Talk:Darien scheme

What resistance?

As the Darien company was backed by 25–50% of all the money circulating in Scotland; its failure left the entire Lowlands almost completely ruined, and was an important factor in weakening their resistance to the Act of Union (completed in 1707). The land where the Darien colony was built is virtually uninhabited today. This reads like the dastardly plan of the duuurr English won through, some people do think like everywhere degrading others and having 'an enemy', I can guarantee many wanted a Union in both Scotland and England as the Scottish referendum vote shows, though many such people are naive enough to think government isn't controlled by very selfish and greedy people and it is that way because of their optimism and naivety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.0.126.174 (talk) 18:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Untitled

FYI: This colony was recently in the news. See Panama to display letters from failed Scots colony at Yahoo! News (from a Reuters's report). BlankVerse ∅ 08:38, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

The Colony Would Have Been a Smashing Success

I don't feel it's appropriate to cite a mere Master's thesis written by some woman in Ohio as sufficient evidence that the colony would have been a massive success if only things had played out differently. I feel that our sources for such a claim should be published books by experts. If none exist at present, then this claim should not appear on this Wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.209.24.211 (talk) 13:17, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree, and so I have removed it as well as the second half of the paragraph containing that citation - the removed text was redundant, potential reasons for the failure of the scheme and sources for English & Spanish opposition had already been given in the previous paragraph. Also, 'what-ifs' shouldn't go in the Lead Section which are meant to be summaries/quick overviews of articles. Personally I don't think the thesis should be used in the article, but if it is put back in it should take up less space (e.g. one short sentence) and shouldn't be in the lead section. 86.175.191.218 (talk) 23:37, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

the Company raised 400,000 pounds

Is that Pound sterling or Pound Scots? –Hajor 17:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it was 400,000l. sterling, but I'm really not sure - both were used in finance in Scotland at the time, confusing matters, and I really don't trust Google over this. Certainly the description of it as a large fraction of the currency in Scotland suggests English, not Scots - 400k Scots would only have been about thirty-five thousand in sterling, and a few decades earlier one man was able to underwrite the English navy for half that amount out of his own pocket [1].

With those comments, the staggering amount in sterling seems more likely that the more moderate amount in Scots. Thanks. –Hajor 17:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Can we sanity-check this? Yes. Let's try...

It looks like the total English GDP was about £55m (contemporary value) in 1688. The Scottish one would have been smaller... hmm... let's call it a fifth, eleven million, which is probably too high but hey.

This'd make the Darien sum about three and a half percent of GDP; if a third, total cash in the country would have been eleven percent of GDP.

Currently, in the US, currency makes up ~6.25% of GDP, twelve and a half or so if you include checking accounts and other "M1 money" (see money supply).

I'm not an economist, by far - feel free to find one and ask them - but this makes "a third of all the money" being 400k sterling look plausible to me. Shimgray | talk | 18:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Why Darién?

What's the source for this? I'm used to Darien. Septentrionalis 05:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand your question, the source for what? AllanHainey 08:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

"Darien scheme" quite aptly redirects to "Darién scheme" (with the diacritic). No problem, really. =J //Big Adamsky 11:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean, the wee dash above the e. My understanding is that this is how Darien is rendered by the Spanish who claimed Darien, and presumably by the Panamanians who hold the territory now. I see your point though "Darien scheme" relates to the Scottish scheme & so the Scottish spelling (without dash) should be used unless at the time of the scheme the dash was used Eg in advertising for the venture, newspaper reports, etc. I have no idea whether it was or wasn't but frankly doubt it as the accented e isn't used in Scots, or in English. AllanHainey 08:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

This violates Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English). --Dhartung | Talk 01:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree that this violates the naming conventions of Wikipedia. As the correct spelling is with the dash. Even though he was a Scot. Just because Google pulls up the spelling without the dash more often than not, doesn't mean squat. Read the history books. It's with the dash. As that is the history he affected. Jeeny 23:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

All diacretics should be seen as violating the naming conventions, because they mean that the name is not written in English. We don't write Chinese terms in Chinese characters, and no more should we write terms from other Western languages in diacretics. Doing so is an insult to the English language, but in this age of politically correct guilt-ridden post-colonial grovelling, insults to the English language/Englishness/England/English aspects of American culture are exactly what the left-liberal establishment likes. Choalbaton (talk) 23:07, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Quality?

