Let the Scots sail off on another doomed adventure. They'll go bust again

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,340
1,650
113
In the late 17th Century, an impoverished Kingdom of Scotland, which was then an independent country, was looking at the Kingdom of England (modern England & Wales), also then an independent country, jealously.

Scotland was jealous of England's successes, including the burgeoning English Empire in the West Indies and America.

So the Scots decided to set up an empire of their own. Known as the Darien Scheme, this Scottish Empire, which would, hopefully, make Scotland wealthy like England, would be set up on the Isthmus of Panama in Central America.

However, the Darien Scheme turned into a complete disaster, ending in misery and despair, bitterness and tears.

This collapse of the Darien Scheme was one reason why the Scots eventually went begging to the English - they wanted access to the English Empire - and, just a few years later in 1707, unified with England to form the new Kingdom of Great Britain, with the English Empire becoming the British Empire.

And today, if Scotland becomes independent once more, it risks more tragedy on the scale of Darien and it'll not be long before they end up begging at the feet of the English again.

Let the Scots sail off on another doomed adventure. They'll go bust again - and come back begging


By Allan Massie (a Scot) For The Mail On Sunday
17 May 2015
524 View comments

In the mosquito-riddled Central American summer of 1698, Scots men and women were dying in their hundreds. Some perished of malarial fever. More were killed by the hostile natives of Darien on the Isthmus of Panama.

The Scots had arrived just weeks earlier after sailing 3,000 miles to start a new chapter for their nation – and help forge their unique destiny.

But this adventure was turning out to be an unremitting disaster. They had sailed without medicines or suitable clothing. They were utterly ignorant of the country where they intended to establish a settlement, its inhabitants and their language. They were too few and too ill-equipped to defend themselves.


HISTORY LESSON: A Scottish attempt to establish its own empire ended in misery and despair in the fever swamps of Central America

They had ventured forth with high hopes, believing their enterprise would open the way to a glorious future – and they were utterly deceived, victims of one of these waves of irrational optimism, recurrent in Scottish history and, sadly, often ending in bitterness and tears.

The infamous Darien Scheme was the last and most ambitious venture of an independent Scotland. Its failure cast a gloom over the country for years.

The debacle may have relevance today. So, as First Minister Nicola Sturgeon seeks to extract further powers from David Cameron, and Scotland moves towards a state of independence, it is instructive to examine the nation’s history – and what made it sign up to the 1707 Treaty of Union.

Between 1603 and 1707, Scotland and England shared a monarch, but remained nominally independent countries. England, however, was the dominant partner. It was larger and richer – just as it is today.

Moreover, while the English Empire was expanding in the West Indies and America, Scottish merchants, like other foreigners, were denied any share in it under the English Navigation Acts. So it was natural that Scots, conscious of the nation’s poverty and jealous of English successes, should seek to emulate their neighbours and found their own colonies, even their own overseas empire.


As First Minister Nicola Sturgeon seeks to extract further powers from David Cameron, and Scotland moves towards a state of independence, it is instructive to examine the nation’s history – and what made it sign up to the 1707 Treaty of Union


The Scottish parliament passed an Act creating a ‘Company of Scotland’ that was ‘calculated for the general interest of Our Nation’.

William Paterson, a London-based Scot, came forward with an enticing proposal. Trade between Europe and Asia was increasing and he argued enormous profits could be made if the long voyage round Africa could be avoided. He proposed the establishment of a Scottish colony to be called New Caledonia at the narrowest point of the Americas, which would serve as an entrepot, capable of capturing the bulk of East-West trade.

Theoretically, it was a splendid idea and Scotland responded enthusiastically. Up to a third of the nation’s liquid assets – its cash – was put into the enterprise. All over the country, men borrowed what they could to invest.

Attractive though it was, the scheme was also pie in the sky. (Sounds familiar?) For one thing, Darien was part of the Spanish empire.



Any colony would have required the support of the (English) Royal Navy – which was not forthcoming.

