Tell me more ×
History Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for historians and history buffs. It's 100% free, no registration required.
up vote 8 down vote favorite

I asked this question in various places in the Web. I haven't received a clear answer.

The USA separated from the UK because the people felt that they are not British, and they weren't.

Weren't Canadians/Australians/New Zealanders also descended from the British?

Or was it that UK was unable to administer them for financial reasons? I will not accept this as an answer. In this case why was the UK able to hold onto to Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and Wales?

Why are Canada/Australia/New Zealand not administered from the UK?

share|improve this question
Canada, Australia, and New Zealand were all British territories, yes. While I do not know the answer to this question, I do believe that "financial reasons" played a role. Do keep in mind there is a vast distance between those colonies and the British holdings of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. Whereas the people of the colonies in question could more easily "separate themselves" from the UK, northern Ireland for instance had long attempted to end British rule, but Britain was able to repress this desire likely because it was more financially capable due to the closeness of Ireland. – BrotherJack Apr 17 '12 at 17:27
5  
"The USA separated from the UK because the people felt that they are not British, and they weren't." This is erroneous. The reason for the revolution was the lack of representation in governmental affairs. Hence the term "taxation without representation". Indeed most of the populace still wanted to be part of Great Britain when the revolution started. – canadiancreed Apr 25 '12 at 19:37
The USA separated from the UK because they could not secure their rights as Englishmen. The majority of Americans at the time perceived themselves as Englishmen and wanted to remain English. The English government at the time did not have the governance mechanism to manage a brand new intercontintental empire. Severe miscalculations on both sides compromised the trust necessary for effective government. – Mark C. Wallace Feb 17 at 17:43

4 Answers

up vote 9 down vote accepted

In Common Sense, Thomas Paine wrote, "there is something very absurd in supposing a continent to be perpetually governed by an island."

The United States, Canada, and Australia (New Zealand to a lesser extent), were all countries of continental size, far away from England. As such, they naturally wanted to have their own destinies.

Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, were all smaller than (and nearby) England, and therefore "absorbable" by England into the United Kingdom.

Although if one looks at the troubles in Northern Ireland, or the Scottish independence movement, one even wonders about their "absorbability."

share|improve this answer
Hmm...Impressive ! Please site some reference so that I can accept it . – BROY Apr 25 '12 at 17:18
@Saqib: The reference I gave was from Thomas Paine's book "Common Sense," portions of which (including the relevant quote) are produced in this wiki: en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Thomas_Paine. The last headline in bold before going on to "The American Crisis." – Tom Au Apr 25 '12 at 17:23
3  
+1 to bringing in Thomas Paine. – MichaelF Apr 25 '12 at 18:58
@MichaelF: I remember this reference from an "old" (1986) Revolutionary War novel. Was glad to be able to track down the actual quote. – Tom Au Apr 25 '12 at 19:16
1  
@davidjwest: In 1776, America "only had a population about a third the size of England." The idea was, a few "colonials" woke up one day and said to each other, "if we can throw out the mother country, we can have this large continent all to ourselves." – Tom Au Jul 6 '12 at 14:42
show 4 more comments
up vote 7 down vote

Simple answer - it's complicated!

The world was very different in 1776 than it was in 1867 or 1900. The US war of independance followed the movement/ideas that led to the French revolution and was a real political/philosophical difference in how you should run a country. It was also concentrated in a few large cities with a large established political class. At the same time Canada, NZ and Australia were much more sparsely populated by people who were mostly much newer immigrants and still thought of themselves as British so there was no real 'independence' movement.

The formation of these three into separate countries was a much more gentle gradual process and generally fairly peaceful. I think there was a genuine feeling that their economies, population etc was big enough to stand on their own and there was no legitimate reason to stop them - better as friendly 'cousins' than prisoners.

India, the remaining bits of Africa and the Caribbean following WWII was more a combination of, "we can't afford them", "we just fought a war for freedom we can't really justify our own Reich" and the Bomb+Cold war makes the empire pretty irrelevant anyway.

Why Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and Wales didn't get separated then?

At the time? Because either their economies and population didn't support it or were much much more interlinked with England's. Ireland is a bit of a special case - there were political/religious reasons for it being independent which overrode other concerns

share|improve this answer
I think when answering in this site, everybody should avoid talking like a First Person (We, I, etc.). This because, answerers are answering on behalf of the site, not their respective countries. Anyway, good answer though! – BROY Apr 18 '12 at 8:01
@Saqib - yes, the "we can't" was imagining the thinking inside the govt at the time, rather than I/we the writer – mgb Apr 18 '12 at 15:09
Actually, the American revolution preceded the French one. – Felix Goldberg Feb 17 at 2:51
@FelixGoldberg - but the idea was "in the air" - I'll edit the question – mgb Feb 17 at 3:07
up vote 4 down vote

Australia achieved independence from the United Kingdom in 1986 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_Act_1986 ). This occurred for a number of reasons: The UK's entry into the EEC and the exclusion of Australian exports from the UK market; Lingering resentment over the nature of the Dismissal; and, the fact that Australia had been a functionally self-governing advanced industrial nation since 1901, and that this was the final conclusion.

Australia federated in 1901 to eliminate internal customs barriers, and to ease local responsibility for imperial self defence. This heightened the attempt to produce an Australian manufacturing economy, and new found Federal powers were used to supplement existing initiatives in this area.

Australia developed a manufacturing economy because of the distances involved in transport, and the poor supply of goods from the UK. As soon as this began, Australia developed semi-independent capital. From this point onwards the idea of the United Kingdom maintaining permanent administration over the Australian colonies was a fairytale. I'd suggest looking into the development of Australian Liberalism in the 19th Century, and its defeat of the squatocratic conception of a "status society" in Australia. With Australian Liberalism came the Australian Bourgeoisie (a local version of the UK outfit), and with such localisation came the idea of a manufacturing economy.

I'd suggest Raewyn Connell, Terence H. Irving (1980) Class structure in Australian history for this, it goes into a number of decisive points in the replication of Australian class society and its economy.

share|improve this answer
3  
Strictly speaking, the Dominions became independent of the UK in 1931 with the Statute of Westminster acknowledging their legislative competence and parity with the Imperial parliament. – Owen Blacker Aug 5 '12 at 16:30
2  
Except the Commonwealth of Australia didn't ratify the Statute of Westminster until later. And except that "The State" includes appeals routes from the courts. Formally, Australia has been completely independent since the Qld. appeals route got closed. Substantively Australia has never been independent due to the structure of its finance capital. Essentially Australia would possess an independent legal system after the 1830s, but this fruit would not be fully plucked until the 1980s. Prior to Westminster there were a number of "independent" initiatives, such as compulsory arbitration. – Samuel Russell Aug 6 '12 at 4:05
up vote 3 down vote

Actually the perception of these places being independent is much greater then the actual degree of separation. In Canada for instance they had to ask the queen for permission to dissolve the parliament.

Fun fact: Canadians pay more per capita in taxes to the queen then the British do. Approximately 1.54 per capita vs the 1.32 that the English pay.

Added Source as requested for above comment: Maclean's

share|improve this answer
Interesting, +1. But adding any links to sources or further informations on the topic would make the answer even better. Welcome to our site! – Darek Wędrychowski Feb 16 at 22:40
Thanks Derek! Added a reference from a Canadian political magazine for you :-) – Stephen P. Feb 17 at 2:31

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.