For a long time in school, we were taught that we declared independence so that we wouldn't have to live under a king. But now I know that the king didn't have too much power, and it was our lack of representation in parliament that caused problems. So is the king just a scapegoat, or did he have a role in losing the colonies.
It was taxes imposed by Parliament that angered colonists in the aftermath of the Seven Year's War. They didn't feel it was necessary, as they had done their part, fighting in the war, and were already being denied the Ohio River Valley (which was what they were fighting over) as a settlement area, because the British didn't want to anger the native tribes. The King was not responsible for those decisions, Parliament was. However, I wouldn't say he was a scapegoat. He was the leader of the United Kingdom, and he fully supported Parliament, denouncing colonial upstarts and playing a large role in the decisions made with the numerous strategic plans set forth to end the rebellion. He played an important role in the loss of the American colonies, but it wasn't all his fault.