Then the expedition was ludicrously ill-prepared. The goods the colonists took to sell were mostly woollens – for which there was no demand in the tropics.

There was no military support and the Isthmus of Panama was a fever-swamp. Fewer than one in four of the first colonists survived.

They died in squalor and misery. A second expedition was refused provisions in the English West Indies and eventually surrendered to the Spanish. The Company of Scotland collapsed: an ignominious failure.


More than a hundred years later, Sir Walter Scott said that if he had been alive at the time he would have been against the Union but now was satisfied it had been for the best

For many the lesson was clear. Scotland was a poor country that couldn’t go it alone successfully. Only a full Union with England and consequent access to the opportunities offered by the English Empire could make Scotland prosper.

In time even many who hated the idea of the Union were persuaded of its necessity. More than a hundred years later, Sir Walter Scott said that if he had been alive at the time he would have been against it, but now was satisfied it had been for the best. A miserably poor Scotland had become rich, one of the chief powerhouses of the Industrial Revolution.

And today? The wheel has turned. Scotland is edging towards the exit. The SNP government is gradually acquiring so many powers that it believes the final step to full independence will be only a small one.

The nation seems to be sleep-walking out of the Union and doing so even though the premise on which the SNP based its assumptions as recently as a year ago is – alas, like the grand Darien Scheme – riddled with holes.

North Sea oil is a diminishing asset. The global price has collapsed and further extraction is more expensive.

The SNP speaks of ‘progressive policies’ – which means Socialist ones. Having won the Labour vote in Glasgow and the west of Scotland, it has no choice if it wants to keep it. So the SNP is committed to higher spending on all public services without the means of promoting the prosperity and increasing the wealth on which that spending depends.

Nationalist Scotland will therefore be a high-tax, low-growth country. Enterprise and profits will be dirty words. The Government will have to finance its structural deficit by borrowing, probably at a high rate of interest. It will be hard to attract inward investment. Gradually, Scotland will sink into socialist squalor.

The country will not be as miserably poor as it was in the 1690s, but it will be much poorer than it need be, and much poorer than England.

The Darien disaster forced Scots to confront reality and recognise the merits of Union. Now, with the SNP’s make-believe economics, we are in grave danger of drifting out of that Union – even though only last September a majority of Scots voted against independence, believing that we are indeed ‘Better Together’.

If Nicola Sturgeon again threatens to lead us into a stagnant swamp, as unhealthy as the fever-land in which the Darien colonists perished, Scotland will be in grave danger of going bust. Shame might prevent any application for a return to the Union. But it will be forced to come back begging.

And how do you think England will reply?
 
Last edited:

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,340
1,650
113
Maybe they can match up with the Turks and Caicos and go it alone


I hope the Turks and Caicos do go it alone rather than join up with Canada.

Quebec should be free, too. Britain has always supported the Quebecans and have despaired numerous times over their treatment by the Canadians.
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
146
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
I hope the Turks and Caicos do go it alone rather than join up with Canada.

The good folks in the T&C's love Canada.... They'd be on the phone with Ottawa within minutes of cutting ties with you

Quebec should be free, too. Britain has always supported the Quebecans and have despaired numerous times over their treatment by the Canadians.

Works for me... Maybe England can take them in under their wing
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,340
1,650
113
The good folks in the T&C's love Canada.... They'd be on the phone with Ottawa within minutes of cutting ties with you

Yeah, we'll see about that. They also have to cut ties with us first, but considering that it's a British Overseas Territory that'll be about as difficult as Norfolk cutting ties with us.


Works for me... Maybe England can take them in under their wing
If Quebec wants to become a UK nation or a giant English county then that's fine by me, so long as they continue to accept the monarch as their Head of State and enter a team into the County Championship.
 

Curious Cdn

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 22, 2015
37,070
6
36
In the late 17th Century, an impoverished Kingdom of Scotland, which was then an independent country, was looking at the Kingdom of England (modern England & Wales), also then an independent country, jealously.

