5 ms·

I don't think the article mentioned England dominating Scotland in the sense you mean. However, so you deny that the nation comprising 90% of the UK's populati

I don't think the article mentioned England dominating Scotland in the sense you mean. However, so you deny that the nation comprising 90% of the UK's population thus dominated its imperial adventures and also dominates its national politics? The UK must be a very odd country.

mousetummy 11y ago
The UK is a very odd country politically. Two of the last three UK prime ministers (Blair and Brown) were Scottish. The third, Cameron is (partly) of Scottish descent, Cameron being a Scottish surname. Scottish people appear to be rather over represented in UK history, politics, and culture given their relative population, for whatever reason.
- ZeroGravitas 11y ago
  The usual explanation is that a quirk of politics and religion led to a more democratic nation with a remarkably high literacy rate, which catapulted Scotland from poverty to wealth.
- JetSetWilly 11y ago
  Cameron isn't actually Scottish, having a distant ancestor doesn't make you so. Tony Blair was not really Scottish either - although at least he was of a Scottish background. He did go to a Scottish school, and was born there, but crucially he didn't self-identify as Scottish and certainly didn't have a Scottish accent - he was mostly raised in Durham and that was how he self-identified. I've found that people who promote Blair and even Cameron as Scottish without mentioning that actually they think themselves English tend to be nursing a grievance against Scotland for whatever reason. Otherwise we have Brown who was unequivocally Scottish and was often attacked on that basis during his premiership ("One-eyed Scottish Idiot" etc). Otherwise in the 20th Century we have James Ramsay MacDonald (1930s for 6 years), Lord Douglas-Home (a year and a half in the 1960s), Henry Campbell-Bannerman (2.5 years), and Arthur James Balfour (3.5 years). So 13 or 14 years of the 20th century, Britain suffered under Scottish prime ministers, only slightly above what we might expect given Scotland's share of the population of the UK - this could be explained by Scotland then-increased share of MPs. It doesn't seem that Scotland dominates UK politics more than any other nation. However, it is certainly noticed and commented upon or even resented when Scottish people rise to high office, perhaps that's why it may seem so to some. In the current political climate with the domination of the SNP, it seems like the possibility of Scottish MPs attaining any kind of high office, membership of the cabinet, or part of the governance of the UK has entirely vanished for generations with who-knows-what consequences for the union in the future.
  - peteretep 11y ago
    So what you're saying is that No True Scotsman would ever be prime minister of the UK? Got it.
    - arethuza 11y ago
      I think JetSetWilly is suggesting that it is even less likely that a Scot will become PM any time in next couple of decades than it was before. Which seems reasonable. Edit: The self destruction of Labour in Scotland has pretty much guaranteed this.
    - jacquesm 11y ago
      This thread should be linked from the Wikipedia page as a prime example of the No True Scotsman fallacy.
      - JetSetWilly 11y ago
        The "No True Scotsman" fallacy doesn't mean that you get to call anybody you want Scottish and get away with it: "Actually, Arnold Schwarzenegger isn't Scottish" - "HA! No True Scotsman!" I'm sure you can see the problem with using this "fallacy" to claim that anybody is Scottish even if they don't self-identify as Scottish?
        jacquesm 11y ago
        I think you're taking my comment in a much too serious fashion.
        lawpoop 11y ago
        Didn't come off as a joke to me. But now that I understand what you mean, it is kind of funny.
        peteretep 11y ago
        "Well he may have been born and brought up in Scotland to a Scottish parent ... but he's not a real Scotsman as he doesn't have the same accent as me"
zhte415 11y ago
Walk down a street in a country formally part of the British Empire that still bares it's original name. There is a large chance it is a Scottish name. The reason for this is a vastly disproportionate number of Scots were educated, and worked as engineers and educators, whereas English were either the working hands with no means, skill nor influence, essentially serfs, or the rulers dictating serfs and employing (not, essentially, conscripting) Scottish engineers. Google Map Hong Kong Island for an example.
peteretep 11y ago
The UK is a very odd country in which the Scots had an outsized influence - especially in the empire and in politics - given the percentage of the population they represent.

mousetummy 11y ago

The UK is a very odd country politically. Two of the last three UK prime ministers (Blair and Brown) were Scottish. The third, Cameron is (partly) of Scottish descent, Cameron being a Scottish surname. Scottish people appear to be rather over represented in UK history, politics, and culture given their relative population, for whatever reason.

