Blog

How Scotland Joined Great Britain

Blog

I've always had a soft spot in my heart for independence movements, be they big or small. So, when the Scottish National Party won a majority in the Scottish Parliament and promised a referendum on independence, I took notice. If you have any thoughts on Scottish Independence that you'd like me to include in the future video, please leave a comment below.

I had intended to make a short video on the pros and cons of Scottish independence but in my research go so wrapped up in the epic failure that was the Darien scheme – the name for the attempted Panama colony – that I decided to spin that off into a separate video.

There are a few details that I had to leave out of the video for simplicity sake, but that I did want to include here.

There was not one, but two ships that set sail for Panama

The 2,500 Scots sent out to Panama didn't all arrive on the first ship. They were spread across two different vessels.

The second ship sailed a year later and didn't realize how badly things were going because the colonists wrote back saying that everything was just fine.

There is some interesting speculation that the cheer campaign was organized by the colonies because the same 'talking points' appear across many different letters back home.

It was the Scottish Lords who got reimbursed for their losses

The Scottish lords and members of parliament who lost money from investing in the Darien scheme were the ones who got their money back from England. So, it's not surprising that the Scottish MPs had a big incentive to vote for the Acts of Union, even if it was unpopular with the people.

Scotland wasn't doing so well even before the Darien Scheme

You might imply from the video that everything was going well in scotland before the Darien scheme ruined everything, but that was far from the case. Scotland's economy had been suffering for years from civil war and famines in the country. With empire becoming increasingly important in the 1700s, even without the Darien Scheme it seems quite possible that Scotland would have eventually become part of the Kingdom of England (or even France) anyway.

Script

Back in the 1690s there were only two countries on the island of Great Britain: The Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England.

England and the other great european powers were doing rather well for themselves by expanding their empires through the cunning use of flags.

Scotland had no empire but wanted to join in the game, and thus needed to establish a colony of her very own.

But where to build it?

"Panama!" declared Scotland.

She imagined the colony's strategic location would make trade with the far east safer and faster by eliminating the long journey around the hazardous Cape of Good Hope and Cape Horn where both wind and wave delight in smashing ships against rock and ice.

"Who will lend me money to make this great idea a reality?" asked Scotland.

No one, was the answer.

Instead of helping, the european empires started trade wars with Scotland to limit the power of their future rival.

So, poor Scotland had to fund the project herself. She gathered up all the money she could, literally put it all in a big box and, capital thusly raised, sent off a colonial ship.

400,000 pounds, 8,000 kilometers and 111 days later, 2,500 Scotsmen landed on the shores of Panama, named it 'New Caledonia' and immediately discovered a few small problems with their plan:

First, the mountains on the western side of Panama were a wee bit larger than expected, making overland trade pretty much impossible. Even if they had thought of building a canal, the technology to do so was still 200 years away.

Second, The woolen goods brought to trade with the locals was useless in the endless heat and humidity.

Third, the Spanish Conquistadors had already planted flags on the sandy beaches and weren't too happy to see the scots arrive.

And fourth, without adequate supplies, disease such as the perennial tropical favorite, Dysentery, spread quickly.

Two years and 2,000 dead scots later, they abandoned the project.

Now, this wasn't the first failed attempt at Scottish empire – early colonies had been tried and abandoned in Nova Scotia, New Jersey and Carolina, but the Panama debacle was particularly devastating to Scotland because she was over-invested.

Remember that money-in-a-box? Turns out it was a fifth of the wealth of the whole country.

Oops.

Scotland's sudden impoverishment proved a golden opportunity for The Kingdom of England who was growing increasingly worried that her neighbor to the North would ally with an enemy.

England offered Scotland a deal that would reimburse Scotland for her losses if she voted for union. In 1707 Scotland agreed and the Kingdom of Great Britain was born.

While the surrender of independence was unpopular in Scotland, her economy improved with access to once English (now British) trade routes and she played a formative role in what would soon be the largest empire in human history.

That being said, still more than 300 years later, Scotland has never fully given up her national identity and thoughts of independence.

Credits

Images by: mysza831, 23am.com, mikebaird, viZZZual.com, kinmortal, thskyt, ex_magician, sedoglia, k4dordy, & me'nthedogs.

Music by: Kevin MacLeod

Where State Capitals Should Be

The United States is a bit odd in when it puts its state capitals. Ask a random person what the capital of a random state is and they’ll probably tell you the name of the largest city in that state – but in the US that’s rarely the correct answer.