Scotland was jealous of England's successes, including the burgeoning English Empire in the West Indies and America.

So the Scots decided to set up an empire of their own. Known as the Darien Scheme, this Scottish Empire, which would, hopefully, make Scotland wealthy like England, would be set up on the Isthmus of Panama in Central America.

However, the Darien Scheme turned into a complete disaster, ending in misery and despair, bitterness and tears.

This collapse of the Darien Scheme was one reason why the Scots eventually went begging to the English - they wanted access to the English Empire - and, just a few years later in 1707, unified with England to form the new Kingdom of Great Britain, with the English Empire becoming the British Empire.

And today, if Scotland becomes independent once more, it risks more tragedy on the scale of Darien and it'll not be long before they end up begging at the feet of the English again.

Let the Scots sail off on another doomed adventure. They'll go bust again - and come back begging


By Allan Massie (a Scot) For The Mail On Sunday
17 May 2015
524 View comments

In the mosquito-riddled Central American summer of 1698, Scots men and women were dying in their hundreds. Some perished of malarial fever. More were killed by the hostile natives of Darien on the Isthmus of Panama.

The Scots had arrived just weeks earlier after sailing 3,000 miles to start a new chapter for their nation – and help forge their unique destiny.

But this adventure was turning out to be an unremitting disaster. They had sailed without medicines or suitable clothing. They were utterly ignorant of the country where they intended to establish a settlement, its inhabitants and their language. They were too few and too ill-equipped to defend themselves.


HISTORY LESSON: A Scottish attempt to establish its own empire ended in misery and despair in the fever swamps of Central America

They had ventured forth with high hopes, believing their enterprise would open the way to a glorious future – and they were utterly deceived, victims of one of these waves of irrational optimism, recurrent in Scottish history and, sadly, often ending in bitterness and tears.

The infamous Darien Scheme was the last and most ambitious venture of an independent Scotland. Its failure cast a gloom over the country for years.

The debacle may have relevance today. So, as First Minister Nicola Sturgeon seeks to extract further powers from David Cameron, and Scotland moves towards a state of independence, it is instructive to examine the nation’s history – and what made it sign up to the 1707 Treaty of Union.

Between 1603 and 1707, Scotland and England shared a monarch, but remained nominally independent countries. England, however, was the dominant partner. It was larger and richer – just as it is today.

Moreover, while the English Empire was expanding in the West Indies and America, Scottish merchants, like other foreigners, were denied any share in it under the English Navigation Acts. So it was natural that Scots, conscious of the nation’s poverty and jealous of English successes, should seek to emulate their neighbours and found their own colonies, even their own overseas empire.


As First Minister Nicola Sturgeon seeks to extract further powers from David Cameron, and Scotland moves towards a state of independence, it is instructive to examine the nation’s history – and what made it sign up to the 1707 Treaty of Union


The Scottish parliament passed an Act creating a ‘Company of Scotland’ that was ‘calculated for the general interest of Our Nation’.

William Paterson, a London-based Scot, came forward with an enticing proposal. Trade between Europe and Asia was increasing and he argued enormous profits could be made if the long voyage round Africa could be avoided. He proposed the establishment of a Scottish colony to be called New Caledonia at the narrowest point of the Americas, which would serve as an entrepot, capable of capturing the bulk of East-West trade.

Theoretically, it was a splendid idea and Scotland responded enthusiastically. Up to a third of the nation’s liquid assets – its cash – was put into the enterprise. All over the country, men borrowed what they could to invest.

Attractive though it was, the scheme was also pie in the sky. (Sounds familiar?) For one thing, Darien was part of the Spanish empire.



Any colony would have required the support of the (English) Royal Navy – which was not forthcoming.

Then the expedition was ludicrously ill-prepared. The goods the colonists took to sell were mostly woollens – for which there was no demand in the tropics.

There was no military support and the Isthmus of Panama was a fever-swamp. Fewer than one in four of the first colonists survived.

