Somebody mentioned Scotland, well the fact is that colonialism actually cemented your union with Scotland. The Scots had actually tried to send colonies out before 1707, they had all failed, I am sorry to say. But, then of course, came union and India was available and there you had a disproportionate employment of Scots engaged in this colonial enterprise as soldiers, as merchants, as agents, as employees and their earnings from India is what brought prosperity to Scotland, even pulled Scotland out of poverty.
So Scotland was pulled out of poverty because doing business in India was so profitable at that time? If yes, are there other countries who got money of significant importance like Scotland, either by trade or because Britain shared the money they pulled from India during their rule?
It would not be correct to say that the economic development of Scotland is primarily due to India specifically, though one can see links (more clearly in Scotland than in most places) between the colonial trades and development more generally. Yes, it is true that every Scot who went to India as a soldier, as a merchant, as an agent or an employee is in some sense contributed to Scottish incomes. But the Americas were always a much larger share of the overall trade for Scotland than India was, and so it would be incorrect to suggest that all, or even the majority, of Scottish prosperity at the time was down to the colonisation of India.
The trade most closely associated with Scotland after Union is tobacco, along with sugar, and the slave trade. But these are trades with Africa and the Americas, not trades with India. There is an Indian connection to the slave trade, as textiles woven by Indian master weavers were bought by European slave traders as the medium of exchange for African slaves. These were widely used as trade goods and even as currencies in West Africa. (See Kazuo Kobayashi's "Indian Cotton Textiles in West Africa: African Agency, Consumer Demand and the Making of the Global Economy, 1750–1850.") The Indian role here is as artisanal producers of a high-quality trade good, though, and not any direct effect of colonial rule.
Scots participate in almost every aspect of British colonialism in one way or another, and probably more in proportion to their population than other parts of Britain. Union allowed Scots insider access to protected Empire markets, prior to the 1840s. There was also plenty of opportunity to trade with non-British colonies via smuggling. Scots also went outside the bounds of the Empire to find their trading opportunities in the 19th century; I certainly found plenty of Scots among the merchants of the River Plate in the early to mid 1800s.
The colonial trade did certainly bring some measure of prosperity to the lowland cities, by early modern standards. The "tobacco lords" did play a role in financing the eventual industrialisation of Scotland, which is what eventually did "pull Scotland out of poverty." (See Devine, 1976, "The Colonial Trades and Industrial Investment in Scotland, c. 1700-1815." in the Economic History Review.) To what extent any of this would have been possible absent colonialism remains an open question, and I tend to think that developments in Europe, in terms of state capacity, scientific and technological developments, and market integration were of greater importance; the Scots did have to sell as well as buy their tobacco in order to make a profit. But we have no way of extirpating colonialism from history to truly understand what would have been different. As it happened, Britain seized an enormous colonial empire, and the Scottish more than proportionately participated in those processes. And Scotland is clearly no longer a relatively poor part of the world, as it would have been in the 17th century or earlier. However, India was only one part of that story, and clearly not the largest part.