Only 17 of the 50 states have their most populous city as their capital: Wyoming, Idaho, West Virginia, Mississippi, Georgia, Oklahoma, Iowa, Arkansas, Hawaii, Indiana, Utah, Colorado, Massachusetts, Arizona, Rhode Island, Ohio and South Carolina.

The other 33 states have a small, generally obscure, city as their capital. For example, take a look at this map of California:

It’s as though the state capital was chosen for maximum annoyance of the citizens of California. Sacramento isn’t the largest city (L.A.) but the 6th. Now, perhaps there are reasons you don’t want to use the largest city as your capital. The next most logical choice would be to use the center of population – the point that would take the least distance for everyone in the state to travel too. But again, this is rarely the choice.

The map below shows all of the capitals (cyan), largest cities if not the capital (red) and the center of population for each of the fifty states:

I’ve also put together a table showing how far away the center of population is from the state capital building.

Capital City

State

Distance from Center of Population(mi)

 

Juneau

Alaska

544.32

 

Sacramento

California

246.15

 

Carson City

Nevada

243.42

 

Tallahassee

Florida

241.24

 

Cheyenne

Wyoming

156.10

 

Springfield

Illinois

122.43

 

Albany

New York

91.07

 

Bismarck

North Dakota

78.33

 

Santa Fe

New Mexico

76.23

 

Pierre

South Dakota

70.93

 

Boise

Idaho

65.63

 

Olympia

Washington

63.71

 

Raleigh

North Carolina

59.52

 

Topeka

Kansas

58.41

 

Charleston

West Virginia

57.22

 

Montgomery

Alabama

51.02

 

Austin

Texas

48.96

 

Madison

Wisconsin

48.37

 

Lincoln

Nebraska

40.90

 

Jackson

Mississippi

40.36

 

Atlanta

Georgia

38.86

 

Oklahoma City

Oklahoma

38.20

 

Des Moines

Iowa

38.16

 

Helena

Montana

36.96

 

Columbus

Ohio

36.14

 

Little Rock

Arkansas

34.34

 

Nashville

Tennessee

34.30

 

Frankfort

Kentucky

32.25

 

Saint Paul

Minnesota

28.64

 

Richmond

Virginia

27.91

 

Honolulu

Hawaii

27.45

 

Indianapolis

Indiana

26.80

 

Baton Rouge

Louisiana

26.51

 

Salt Lake City

Utah

26.06

 

Salem

Oregon

25.65

 

Trenton

New Jersey

23.02

 

Hartford

Connecticut

20.85

 

Lansing

Michigan

20.29

 

Annapolis

Maryland

19.91

 

Denver

Colorado

19.61

 

Montpelier

Vermont

16.44

 

Boston

Massachusetts

16.42

 

Harrisburg

Pennsylvania

14.87

 

Phoenix

Arizona

14.52

 

Dover

Delaware

14.08

 

Jefferson City

Missouri

10.82

 

Providence

Rhode Island

5.65

 

Concord

New Hampshire

5.25

 

Augusta

Maine

2.29

 

Columbia

South Carolina

2.13

 

You can see the full Google Doc here, which I’ve used for several other of my blog posts such as passport ownership in the United States and the rate of growth of the United States and median income.

The True Cost of the Royal Family Explained

Blog

I decided to put this together after hearing one person too many moan about getting a public holiday for the Royal Wedding.

Script

Look. At. That.

What a waste. That queen, living it off the government in her castles with her corgis. (and gin) Just how much does this cost to maintain?

The answer: 40 million pounds.

That’s about 65 pence per person per year of tax money going to the royal family.

Sure, It’s still twenty-three pence short of a complete shield, but it might be more than you want to pay.

Any after all, those are your coins. Why does the queen get to steal them?

Well, it’s a little complicated.

The story starts with this guy: King George the third, most well known as the monarch who lost the United States for the Empire.

Less well known – but far more interesting – is he likely suffered from a mental illness called Porphyria which has the unusual side effect of transforming your poop from it’s normal boring brown to a delightful shade of purple.

But I digress – back to the the reason the Royals get tax money.

King George was having trouble paying his bills and had racked up debt.

While he did own huge tracts of land, the profit from their rental was too small to cover his expenses.

He offered a deal to parliament: for the rest of his life he would surrender the profits from the rents on his land in exchange for getting a fixed annual salary and having his debts removed.

Parliament took him up on the deal, guessing that the profits from the rents would pay off long-term.