They died in squalor and misery. A second expedition was refused provisions in the English West Indies and eventually surrendered to the Spanish. The Company of Scotland collapsed: an ignominious failure.


More than a hundred years later, Sir Walter Scott said that if he had been alive at the time he would have been against the Union but now was satisfied it had been for the best

For many the lesson was clear. Scotland was a poor country that couldn’t go it alone successfully. Only a full Union with England and consequent access to the opportunities offered by the English Empire could make Scotland prosper.

In time even many who hated the idea of the Union were persuaded of its necessity. More than a hundred years later, Sir Walter Scott said that if he had been alive at the time he would have been against it, but now was satisfied it had been for the best. A miserably poor Scotland had become rich, one of the chief powerhouses of the Industrial Revolution.

And today? The wheel has turned. Scotland is edging towards the exit. The SNP government is gradually acquiring so many powers that it believes the final step to full independence will be only a small one.

The nation seems to be sleep-walking out of the Union and doing so even though the premise on which the SNP based its assumptions as recently as a year ago is – alas, like the grand Darien Scheme – riddled with holes.

North Sea oil is a diminishing asset. The global price has collapsed and further extraction is more expensive.

The SNP speaks of ‘progressive policies’ – which means Socialist ones. Having won the Labour vote in Glasgow and the west of Scotland, it has no choice if it wants to keep it. So the SNP is committed to higher spending on all public services without the means of promoting the prosperity and increasing the wealth on which that spending depends.

Nationalist Scotland will therefore be a high-tax, low-growth country. Enterprise and profits will be dirty words. The Government will have to finance its structural deficit by borrowing, probably at a high rate of interest. It will be hard to attract inward investment. Gradually, Scotland will sink into socialist squalor.

The country will not be as miserably poor as it was in the 1690s, but it will be much poorer than it need be, and much poorer than England.

The Darien disaster forced Scots to confront reality and recognise the merits of Union. Now, with the SNP’s make-believe economics, we are in grave danger of drifting out of that Union – even though only last September a majority of Scots voted against independence, believing that we are indeed ‘Better Together’.

If Nicola Sturgeon again threatens to lead us into a stagnant swamp, as unhealthy as the fever-land in which the Darien colonists perished, Scotland will be in grave danger of going bust. Shame might prevent any application for a return to the Union. But it will be forced to come back begging.

And how do you think England will reply?

DEE-DE-DEE-DEE-DE-DEE-DIT!!!

NEWSFLASH!!!

The Scots did a little bit better, here in North America.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,340
1,650
113
DEE-DE-DEE-DEE-DE-DEE-DIT!!!

NEWSFLASH!!!

The Scots did a little bit better, here in North America.


Yep, after they'd joined up with the clever English and got access to what originally started off as the English Empire.

DEE-DE-DEE-DEE-DE-DEE-DIT!!!

NEWSFLASH!!!

The Scots did a little bit better, here in North America.

Yeah. After they'd joined up with the English.
 

Curious Cdn

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 22, 2015
37,070
6
36
Yep, after they'd joined up with the clever English and got access to what originally started off as the English Empire.



Yeah. After they'd joined up with the English.

My Jacobite ancestors (who came here, cleared the land, no Englishmen in site until about a hundred years later) are laughing in their tombs. Canada, anyway, was mostly colonized by Scots, Ulstermen, etc. The English didn't turn up in large numbers until there was already the kernel of a country, here. You confuse us with the far more English United States.
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,340
1,650
113
My Jacobite ancestors (who came here, cleared the land, no Englishmen in site until about a hundred years later) are laughing in their tombs.

Bollocks. They can laugh all they like. They're just showing how poor their knowledge of history is, like their ancestor. They also should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves for their Jacobite sympathies.