ZeroGravitas 11y ago
The usual explanation is that a quirk of politics and religion led to a more democratic nation with a remarkably high literacy rate, which catapulted Scotland from poverty to wealth.
JetSetWilly 11y ago
Cameron isn't actually Scottish, having a distant ancestor doesn't make you so. Tony Blair was not really Scottish either - although at least he was of a Scottish background. He did go to a Scottish school, and was born there, but crucially he didn't self-identify as Scottish and certainly didn't have a Scottish accent - he was mostly raised in Durham and that was how he self-identified. I've found that people who promote Blair and even Cameron as Scottish without mentioning that actually they think themselves English tend to be nursing a grievance against Scotland for whatever reason. Otherwise we have Brown who was unequivocally Scottish and was often attacked on that basis during his premiership ("One-eyed Scottish Idiot" etc). Otherwise in the 20th Century we have James Ramsay MacDonald (1930s for 6 years), Lord Douglas-Home (a year and a half in the 1960s), Henry Campbell-Bannerman (2.5 years), and Arthur James Balfour (3.5 years). So 13 or 14 years of the 20th century, Britain suffered under Scottish prime ministers, only slightly above what we might expect given Scotland's share of the population of the UK - this could be explained by Scotland then-increased share of MPs. It doesn't seem that Scotland dominates UK politics more than any other nation. However, it is certainly noticed and commented upon or even resented when Scottish people rise to high office, perhaps that's why it may seem so to some. In the current political climate with the domination of the SNP, it seems like the possibility of Scottish MPs attaining any kind of high office, membership of the cabinet, or part of the governance of the UK has entirely vanished for generations with who-knows-what consequences for the union in the future.
- peteretep 11y ago
  So what you're saying is that No True Scotsman would ever be prime minister of the UK? Got it.
  - arethuza 11y ago
    I think JetSetWilly is suggesting that it is even less likely that a Scot will become PM any time in next couple of decades than it was before. Which seems reasonable. Edit: The self destruction of Labour in Scotland has pretty much guaranteed this.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    This thread should be linked from the Wikipedia page as a prime example of the No True Scotsman fallacy.
    - JetSetWilly 11y ago
      The "No True Scotsman" fallacy doesn't mean that you get to call anybody you want Scottish and get away with it: "Actually, Arnold Schwarzenegger isn't Scottish" - "HA! No True Scotsman!" I'm sure you can see the problem with using this "fallacy" to claim that anybody is Scottish even if they don't self-identify as Scottish?
      - jacquesm 11y ago
        I think you're taking my comment in a much too serious fashion.
        lawpoop 11y ago
        Didn't come off as a joke to me. But now that I understand what you mean, it is kind of funny.
      - peteretep 11y ago
        "Well he may have been born and brought up in Scotland to a Scottish parent ... but he's not a real Scotsman as he doesn't have the same accent as me"

zhte415 11y ago

Walk down a street in a country formally part of the British Empire that still bares it's original name. There is a large chance it is a Scottish name. The reason for this is a vastly disproportionate number of Scots were educated, and worked as engineers and educators, whereas English were either the working hands with no means, skill nor influence, essentially serfs, or the rulers dictating serfs and employing (not, essentially, conscripting) Scottish engineers. Google Map Hong Kong Island for an example.

peteretep 11y ago

The UK is a very odd country in which the Scots had an outsized influence - especially in the empire and in politics - given the percentage of the population they represent.