hamilton, 4th duke of Hamilton, the next Protestant in-line after Sophia of Hanover. The Scots actually gave themselves a legal basis for picking him OTL when they passed the Act of Security 1704, which gave them the right to chose any legitimate, Protestant descendant of the Stewarts. OTL, Hamilton was a complete buffoon; a heavy investor in the Darien scheme and a closet Jacobite to boot, so he didn't assert any theoretical claim for his family when the vote for Union came up.

Without his reputation ruined by the Darien scheme, he might have a better shot, especially if we make him more ambitious and/or confident. England absolutely will not be happy about this, which means Hamilton needs to be the second coming of Robert the Bruce to make it stick, but it would certainly have the potential for an interesting timeline, to say the least.

 

[Michael B]

Catholics would still be excluded; lowland Scotland (where most of the nobles and the plurality of the actual population live) was almost as fervently Protestant at this point as the English were. Only the Highlanders were firm Catholics at this point, and they were not well-liked by the Scottish political elite at the time (James VI called them little more than barbarians and tried to kill the Gaelic language), so support for a Catholic monarch is going to be relatively low.

The Scots also had a firm legal basis for ejecting James II, as they reserved the right to depose their monarch and replace him with a suitable alternative if they felt he was out of line (this was the legal basis for Robert the Bruce's kingship, but it was also evoked when Mary queen of Scots was deposed).

If Scotland really doesn't want the same (Hanoverians) rulers as England when Queen Anne dies, then the most realistic claimant is James Hamilton, 4th duke of Hamilton, the next Protestant in-line after Sophia of Hanover. The Scots actually gave themselves a legal basis for picking him OTL when they passed the Act of Security 1704, which gave them the right to chose any legitimate, Protestant descendant of the Stewarts. OTL, Hamilton was a complete buffoon; a heavy investor in the Darien scheme and a closet Jacobite to boot, so he didn't assert any theoretical claim for his family when the vote for Union came up.

Without his reputation ruined by the Darien scheme, he might have a better shot, especially if we make him more ambitious and/or confident. England absolutely will not be happy about this, which means Hamilton needs to be the second coming of Robert the Bruce to make it stick, but it would certainly have the potential for an interesting timeline, to say the least.

I would add to this that if the English crown and its supporters decide that they do not want to let Scotland go its own way and possibly resurrect the Auld Alliance they could invade the country to impose an English monarch on the Scottish throne.

 

[kham_coc]

I'd say the best possibility Scotland has is a union treaty with some actual constitutional significance.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

If Scotland really doesn't want the same (Hanoverians) rulers as England when Queen Anne dies, then the most realistic claimant is James Hamilton, 4th duke of Hamilton, the next Protestant in-line after Sophia of Hanover. The Scots actually gave themselves a legal basis for picking him OTL when they passed the Act of Security 1704, which gave them the right to chose any legitimate, Protestant descendant of the Stewarts. OTL, Hamilton was a complete buffoon; a heavy investor in the Darien scheme and a closet Jacobite to boot, so he didn't assert any theoretical claim for his family when the vote for Union came up.

It'd be pretty hilarious if Scotland ended up electing a Jacobite as its king, though.

Without his reputation ruined by the Darien scheme, he might have a better shot, especially if we make him more ambitious and/or confident. England absolutely will not be happy about this, which means Hamilton needs to be the second coming of Robert the Bruce to make it stick, but it would certainly have the potential for an interesting timeline, to say the least.

Maybe he could support the Old Pretender's claim to the English throne in order to keep his southern neighbour distracted, or at least threaten to, in order to gain more leverage in negotiations. (Probably unsuccessfully -- if anything, an independent Scotland which immediately starts supporting a Catholic pretender would only reinforce why the English nobility wanted a union in the first place, and make them all the more determined to restore the union, by force if necessary.)

 

[Lucius Verus]

Wasn't the colony poorly sited in a poor and disease prone region of Panama that the Spanish claimed? Hard to see them defeating yellow fever, let alone the Spanish.