The British Empire started off as the English Empire. The Scots didn't get onboard until after they unified with England in 1707 to form Great Britain. The English had a burgeoning empire in America (modern USA and Canada) and the West Indies which the Scots eyed enviously, which caused them to try and start a Scottish Empire in the Darien Gap. This ended in complete and abject failure - the Scots found they couldn't hack it on their own - so that was one reason why they unified with England in 1707: to get access to the English Empire which they had been eyeing enviously.

Canada, anyway, was mostly colonized by Scots, Ulstermen, etc. The English didn't turn up in large numbers until there was already the kernel of a country, here. You confuse us with the far more English United States.
Bullcrap.

Canada started off as an English colony. The English were in what is now Canada long before the Jocks and Paddies (Ireland didn't become part of the UK until 1801). As late as the 1490s, John Cabot explored Canada's Atlantic coast for England, under the commission of King Henry VII.

In 1583, Sir Humphrey Gilbert, by the royal prerogative of Queen Elizabeth I, founded St John's, Newfoundland, as the first North American English colony. The English established additional colonies in Cupids and Ferryland, Newfoundland, beginning in 1610. The Thirteen Colonies to the south were founded by the English soon after.

The Scots didn't have any empire to speak of at this point. They eyed England's burgeoning empire in America (in what is now modern Canada and USA) enviously but they, like all other foreigners, were denied any share in it under the English Navigation Acts. This then caused Scotland to try and found an empire of its own in the Darien Gap in Central America, but the Scots were useless at building their own empire and this turned into a disaster, impoverishing even more an already impoverished nation. This is the main reason why, in 1707, Scotland unified with England to form the new country of Great Britain: to get access to the English Empire, which then became the British Empire.
 

Curious Cdn

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 22, 2015
37,070
6
36
Bollocks. They can laugh all they like. They're just showing how poor their knowledge of history is, like their ancestor. They also should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves for their Jacobite sympathies.

The British Empire started off as the English Empire. The Scots didn't get onboard until after they unified with England in 1707 to form Great Britain. The English had a burgeoning empire in America (modern USA and Canada) and the West Indies which the Scots eyed enviously, which caused them to try and start a Scottish Empire in the Darien Gap. This ended in complete and abject failure - the Scots found they couldn't hack it on their own - so that was one reason why they unified with England in 1707: to get access to the English Empire which they had been eyeing enviously.

Bullcrap.

Canada started off as an English colony. The English were in what is now Canada long before the Jocks and Paddies (Ireland didn't become part of the UK until 1801). As late as the 1490s, John Cabot explored Canada's Atlantic coast for England, under the commission of King Henry VII.

In 1583, Sir Humphrey Gilbert, by the royal prerogative of Queen Elizabeth I, founded St John's, Newfoundland, as the first North American English colony. The English established additional colonies in Cupids and Ferryland, Newfoundland, beginning in 1610. The Thirteen Colonies to the south were founded by the English soon after.

The Scots didn't have any empire to speak of at this point. They eyed England's burgeoning empire in America (in what is now modern Canada and USA) enviously but they, like all other foreigners, were denied any share in it under the English Navigation Acts. This then caused Scotland to try and found an empire of its own in the Darien Gap in Central America, but the Scots were useless at building their own empire and this turned into a disaster, impoverishing even more an already impoverished nation. This is the main reason why, in 1707, Scotland unified with England to form the new country of Great Britain: to get access to the English Empire, which then became the British Empire.
Bullcrap

Canada started out as a French colony. The English were extremely thin on the ground, here, even after the conquest until the mid-nineteenth century. They just didn't come here, much. Again, you are confused with the very different dynamic south of our border. The Scots and later the Irish came here in large numbers, some of them (like my Jacobites) came here at the point of a bayonet. I guess that you are unaware of the "penal colony" aspect of Canada. The English miscreants were sent to Australia and the political foes of the English were sent here.
 
Last edited:

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,340
1,650
113

Bullsh*t.

Canada started out as a French colony.
The first English colony in what is now Canada was in 1583. The first French colony in the whole of the New World wasn't until 1604. I'm afraid (for you) that the English were there before the old Frogs.

