Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org

mac

Whatever anyone says about us, we are consistent. Shocked

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darien_scheme

_________________
"Scotland's stunningly beautiful, and utterly captivating capital city, Edinburgh"

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 2809

The Darien scheme was a venture which failed, but there was nothing inevitable about that failure. The link provided above takes you to a website which says the Darien scheme was "an ambitious plan devised by William Paterson to establish a colony on the Isthmus of Panama in the hope of establishing trade with the Far East — the same principle which, much later, would lead to the construction of the Panama Canal".

William Paterson was a pirate, okay, a "privateer", and he had visited Darien before, on board a ship involved in attacking Spanish shipping. He was well aware of what the area was like. He knew there would be problems with the Spanish, but he also knew that the native-american inhabitants of Darien would be only too pleased to side with the Scots (as indeed they did). He was also very well aware of the potentially huge rewards from establishing settlements on BOTH sides of that very narrow isthmus, and using that route to trade with the Far East.

The scheme failed because of active hostility from King William of Orange and his pals in the City of London. King Billy's reason for opposing the scheme was at least partly financial - he was a major investor in the rival East India Company. The king made it clear to the Amsterdam and Hamburg stock exchanges, as well as the London one, that anybody who invested in the plan would never get a contract of any kind from either the English government or the Dutch government. The English colonies in the West Indies were threatened with what would happen to them if they TRADED with the Darien settlers, and there was even a case where an English ship fired on and attacked a ship belonging to the Company of Scotland.

Potentially, the Darien scheme could have made economic sense, but Paterson failed to allow for the extreme political hostility of King Billy and the English government.

Both King Billy and his friends in the City of London were well aware that William Paterson's scheme was far from crazy. When it failed, Paterson shrugged his shoulders, and decided "if you can't beat them, join them".

The next venture he went on to found, after the Darien Scheme, is still with us to this day.

It's called the Bank of England.

voiceofourown · Posted: Fri Oct 02, 2009 11:39 am Post subject:

Oh, it's the UK parties who insisted the trams project went ahead.

As an addendum to Dave's post, it's worth remembering the context of the Darien scheme.
After the union of the crowns (effectively when Scotland lost her independence) there were years of economic hardship largely due to the loss of trading privileges with France and Holland . On top of this came a period of very poor harvests from 1695-99. Scotland was in greatly reduced circumstances and was desperate.
It should also be noted that, originally, 50% of the Company of Scotland was available for English investors and within a short time that portion was oversubscribed. So, at the time, it must have seemed a very attractive proposition to more than the Scots.
Ultimately, royal displeasure was made known ( stake holders in the East India Co had exerted pressure) and all English investment was withdrawn. Remember, the king was supposed to be representing Scottish, as well as English, interests.
That was patently not the case and, to make matters worse, there was a diplomatic effort to discourage continental investment.
In Scotland, there was a huge response to the perceived obstructiveness of King William and the English parliament and all the necessary investment was raised in Scotland alone.
It became a huge gamble and something of the order of half of the personal funds of the Scottish people was invested.
The hostility of the English meant that the original conception of the Company's trade had to be altered and the ultimately tragic decision to set up a colony at Darien was made.
Even then, despite inadequate planning and poor management, it may have succeeded.
Spanish attacks (believed to have been encouraged by English diplomats) and the hostility of the English parliament and OUR king, finally guaranteed dismal failure.
_________________
"All impotence corrupts and absolute impotence corrupts absolutely. Scotland is governed by a caste system, the upper stratum being composed of castrata."

Oliver Brown (1903-1976)

mac · Posted: Fri Oct 02, 2009 5:59 pm Post subject:

Thank you DC, & VOOO for enlightening me - I was clearly wrong in lumping them together in that simplistic way, but I'm sure you can agree that the cost overruns of both are staggering.

Darien - a Scottish project which failed because England did not support it.

Trams - a Scottish project forced upon us by the Unionista's.

I'll admit I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, but it looks like deja vu all over again Sad

_________________
"Scotland's stunningly beautiful, and utterly captivating capital city, Edinburgh"

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 2809

William Paterson, from Dumfries, a onetime "privateer", came up with the idea of founding a colony which would be a haven of Free Trade for merchants of all lands. He envisaged this colony, on the isthmus of Panama, as the “door of the Seas". He believed that whoever controlled it could become “the arbitrator of the Commercial world”. Paterson knew Panama was the gateway to the Pacific and to trade with the East Indies, China, and Japan. Although it would be centuries before the technology to build the Panama Canal existed, even without that, the Isthmus could be an important trade route. In 1849, when gold was discovered in California, the route taken by most of miner/49ers involved in the Gold Rush was to sail to Panama, cross that narrow Isthmus as best they could, then catch another boat heading for California. That was a lot easier than trying to cross the North American continent by land.