This article seems shallow and subjective. Can anyone offer a more objective indepth account?

I'm going to move this page

Further to last year's "Why Darién?" discussion, I will move this page to Darien scheme at the beginning of April 2007. This is to remove the acute accent which never appears in newspapers, etc, in Scotland when discussing the scheme. If you click on "what links here" you'll see that there are quite a few links to be redirected. I could do with some help after I make the move. Of course, if anyone can give me a good enough reason not to move it, I'll not move it. ML5 13:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, with no good reason to stop me, I've moved it.--ML5 11:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I would have objected if I got here sooner. I have the books. I just have to get my scanner to work. This is after-all a Central America subject. The dash is important. --Jeeny 23:39, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the area in question is called Darién. I also believe that when referring to the area, the acute accent should be present. However, this article is not about the area. It's about the share scheme which nearly bankrupted Scotland, not a Central American subject. I live in Scotland and this share scheme is always referred to as the Darien Scheme, without the accent. This is a 300-year-old spelling mistake; we shouldn't be trying to change it now.--ML5 11:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

New source

Just added a new source [2] which suggests it was not a bad idea after all, which puts "scheme" into a new light. Darien scheme, or Darien swindle. -- 71.191.36.194 19:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

New Caledonia

The colony was called New Caledonia but there are no redirects or disambiguations leading to this page. I had to find it by looking at the page for "1698" - I had no idea it was called "Darien scheme", only heard of it in reference as New Caledonia. Hopefully someone can create a disambiguation page for New Caledonia (disambiguation) as there now appear to be 3 different New Caledonia's .-- 71.191.36.194 19:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

England's Attitude

One of the best accounts of the Darien Scheme is to be found towards the end of Lord MacAulay's classic 'The History of England'. Nothing in that account suggests anything to back up some of the allegations in this article that King William actively conspired to undermine the Darien Scheme or that the English refused to give assistance at Jamaica. In fact, the Scots were accepted into, and given sanctuary in the English American colonies after the fiasco ended.

This article totally fails to explain the fact that Scotland's Darien scheme was exclusively for the purpose of cornering the world's trade at Panama and hence under cutting England. The failure of the scheme came down to a total lack of research and preparation as well as the fact that they chose for the location of their new colony a site which was right inside the Spanish sphere of influence.

The final death blow to Scotland's scheme was the attack by the Spaniards. This is not mentioned in the article. England's attitude to the Darien scheme may not have been favourable since it was directly aimed at undermining them. However England played no active part in the downfall of the scheme. England sat back and watched while events took their own inevitable course.

It was Spain that sabotaged the Darien scheme so why doesn't this article reflect that fact instead of chipping slices out of England? I detect too much sour grapes on the part of whoever wrote this article. The reality is that Scotland voluntarily joined up with England after the failure of the Darien scheme because it knew that it could never be a force on the world stage in its own right. Even today it only talks about going it alone providing that it is propped up by Europe. Scotland needs to learn even today that its population are essentially English and that Scotland and England need to bind together as they have successfully done since 1707.202.69.173.228 (talk) 16:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

"Scotland needs to learn even today that its population are essentially English" - eh, no. It may be 'British', but not English. I would love you to shout out that line in a Scottish pub; wait while I run for cover!. --86.157.198.68 (talk) 22:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

The BBC states "King William issued a decree to all the English colonies from Canada to the Caribbean: there was to be no trade with the errant Scots and no assistance - not so much as a barrel of clean water was to be offered to them." source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-27405350 2.31.164.85 (talk) 12:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

"Scotland needs to learn even today that its population are essentially English and that Scotland and England need to bind together as they have successfully done since 1707." Two possible reasons for this inclusion 1) Arrogant person with ties to England 2) It was in fact written to stir up anti-English feeling, and was written by a person with ties to Scotland masquerading as an English person. Having seen what has been written by some people with so called ties to Scotland and the rise of UKIP and the lingering smell that is the Tory party well I find both 1)and 2) equally possible.--94.0.126.174 (talk) 18:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Consequences of failure

