Does history justify a unified UK?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

For the record, I'm no believer in "Great Britain". I'm convinced the states should become fully independent of each other- particularly in the modern climate of the EU.

However, how would history have differed if there was no United Kingdom? Would the wider world have suffered from its absence?

[lord of the mark]

well from the POV of this side of the pond, it would mean (assuming a 1700 POD, so Wales and Ireland dont change, only Scotland) that huge numbers of folks who came as subjects, would be foreigners instead. Of course we got Germans in that period so maybe they come anyway? But presumably no big groups of highlanders after Culloden. I suspect it would at least have big butterfly effects on the 13 colonies.

Oh, and the first big question is, does Scotland accept the Hanoverian succession - I presume not. If theres a Stuart king in Scotland, will Scotland remain friendly to England during the wars with France?

Will Scotland try to establish its own colonies, or has Darien taught them a lesson?

[Arrian]

If theres a Stuart king in Scotland, will Scotland remain friendly to England during the wars with France?

Back to the Auld Alliance?

Anyway... Laz, you want independant Scotland and England (and Wales as well, I presume?)... to what point and purpose, exactly? Should they also subdivide into regions, and so on and so forth until you're back to city-states?

-Arrian

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

City-states were never popular in Britain, so that's not really an option.

There is no "British" cultural identity. We're English, Welsh, Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish (and that's a contentious one) and Manx, all cobbled together by an unconvincing English hegemonisation.

Anyway, I'm more interested in the effects on history. Would, I wonder, Scotland have allied with Napoleon?

[LordShiva]

Multi-ethnic states

[PLATO]

Very interesting topic.

The US is made up of many ethnically diverse people, but they are interspersed geographically mainly. In GB they remain, nominally, within their original regions. That seems to keep some sort of national identity at a more basic level than the overall British identity.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
City-states were never popular in Britain, so that's not really an option.

There is no "British" cultural identity. We're English, Welsh, Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish (and that's a contentious one) and Manx, all cobbled together by an unconvincing English hegemonisation.

Anyway, I'm more interested in the effects on history. Would, I wonder, Scotland have allied with Napoleon?

Again, can we confirm the POD?

If its no Act of Union with Scotland, theres a not insignificant chance Nappy is butterflied away (due to differences during the earlier French wars) If its no Act of Union (?) with Wales, the likelihood of things going unrecognizably offtrack by 1789 would seem to be higher.

How does a Wales thats still, IIRC, heavily Catholic, and that is an independent entity, respond to the English civil war?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
City-states were never popular in Britain, so that's not really an option.

There is no "British" cultural identity. We're English, Welsh, Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish (and that's a contentious one) and Manx, all cobbled together by an unconvincing English hegemonisation.

Anyway, I'm more interested in the effects on history. Would, I wonder, Scotland have allied with Napoleon?

Again, can we confirm the POD?

If its no Act of Union with Scotland, theres a not insignificant chance Nappy is butterflied away (due to differences during the earlier French wars) If its no Act of Union (?) with Wales, the likelihood of things going unrecognizably offtrack by 1789 would seem to be higher.

How does a Wales thats still, IIRC, heavily Catholic, and that is an independent entity, respond to the English civil war?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Let's take it that the Acts of Union (1707, unless my memory fails me) never happened. Just to make it interesting, let's say the Old Pretender was crowned the Stuart king of Scotland.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Let's take it that the Acts of Union (1707, unless my memory fails me) never happened. Just to make it interesting, let's say the Old Pretender was crowned the Stuart king of Scotland.

Ok. Lets assume England accepts that peacefully, and nothing big changes right away. Scotland enters no alliance with any continental power, to avoid provoking England. No Scottish colonies, Scot still settle as foreigners in North America, and in N Ireland. Scottish politics is dominated by rivalries among families, and questions of religion (?) Walpole becoms chief/prime minister of England, on schedule, and nothing much changes.

Until Mr Jenkins finds himself in a pickle. What does Scotland do then? Who are the factions with Scotland? Basically the "sh*t hits the fan" at this point, as we say here.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Lazarus and the Gimp
Let's take it that the Acts of Union (1707, unless my memory fails me) never happened. Just to make it interesting, let's say the Old Pretender was crowned the Stuart king of Scotland.

Scotland had its debts written off with the Union, so it will presumably struggle financially for a time.

[Starchild]

Would England have allowed the other nations to continue to exist for any extended period of time? A part of me has always viewed the UK as the first English empire since no other part could stand equal with England in terms of wealth or population.

The English so successfully assimilated Cornwall that its often forgotten that it has a distinct identity that used to include its own language and constitutional status. Could a more sustained effort of Angliasation done something similar in Wales? As for Scotland, the Act of Union could be considered a mercy given the ways large neighbours have dealt with small, indebted nations in the past.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Starchild


The English so successfully assimilated Cornwall that its often forgotten that it has a distinct identity that used to include its own language and constitutional status.

The last native Cornish speaker was a woman living in Mousehole who died in the 18th Century.

The nail in the coffin for a separate Cornish identity was the rebellion against the (Welsh) Tudor monarchy's prayer book in the early 16th Century, then siding with the Royalists in the mid-17th Century.

There used to be much cross-Channel traffic between Brittany and Cornwall, with marriages too.


Scotland benefited greatly form the Union, whatever Salmond might be smoking to say otherwise.

Scottish educators and lawyers and engineers and builders and traders made fortunes from the growing British Empire, and Georgian Edinburgh is the proof- as are Dundee, Aberdeen and the various stately homes of Scotland.

Even the Bank of England is a Scottish idea...

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Starchild
Would England have allowed the other nations to continue to exist for any extended period of time? A part of me has always viewed the UK as the first English empire since no other part could stand equal with England in terms of wealth or population.

The English so successfully assimilated Cornwall that its often forgotten that it has a distinct identity that used to include its own language and constitutional status. Could a more sustained effort of Angliasation done something similar in Wales? As for Scotland, the Act of Union could be considered a mercy given the ways large neighbours have dealt with small, indebted nations in the past.

There was considerable opposition to the Union from the English, who worried about the costs. Not unreasonable, considering Scotland's economy was one fortieth the size of England's at the time. I can't see them opting for conquest as an alternative.

Even the Bank of England is a Scottish idea...

Pre-Union, though. Just.

[GePap]

I would posit that history justifies nothing. That said, given how most of European history from the 16th to the 19th century was about the consolidation of power among fewer but larger political entities, I don't think an independent Scotland or Wales could have survived for very long against the larger and more populous England. Just the possibility of Scotts creating alliances with the growing power of France on the continent would have given the English crown reason to absorb Scotland, whether more amicably by a UNion, or by somple outright conquest.