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 2809

mac · Posted: Sat Oct 03, 2009 5:45 am Post subject:

Dave, thank you for pointing that out, but they were/are massive schemes for Scotland to show itself off, and capture some respect - to me, it looks like we Edinburgh Scots are shooting ourselves in the foot, so to speak - one was a failure for the whole of Scotland, and now one for Scotland's capital, that's what it looks like from a distance Sad

_________________
"Scotland's stunningly beautiful, and utterly captivating capital city, Edinburgh"

Dave Coull · Independentista Joined: 07 Nov 2006 Posts: 2809

The Lithgae Jambo · Helping with the Count Joined: 05 Jul 2006 Posts: 362

A little bit of tram-related satire.....

http://www.scotsgait.co.uk/index....nc=view&catid=34&id=17129
_________________
Visit Scotsgait then follow us on Twitter !!

Aventinian · Posted: Sat Oct 03, 2009 10:48 pm Post subject:

mac · Posted: Sat Oct 03, 2009 11:41 pm Post subject:

mac · Posted: Sun Oct 04, 2009 12:20 am Post subject:

William_Cleland · Posted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 4:59 am Post subject:

I've never fully understood why they couldn't just reinstate the old suburban rail network out to Leith and Granton and start up passenger services on the South Suburban line again at a fraction of the cost and disruption. Anyone got a rational explanation that doesn't revolve around tribalism about "Unionists" because I don't remember that being advocated by the SNP? Does Dr Beeching maybe have a lot to answer for where axeing the old Princes Street terminal is concerned? Maybe lack of capacity at Waverley is the key issue?
_________________
No more boom and bust - Gordon Brown

Luke P · Gaining a Reputation Joined: 03 Jul 2009 Posts: 218

What's wrong with the tram scheme? Sounds like a great idea. All the provinces have been moaning that London gets all the investment and they never do.

Is it being cancelled?
_________________
"Hath He not made us all in one island, compassed with one sea and of itself by nature indivisible?" James VI/I

Alasdair · Posted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 12:57 pm Post subject:

William_Cleland · Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2009 2:22 pm Post subject:

OK after doing a bit of googling it appears to me that Edinburgh lost its tram system and the bulk of its commuter rail lines in the 50s and 60s and moved over to buses as being the way to provide public transport. Not a problem initially but as car ownership has increased road congestion has become a serious issue. Thanks to Dr Beeching getting rid of the old Princes Street terminal, Waverley station is now at close to full capacity and the tunnels in and out represent a serious bottle neck to additional rail traffic so megamillions have had to be spent to make light rail possible along Princes Street so that additional commuter rail lines can be developed in the coming decades.

The SNP have opportunistically seen this as a good way to gain support on a populist basis because voters in the Edinburgh area rejected congestion charges in a local referendum and resent the cost of the up front investment to get a light rail system up and running but have not offered any alternative solutions that relieve future traffic congestion. Can anyone point out any flaw in this line of argument or is tribal posturing about "Unionists" supposed to be all that needs to be said to end any argument around here?
_________________
No more boom and bust - Gordon Brown

Alasdair · Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2009 3:09 pm Post subject:

I think they pointed out at the time that for the cost of the tram system every edinburgh bus could be upgraded to electric AND could be run for free to users for around 7 years ...

... much has been made of the SNP's 'vanity' project, yet the trams are exactly that with opposition MSP's saying pointless things like "but that city over there's got trams, we need to have trams too".

I wrote about it at the time but sadly I recently deleted ll my old blog posts so don't have sources for the above Sad

_________________
My blog - http://manaboutthehouse.wordpress.com
My arts and crafts site http://madestuff.co.uk

mac · Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2009 4:09 pm Post subject:

Alisdair, I also suggested a trial run of free buses for a month or so, so that Edinburgh natives could compare that with disruption and costs of the proposed tram line.

Although I'm still against the tram scheme, I think that so much has been spent on it we're now stuck with this white elephant. Sad

_________________
"Scotland's stunningly beautiful, and utterly captivating capital city, Edinburgh"

William_Cleland · Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 2:20 am Post subject:

Free electric buses for 7 years would do nothing to relieve traffic congestion in a city with a growing population in the long-term. Sounds like shallow populism to me. When even the Tories are in support of a massive infrastructure project like this it probably isn't a "vanity project". Hopefully the powers that be have the sense to eventually introduce tram-trains so the tram line can be fully integrated with the rail network for suburban services in and around Edinburgh.
_________________
No more boom and bust - Gordon Brown

Holebender · Posted: Thu Oct 08, 2009 6:06 am Post subject:

I admit I know nothing about the actual routing of the tram so this may be a daft question. If the tram runs along an existing street, how does that relieve congestion any more than setting up a bus lane would? I know that, if the public transport is convenient and attractive enough, people will use it in preference to driving and thus reduce the amount of traffic on the road, but how is that any different from an equally convenient bus in a bus lane?

If, on the other hand, the tram runs on a newly constructed dedicated right of way, why couldn't that same route be used as a dedicated bus route? Admittedly the cost of construction wouldn't be much different for either option in this case.

_________________
"My instinct is to agree with your opinion of his verse, but I've never so much as glanced at it." - agentmancuso