I'm struggling with the apart about the failure being "...reasons the Acts of Union were not as heavily resisted by the government of Scotland as they had been...", given that the Previous attempts at union seemed to have been largely Scottish. This section seems very politically - and incorrectly - biased. --Interesdom (talk) 16:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes the article has clearly been written by a modern Scottish nationalist who has absolutely no idea about Scotland's history or its close and successful relationship with England. When the truth becomes exposed, these kind go into denial. 210.4.100.115 (talk) 15:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

And regarding the reference,[3]this article has entirely missed the point. It points out how the 'Darien Scheme' could have been successful and then tries to point the blame for it's failure on England. It points out how England didn't help because they didn't want to offend the Spaniards

Of course England didn't want trouble with Spain! Scotland were going right into the heart of the Spanish empire with a scheme to undercut England and Spain's supremacy in world trade.

So why would England have risked a war with Spain (who would have perceived Scotland to be acting as an agent for England) in order to facilitate Scotland usurping both England and Spain.

Of course England adopted a hands off approach! And now they are criticizing England for not helping to undermine themsleves. Should England have backed Scotland up and had a war with Spain to make sure that Scotland undercut England?

The scheme failed because of Yellow Fever and the fact that the Scots were routed by the Spanish. 210.4.100.115 (talk) 12:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would attempt to blame the English for the failure of the colony. However, as english investors were forced to withdraw by their powers that be, Scotland had to make up the rest of the money itself. When the colony failed it was largely bankrupt. Had the english investors remained then Scotland would have still been embarassed and poorer, but perhaps not to the same degree. Andrew —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.71.252 (talk) 11:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Those are two aspects and there is no one cause of failure. The investors and the Scottish ministers asked the English government to support their claim to New Caledonia, but England refused in order to avoid war with Spain, which is an unchallengeable decision. However the East India Company, with friends in Parliament, did interfere and forced English investors to withdraw. England was not as malicious as the Edinburgh mob believed, but it did conspire to cause failure. Likewise, shutting the Scots out from trade with the American colonies diverted their energies to find a colony of their own.

Had the Company of Scotland just engaged in normal trade on the coasts of Africa and India, it would have thrived, but the Darien scheme was utter folly, and even without the English intervention it would have failed.

The odd thing about the mob attitude at the time is that it drove public opinion against a Union, but the English behaviour was specifically because the English parliament and government felt no responsibilities towards Scotland any more than towards any foreign land. With the Union, the new British government and a parliament with Scottish representatives ensured that Scotland would no longer be marginalised: Darien could not have happened after 1707, and indeed the Scots thrived in the East India Company and the American colonies out of proportion to their numbers. Hogweard (talk) 09:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

The failure of the scheme did not "weaken" resistance to the Act of Union. It was a reason why many Scots welcomed union with England. The current wording is very obviously pro-independence.Royalcourtier (talk) 06:15, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Please change it then. Oreo Priest ^talk 12:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Where was it exactly?

Where precisely was it, or more specifically, where was New Edinburgh in relation to modern settlements, and where is Golden Island? I've looked on Google Earth and Windows Live Local and I can't find them. The historical maps in the article don't seem to have been very accurate, though it is also a problem that on both programs the coast is obscured by cloud. Luwilt (talk) 23:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

What remains?

Did anyone remain there? What is there now? Is there any local heritage from the site? Modern pix? modern map, satelite link?

