Talk:Darien scheme

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

SICA ZP
Latin America Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Central America, which collaborates on articles related to Central America. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

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)

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Quality?

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)