Just how well did parliament do? Back to the present, let’s compare their profits and losses by using a tenner to represent 10 million pounds.

The cost to maintain the royal family today is 40 million pounds per year.

But the revenue paid to the UK from the royal lands is 200 million.

200 million in revenue subtract 40 million in salary costs equals 160 million pounds in profit.

That’s right: The United Kingdom earns 160 million pounds in profit, every year from the Royal Family.

So stop all your moaning about the Royal family and how much they cost and how worthless they are. The Royal Family is Great for Great Britain.

Doing the individual’s math again:

160 million pounds divided by 62 million people is about 2 pounds and 60 pence.

Because of the Royal Family, your taxes are actually 2 pounds and 60 pence cheaper each year than they would otherwise be.

But perhaps that’s not enough for you because you’re a real greedy geezer. Why not kick they royals out and keep 100% of the revenue.

Because it’s still their land. King George the crazy wasn’t crazy enough to give up everything, just the profits.

But it wasn’t only him: every Monarch since King George the third has voluntarily turned over the profits from their land to the United Kingdom. Again: Voluntarily.

If the government stopped paying the Royal Family’s living and state expenses the Royals would be forced to take back the profits from their land. And your taxes, dear Monarchy-haters, would go UP not DOWN.

Plus 160 million is just the easily measurable money the United Kingdom makes from the royal family.

Don’t forget their huge indirect golden goose: tourists.

Annoying though they might be to the locals by blocking the tube and refusing to stand on the right, they dump buckets of money on the UK to see the sights, travel ludicrously short distances by public transport, and generally act silly a long way from home.

Sure not everything they come to see is royal, but the most expensive stuff is.

And who are the biggest spenders? The Yanks.

After they’ve finished buying maple syrup and cheap, pharmaceuticals, Tijuanaian professional services and illegal pharmaceuticals, where do they go next?

The United Kingdom.

Americans fly across an ocean to see a land filled with Castles that aren’t plastic.

And why do the Americans think Frances castles are so boring and stinky and the UK’s castles so awesome? Because real monarchs still use them.

The tower of London is so stunning to visitors because the Royal Crest on the Yeomen Warders Uniform is real. It’s not a lame historical re-enactment or modern LARPing.

It’s the embodiment of the living, breathing queen.

Everywhere you look she’s sprinkled fairy dust on banal objects to make them magically attractive to tourists.

12 million of whom visit every year spending 7,000 million pounds.

Which suddenly makes those direct profits look like rather small change.

But perhaps you don’t care than the monarchs are a perpetual GOLD MINE for the UK. You’re a Republican and you dislike like the royal family because of their political power. After all, the government gets all its right to rule through the crown, not the people.

And yes, I’ll grant you that back in the head-choppy days of yore, this was a legitimate concern, but the modern queen isn’t a dangerous political lion but a declawed kitten.

Her powers are limited to a kabuki theater act of approving what parliament wants to do anyway.

Remove the royal family from government and fundamentally nothing would be different except now you wouldn’t live in the magical United Kingdom but the rather dull United Republic of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. A.K.A URESWNI for short. Doesn’t quite have the same ring to it.

But, maybe I’m wrong – perhaps the queen is a political ticking time bomb, just waiting for her chance to declare random wars and devolve parliaments for the lulz.

But until that day comes.

God save the queen.

Notes & Corrections

Irritatingly I mixed up St Michael’s Mount and Mont Saint Michel. I had literally hundreds of image files I was collecting and just mixed them up. I’m doubly annoyed because want I actually wanted was an awesome image of a French castle (with sticky lines) and a boring image of an English castle (with starburst).

Some notes for people who are interested: the queen pays taxes. American’s top tourist destinations. United Kingdom tourist statistics. The Crown Estate estimates portfolio.

Credits

Images by: anko.gaku_ula, Kyle May, koishikawagirl, PhillipC, Davide Scalzo, David Hughes, crosathorian, L-plate big cheese, Rev Stan, Diliff, Todd Baker, pikous, Yogma, Pink Sherbert Photography, Vee Dub, EDD07, DrJimiGlide, Be.Futureproof, Tomas Castelazo Photography, jmt–29, LucaLu, wolfsavard, laszlo-photo, fauxto_digital, mornathedark, jpctalbot, ell brown, Brimack, Ryuugakusei, caseydavid and me {2} {3}.

Music: “Thatched Villagers” by Kevin MacLeod.