IceDragon64 (talk) 12:50, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't provide you with any info fit for the article but if you (or anyone else) is intrested - I do have this. Last year I sat Higher History (passed with an 'A' as well) and we were provided with a newly published textbook written by a History teacher from somewhere near Aviemore (at least I think it was Aviemore, somewhere in the Highlands anyway). We were studying the 1707 Union etc. and the book said that - the only remains of the settlement is a big stone stuck in the ground with Fort St Andrew carved into it. If anyone is interested the only detail I can remember is it was published in 2010. Thanks a lot. 86.154.191.206 (talk) 11:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I have added a map, which I believe is correct. Today the head of the peninsula is known as Punta Escoces and the bay as Bahia de Caledonia, which is quite a tribute to such a brief colony. Hogweard (talk) 09:33, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Flawed concept

I think it ought to be said in the leader that it was a terrible idea as it is is generaly regarded as being based on a flawed concept by historians, Arthur Herman in How the Scots Invented the Modern World (p30 onwards) quotes one as saying no one could defend the scheme given it was sited in a fever ridden area owned by someone else (which has still not been settled today by the way). The most complete account Darien : Scotlands dream of Empire by John Prebble is pretty clear that the scheme was a non starter.

Well, if you can provide a citation (and it seems like you can), be bold, and go ahead and add it! If true it should be there. Oreo Priest ^talk 12:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

The scheme seems to have been set up with the pretence as if Spain was cool about loosing a part of New Grenada (the pre-runner to Grand Colombia). Small it was, but also a part of it. Who gave whom such an untruthful account of the Spanish way of doing things? Would there be a situation where Spain would be cool about it? The citations for that would be interesting. --85.164.221.166 (talk) 15:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Departure date

The article states that they left Leith on 14 July 1698, but a Google Books search reveals several different dates, none of which are 14 July:

• 8 July: [4] New York Public Library (1914)
• 17 July: [5] Peter Hume Brown] (1909)
• 18 July: [6] Amy Chua (2009)
• 25 July: [7] Chambers's Encyclopaedia (1862)
• 26 July: [8] Encyclopaedia Britannica (1888), [9] Sir Walter Scott (1875)

All of these may be considered as reliable sources, so I think the best approach will be just to say "July 1698" and add a footnote to say the exact date is unknown. howcheng {chat} 22:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Drummond

Could someone please remove the link to Thomas Drummond in the Transclusion (I can't figure out how to edit the Transclusion), which links to the wrong Captain Thomas Drummond, an important army officer, civil engineer and senior public official, born in 1797, some 100 years after the Darién scheme. In fact there appear to have been two Drummonds involved: Captain Thomas Drummond, an ex-grenadier officer in Argyll's Regiment, who took part in the Massacre of Glencoe. He was a councillor of the first Darién Colony; and Captain Robert Drummond, the Commander of the Caledonia, which he brought home from New York. Brother of Thomas Drummond. Later commanded the Speedy Return on an African voyage and it seems he and his brother were murdered by Captain Thomas Green, the Master of the Worcester.

Perhaps someone might establish a page on the Drummonds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tapoensgen (talk • contribs) 10:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I've linked it to Thomas Drummond (officer) (which doesn't yet exist), but there might be a better title for it. Also, if you think there should be a page on the Drummonds (or one for each), WP:BE BOLD and go for it! Ask me on my talk page if you need any help with anything. Cheers, Oreo Priest ^talk 16:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Colony was named Caledonia

Although it is apparently sometimes mis-referred to as "New" Caledonia, reliable sources close to the subject state that the colony was named Caledonia. Try this one, or this. Please, no more well-intentioned edits adding the "New" back in. Richigi (talk) 00:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Also, actual documents of the endeavour, wherein the colony is referred to repeatedly as Caledonia, can be viewed here. I do note that even very early editors began to tack on "New"; nevertheless, included in this publication is the text of the act of Parliament that provided the colony was "to be called by the name of CALEDONIA" (caps original). I think that should be sufficiently authoritative. Richigi (talk) 01:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The failure of the Darien colonization project has been cited as one of the motivations for the 1707, despite fierce opposition by the majority of the people of Scotland. Acts of Union.

Section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darien_scheme#Consequences_of_failure says: "The failure of the Darien colonization project has been cited as one of the motivations for the 1707, despite fierce opposition by the majority of the people of Scotland. Acts of Union." I'm taking my best guess at what it should say. 78.86.131.23 (talk) 13:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Good work. Oreo Priest ^talk 15:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Boats staying ?

It seems implied that the boats stayed at the colony the whole time, which is weird considering how valuable boats were at the time. --Musaran (talk) 14:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Subscriptions -- a better term?

