If the British set up a devolved parliament in the Colonies, with other institutions, say a Supreme Court, and an executive, they might avoid the revolution…for now. But the causes of the revolution were mismanagement by British officials in local affairs. the British would get another revolution, unless they adopted a posture of self rule with just a minimum of supervision, which is what they did in the Colonies in the 19 th century. But that was as result of the events in North America. Would it have happened without it?
“From Sea to Sea, Part II” (Kipling travelled across the USA, and even met Twain)
Remember, we’re talking here about an option the British never tried in our timeline, in America or in any later colonies or dominions: Political representation in London for the colonies. That’s a different matter than self-rule. It means the power-relationships between capital and colonies run both ways. It seems an obvious common-sense solution in hindsight, of course, because it resembles the federal system America set up and which has worked pretty well on a continental scale – why not transoceanic?
Continued: He married an American, and spent several years living in the USA.
Decisions needed to be made locally. Note how very independent the US states were (as noted above by Kipling) even once there was a USA.
The nature of the English overseas colonial system was to appoint a governor who ran the show locally. The governor would be advised by a local cabinet. As responsible government grew, it was by way of local assemblymen/parliamentarians forming a local cabinet to advise the local governor, and eventually control the local governor. This system worked well in regions that were primarily populated by British colonials, for it provided a stable legal system out of which local responsible government could grow, rather than attempting to maintain centralized control over extremely long distances.
And that was a pretty good system. Which eventually ended with everybody so self-governed that the Empire broke up, the colonies seeing no need for it or advantage in it. But, in any case, that system you describe would not be in any way incompatible with the existence and operation of another, parallel channel of political power running the other way, in the form of the colonies sharing with the English and Scottish boroughs the privilege of sending members to Parliament. And then the Empire might not break up, since every part of it would feel like a fully participating partner. After all, in our timeline, America’s states are pretty well self-governed, but they remain in the Union willingly and loyally (even Texas, despite occasional venting).
Do you have a cite for what those rates were? A Smithsonian exhibit about three years ago painted a very different picture: Britain won the French and Indian War by breaking the bank and outspending the French by a wide margin, and paid for it by levying a hefty tax on the American colonists (reasoning that the colonists should pay for their own defense, and for maintaining a large and standing British military presence for decades to come). Like you, they didn’t mention any specific rate, but they made it sound pretty considerable. And no one in America was amassing the kind of fortunes that their landed counterparts in England had.
To add to it; they were levied a special war tax, which is one of the reasons is stung so badly. A body they were not subject to came and demanded their money for a tax they should have had to pay, for, as they saw it, charging them twice. The colon ists fought in the war, too, and fought well.
It may have been this realization which started them down that road: that they were being charged by Britain for the British defending the colonists… in a war which wouldn’t have occurred except that they were part of Britain.
[shrug] If the colonists had been granted their independence 10 years earlier, they still would have got caught up in it, if France wanted their territory.
I don’t know how authoritative this site is, but it mentions the lower taxes of the colonists. But that’s what I was taught in university also – in grade school, it was just one big dump on the godless British – although I never heard the exact rates.
Just out of curiosity, what (if anything) are British schoolchildren taught about the American Revolution?
Nothing.
There are a few previous threads on this topic, such as this one.
Summary: pretty much as Captain Ridley’s Shooting Party said.
Boy, that’s a nasty divorce!
Hey, at least *we *don’t have an annual festival to commemorate it.
:mad: No, it doesn’t matter at all to you, does it?! No big deal, just losing the American colonies for being so pigheaded. Hardly worth remembering. Just one more national/international affair among so, so many going back to the Roman invasion . . . Britannia is such a jaded bitch . . . sob . . .
I doubt Australia would be a settled British colony.
Population could have been far more profitably settled here.
That’s right, honey. You walked out because you thought you could do better, and you thought I was going to sit around pining for you and convincing myself you were coming back. Then just a few short years later you start in on the most epic outpouring of self-harm a so-called civilised country ever indulged itself in. Hoo boy, did we ever dodge a bullet! 
But, if the British don’t grab Australia, who does? It’s hard to imagine such valuable real estate being left alone in the 19th Century.
France?
Spain?
Holland?
Portugal?