Plausibility Check - Britain declares independence from America

[wormyguy]

Consider the following scenario:

ARW comes to a negotiated end, the terms of which include the American colonies getting proportional representation in the British Parliament.

The population of British America exceeds that of Great Britain by the mid-19th century, and the British Parliament increasingly represents American interests above British interests.

By the 1870s or so, angered by the marginalization of British interests in Parliament, and the extensive autonomy that America still holds (similar to the "West Lothian question" OTL), the British Isles declare independence from the United Kingdom.




Thoughts? How would America react? How would the monarchy react? How would the rest of the Empire react? Would the British Isles remain united or split into England, Ireland, Scotland etc.?

 

[RMcD94]

Depends if Scotland wants to break away as well, etc. Also, I like the idea. United Kingdom of the British Isles and Britannia (new name for North America). And also would not the people in North America basically consider themselves British.

 

[Falastur]

If Parliament increasingly represents American interests then it will never support independence from America. But then I personally can't see this situation ever really occurring - I think that if anything would happen, it would be that the Americans would become increasingly annoyed that American profits were servicing the Empire and not being retained. But that wasn't the question in the OP so I won't go further on this.

 

[wormyguy]

If Parliament increasingly represents American interests then it will never support independence from America.

Well, it would obviously have to be a unilateral declaration of independence by a local government/movement, rather than one in Parliament.

 

[iori]

Honestly I think that it would end in Britain granting America its independence, even if they did'nt necessarily want it, rather than Britain seceding from anything.

 

[Falastur]

Honestly I think that it would end in Britain granting America its independence, even if they did'nt necessarily want it, rather than Britain seceding from anything.

I have to agree. By the mid-19th century India was about the only colony truly worth its weight in profits, and it would be the only colony worth America trying to take - however, it was run by Englishmen and Anglo-Indian families and there's no way the Indian elite would agree to accepting severing ties to the UK and switching allegiance to Washington (or New York or wherever). Other than that and perhaps Canada, the other colonies would be peanuts to the American colonies and the Americans would far rather sever themselves from the Empire than take over supporting it, I'm pretty sure. Given the scenario, both London and America would support the Americans becoming independent rather than the UK handing over control to the other side of the Atlantic.

 

[V-J]

Britain would never have given the colonies representation at Westminster, (certainly not in the Commons, anyway) so this scenario is a little moot. Britain didn't even give Britons representation according to population at the time of the revolution, (and wouldn't start to do in any meaningful sense for another fifty years) so the chances of colonials getting it was diddly.

 

[NCW]

Britain would never have given the colonies representation at Westminster, (certainly not in the Commons, anyway) so this scenario is a little moot. Britain didn't even give Britons representation according to population at the time of the revolution, (and wouldn't start to do in any meaningful sense for another fifty years) so the chances of colonials getting it was diddly.

True, but the fact that repressentation wasn't linked to population actually makes it easier to give the colonies repressentation at Westminster.

The start of demands for repressentation to be proportional to the population could well be the trigger for the revolution, as it is realized that the North American constituencies outnumber those in the British Isles. The alt-Chartists could be more of an independence moement in TTL.

Cheers,
Nigel.

 

[V-J]

True, but the fact that repressentation wasn't linked to population actually makes it easier to give the colonies repressentation at Westminster.

It really doesn't actually.

British constituencies were essentially unchanged since the Middle Ages and the birth of Parliament as a cohesive body. They had consequently grown utterly corrupt, and those 'in' on the corruption (I.E, effectively the entire political establishment) had an interest in absolutely no change to them.

To meddle with the existing setup, however slightly, was viewed as dangerously radical; enfranchising the colonies, even slightly, and with however corrupt an overall system, is a short step away from enfranchising Manchester. And that way lies danger. And that's before we get onto the fact that the British clearly viewed the colonies as the colonies and certainly not part of Britain or it's equal.

That would be bad enough. But enfranchising as the result of a popular revolt? Can you say 'rewarding sedition'? Very much ASB stuff.

 

[NCW]

It really doesn't actually.

British constituencies were essentially unchanged since the Middle Ages and the birth of Parliament as a cohesive body. They had consequently grown utterly corrupt, and those 'in' on the corruption (I.E, effectively the entire political establishment) had an interest in absolutely no change to them.

To meddle with the existing setup, however slightly, was viewed as dangerously radical; enfranchising the colonies, even slightly, and with however corrupt an overall system, is a short step away from enfranchising Manchester. And that way lies danger. And that's before we get onto the fact that the British clearly viewed the colonies as the colonies and certainly not part of Britain or it's equal.

That would be bad enough. But enfranchising as the result of a popular revolt? Can you say 'rewarding sedition'? Very much ASB stuff.

In which case, it's quite amazing that Scottish MPs were allowed to join the British Parliament after the United Kingdom came into existance in 1707.

Cheers,
Nigel.

 

[V-J]

The British Parliament was, by definition, a new creation. English MPs were just as much joining it as the Scots were; I'm not an expert, but I'm guessing that much of the basis for the Scottish constituencies was as archaic as in England, with burghs, counties, etc having developed and gained certain privileges over time. Scottish constituencies will probably have not been the exact same as those in the Scottish Parliament, but I don't suppose they would have been tinkered with by a great deal, certainly not fundamentally - you would still have had the same sort of general layout of power and privilege. Plus, Parliamentary reform won't have been a big issue at the time of Union; a mild re-jigging of Scottish constituencies in preperation for the union could have been done without fear of it setting a precedent or going any further.

Very different to letting people who the Brits viewed as a few steps away from being foreign from being deliberately enfranchised in the 1770s. That's radical stuff.

 

[Derek Jackson]

Ireland was seen as fairly 'foriegn' and yet had repesentation in the House of Commons in the 19th century.

 

[V-J]

Ireland was seen as fairly 'foriegn' and yet had repesentation in the House of Commons in the 19th century.

Yeah, but again, Ireland had had it's own Parliament and brought with it it's own established constituencies, and it had been absorbed into the union as an integral component in 1801.

That is completely different from creating absolutely new constituencies, for the colonies, based on population strength. And whilst looking down the barrel of a gun, I might add.

 

[Faeelin]

Britain would never have given the colonies representation at Westminster, (certainly not in the Commons, anyway) so this scenario is a little moot. Britain didn't even give Britons representation according to population at the time of the revolution, (and wouldn't start to do in any meaningful sense for another fifty years) so the chances of colonials getting it was diddly.

An odd thought tangent.

OTL, 1790-1832ish saw the peak of authoritarianis in Britain. I could see that finangling into a revolution. Meanwhile, America, thanks to some sort of "Settlement" in the 1770s-1780s, remanis loyal to a distant king.

Hilarity ensues.

 

[V-J]

It's possible, and an interesting thought. Pretty much the same thing happened with the Braganzas during the Napoleonic Wars.

 

[Falastur]

An odd thought tangent.

OTL, 1790-1832ish saw the peak of authoritarianis in Britain. I could see that finangling into a revolution. Meanwhile, America, thanks to some sort of "Settlement" in the 1770s-1780s, remanis loyal to a distant king.

Hilarity ensues.

Possibly. The problem with this, however, is that even if the entire revenue of the Empire was pumped into America only, there's no way that by 1832 America's economy could dominate the Empire. It would need another 30-40 years at least, and by that time there's no social upheaval that you're hoping to ride the back of.