>In the face of opposition by English commercial interests, the Company of Scotland raised subscriptions in Amsterdam, Hamburg and London for the scheme.

Is there a better way to explain what a "subscription" meant in this case? Most people who read this will immediately think "newspaper" or "magazine" and clearly that is wrong. I don't that much about the capitalization of public projects but would "share" work instead? Or "bond"? "Investment"? Rissa, copy editor (talk) 03:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

No, "subscription" is the proper term. It is like a "pledge"; and it means a committment to pay.68.1.87.200 (talk) 13:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC) See Subscription (finance) Thus, when one subscribes to a magazine, that person agrees to pay for receiving that magazine. And no, while shares and bonds are also financial instruments, they are different; they are received after payment has been made. Terry Thorgaard (talk) 13:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

"Subscription" may be the proper term, but the initial concern was whether the lay reader will understand the technical meaning of subscription in this instance. I am concerned they won't. Why don't we err or the side of clarity, rather than jargon, but explaining the meaning of subscription in this context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.209.24.211 (talk) 13:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Patterson

>Paterson was instrumental in getting the company off the ground in London. He had failed to interest several European countries in his project but, in the aftermath of the English reaction to the company, he was able to get a respectful hearing for his ideas.

The English reaction was negative, right? Why, then, was he able to get the other countries to give him a "respectful hearing"? I think this could be elaborated. Rissa, copy editor (talk) 03:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Wow, I just looked at William Paterson. Gack. Rissa, copy editor (talk) 03:32, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Civil Wars

>>Several ruinous civil wars in the late 1600s had exhausted the people and diminished their resources.

I looked under Scottish Civil War but wasn't able to figure out which were the civil wars of the late 1600s. Does this refer to the Jacobite risings from 1688 and 1746? And if so, it needs a link. Rissa, copy editor (talk) 03:39, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Regnal number

William III of England was known in Scotland as William II. For this reason, I have changed all references to "William III" when pertaining to Scotland to "William II". — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFlyingScotsman01 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Darien scheme. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140903132403/http://www.nms.ac.uk/explore/collections-stories/scottish-history-and-archaeology/darien-chest/ to http://www.nms.ac.uk/explore/collections-stories/scottish-history-and-archaeology/darien-chest/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:19, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

About the End of The Rising Sun

I encourage a section to be added of the attempt of The Rising Sun to return to Scotland in Summer 1700. Borland's "History of Darien" covers this, available online, and refers to my 7-great-grandparents Rev. Archibald Stobo and his wife Elizabeth Park Stobo, who went on The Rising Sun to Darien in 1699. On the way back, The Rising Sun was hit by a storm in the Gulf of Mexico, was badly damaged, limped into Charleston Carolina, but could not get over the bar into Charleston Bay. A launch was used to lighten the ship, ~19 were allowed to go ashore, including my ancestors, and a hurricane the next day sank the ship and killed all remaining people on board. SophoraDeceased (talk) 18:55, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Scottish national debt?

The article says: "Some Scottish nobility petitioned Westminster to wipe out the Scottish national debt and stabilise the currency. Although the first request was not met, the second was". However, Acts of Union 1707 states "Scotland had no national debt". Which is it? Jack Upland (talk) 17:46, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Darien colony.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:41, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

wrong word? spelling?

laster? later? "Essentially the intention was to tame, occupy and administer the land of the Darién Gap, laster known to be virtually untraversable." 62.128.45.96 (talk) 14:48, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

King

William 3 not 2 31.94.56.199 (talk) 17:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

William III of England was William II of Scotland. Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 19:21, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Discrepancies between values

In the 'Origins' reaction, paragraph 6 is says:

• "...raised £400,000 sterling in a few weeks (equivalent to roughly £66 million today)"

In the 'Consequences of failure' section is says:

• "Article 15, granted £398,085 10s sterling to Scotland to offset future liability towards the English national debt. That amount equates to about £100 million in 2020 money."

The amounts in Sterling are almost identical but the equated modern values are very different, it would be nice if there was some alignment on this. Project Osprey (talk) 14:02, 18 September 2024 (UTC)