The English were extremely thin on the ground, here, even after the conquest until the mid-nineteenth century.
Bull****. It started off as an ENGLISH Empire. The Scots didn't have an empire in North America until AFTER they unified with England in 1707 and got access to the English Empire which had already been established there. In the 1600s the Scots were desperate for an empire and eyed England's burgeoning empire in North America and the West Indies enviously, which is why they tried to found a Scottish Empire in the Darien Gap, but failed miserably.

They just didn't come here, much.
The English founded the first colony there, you berk, before the French and long before the Jocks and Paddies turned up.

The Scots and later the Irish came here in large numbers,
Only AFTER Scotland and Ireland unified with England and became part of the UK, getting access to the English Empire and turning it into the British Empire.

some of them (like my Jacobites) came here an=t the point of a bayonet.
The Jacobites were around in the 18th century. England founded her first colony in what is now Canada in 1583 and Scotland unified with England in 1707. Those Jacobites turned up in North America AFTER Scotland had joined with England and got acces to what originally started out as the English Empire.

I guess that you are unaware of the "penal colony" aspect of Canada. The English miscreants were sent to Australia and the political foes of the English were sent here.
Scottish and Irish miscreants were sent to Australia in huge numbers, too. It was, after all, a British penal colony.
 
Last edited:

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,340
1,650
113
Your knowledge of Canadian history is rather thin.


How is it? I've proven you wrong in every post you made. It's your knowledge of your very own history which is worringly thin.

The Scots didn't first attempt an empire of their own until they attempted the failed Darien Scheme in the 1690s after eyeing up England empire in North America enviously, which you would know had you read the OP.

As for your Jacobite ancestors, the Jacobites were of the 18th Century, so they would have turned up in North America when Scotland was part of Great Britian AFTER it had unified with England in 1707 to get access to the English Empire in North America which the Scots had been eyeing enviously.
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
146
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
You really haven't proven much of anything.

Be that as it may, I can sense the level of frustration you have relative to observing the crumbling of the (former) UK empire.

A sad day to be sure, watching the sun set on any former glory
 

Blackleaf

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 9, 2004
48,340
1,650
113
You really haven't proven much of anything.

I've proven more than you have,

Be that as it may, I can sense the level of frustration you have relative to observing the crumbling of the (former) UK empire.

A sad day to be sure, watching the sun set on any former glory
Too right. The world was better off under the British Empire (which originally started off as the English Empire until the jealous Scots decided they wanted to play a part in running it, too).
 

Curious Cdn

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 22, 2015
37,070
6
36
How is it? I've proven you wrong in every post you made. It's your knowledge of your very own history which is worringly thin.

The Scots didn't first attempt an empire of their own until they attempted the failed Darien Scheme in the 1690s after eyeing up England empire in North America enviously, which you would know had you read the OP.

As for your Jacobite ancestors, the Jacobites were of the 18th Century, so they would have turned up in North America when Scotland was part of Great Britian AFTER it had unified with England in 1707 to get access to the English Empire in North America which the Scots had been eyeing enviously.

You've proven nothing. You've blah-blahed typical Brit jingo. ... hanging on to thin and fadng memories of Empire.

What a surprise, eh?


BTW, My family has lived here since 1702 and those first immigrants were neither English, Scots nor French (nor African, if you're thinking that)
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
146
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
I've proven more than you have,

Too right. The world was better off under the British Empire (which originally started off as the English Empire until the jealous Scots decided they wanted to play a part in running it, too).

Until you admit you have a problem, you'll never really heal.

FYI - The Vikings landed on Canada's East Coast long before the Engrish or French, and long prior to the Vikings, were the First Nations people.

Think on that reality for a bit before you strain your arm trying to pat yourself on the back
 

Curious Cdn

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 22, 2015
37,070
6
36
The Vikings were predated by wave after wave of migrants who came out of the West, starting during the last glacial peak with the last (Inuit) group arriving in northern North America about a thousand years ago.