PDA

View Full Version : High Scottish Achievement; Supposing the Population Was the Same Size as England



OneEnglishNorman
Monday, August 14th, 2006, 07:03 PM
Scottish population: 5,062,011

English population: 49,138,831

Brief surmise of Scottish power in England:

Prime Minister: Tony Blair, born & educated in Scotland
Chancellor (Finance Minister): Gordon Brown
Lord Chancellor: Charles Falconer
Speaker of the House of Commons: Michael Martin
Secretary of State for the Home Department: John Reid
Secretary of State for Defence: Des Browne
Secretary of State for Trade and Industry: Alistair Darling
Secretary of State for Transport: Douglas Alexander

-----------------------

That is just the upper echelons of the Government. Putting aside the importance of Scotland as a "recruiting ground" to the Labour Party, it does appear that the Scottish are over-represented in British politics.

This success is not replicated in economic affairs (at least in Scotland), but that could also be the effect that London has on all of the UK, not just Scotland. Also, many of the brightest Scottish would re-locate to the South East of England.

Are the reasons for this success cultural, religious or educational?

And hypothetically if Scotland had been blessed with a larger population (say, by a luck of history, gaining much of Northern England 1,000 years ago), would Scotland have become a major European and world power?

Oresai
Sunday, October 19th, 2008, 07:18 PM
Also, many of the brightest Scottish would re-locate to the South East of England.

Are the reasons for this success cultural, religious or educational?


Most likely economic. :)
Dinnae worry though, pal, when we git oor ain independance back frae yon Sassenachs we`ll be richt glad tae haund ye back yer country and ony traitorous `Scots` that want tae rin awa`...;)

Ĉmeric
Sunday, October 19th, 2008, 07:38 PM
Are the reasons for this success cultural, religious or educational?

It has more to do with the majority English pandering to a smaller disgrunted minority. You see the same thing in Canada with Quebec. Quebec had a disproportionate amount of influence in Ottawa. This was tolerated to maintain the Confederation, but so many Anglophones have tired of the Quebec question that it is possible that Anglo-Canadians may lead the breakup of Canada.

As has been mention, devolution is more popular in England then in Scotland. The English could just get fed up with Scottish whining & send them on their way, much like the Czechs did to the Slovaks.



And hypothetically if Scotland had been blessed with a larger population (say, by a luck of history, gaining much of Northern England 1,000 years ago), would Scotland have become a major European and world power?



How much of Northern England? Lets say everything north of the Humber & Mercey. Scotland becomes more important but not a great power. England becomes less important & not a great power. Maybe both would be like the Netherlands after the Napoleonic age. And Scotland would probably have a significantly less Celtic identity, the Highlanders being more like the Welsh in England.

Oresai
Sunday, October 19th, 2008, 07:46 PM
The English could just get fed up with Scottish whining & send them on their way, much like the Czechs did to the Slovaks

Really? Well, if the English are so truly fed up with our `whining`, let them do the decent thing and cut us fully loose.

Galloglaich
Sunday, October 19th, 2008, 08:51 PM
I can't spek very well on the British situation, but it seems the Scots have a disproportionate influence in a number of areas. I am thinking of the huge influence they (and what we call the "Scots-Irish" i.e. "Ulster Scots") have had in American politics (and culture). Over one third of our Presidents have/had significant ancestry of this type. I have no idea what the figures would look like at the Congressional or Judicial levels, but I'm sure it's significant as well. Interesting.

I can also see Americ's point, but I don't think the Scots are the type of people that would easily just "go away" unless their needs had been met.

BeornWulfWer
Sunday, October 19th, 2008, 11:44 PM
Really? Well, if the English are so truly fed up with our `whining`, let them do the decent thing and cut us fully loose.

Have to get past the Scots who are in power first. They don't seem to want to let go of Scotland and acknowledge the entity which is England.

Oswiu
Monday, October 20th, 2008, 03:51 AM
And hypothetically if Scotland had been blessed with a larger population (say, by a luck of history, gaining much of Northern England 1,000 years ago), would Scotland have become a major European and world power?
They did gain a fair chunk of us - look up the Battle of Carham! The Bishop of Durham at the time had a heart attack and died when he heard that Edinburgh had been lost - so unthinkable was this. I wonder how well they'd have fared without this Anglian - hell, why mince words? - Northern English element? :P Deliberate anglicising policies of a succession of Scottish Kings, notably King David, and later Norman monarchs, gave the country a bit of schizophrenia but undoubtedly laid the groundwork for much of the 'achievement' in question, abandoning the Gaelic periphery to look outwards to Northern and Western Europe.

To bring up religion is important, and the Germanic aspect to the Reformation up there should likewise not be ignored in its contribution to the forming of the stereotypical Scottish character and drive to get on in life.

It has more to do with the majority English pandering to a smaller disgrunted minority.
There's a lot of this in it, yes. Minorities can't afford the complacency of majorities (neither can the latter really - but it takes a lot to get them to realise it), and feel a need to show the world their worth. Indians and others here show much the same phenomenon. A collective chip on the shoulder does wonders for national achievement.

How much of Northern England? Lets say everything north of the Humber & Mercey. Scotland becomes more important but not a great power.
Mercy me! There's an S in my Mersey, Comrade! ;) Though I suppose your knowledge of its etymology and cognate status with 'Mercia' understandably threw you there.

And as a proud Lancastrian and Northumbrian, I am naturally forced to differ with you on the chances of greatpowerhood. :D Realistically, though, before industrialisation, the more agriculturally productive southeast was always going to end up dominating the entire archipelago. :~(

OneEnglishNorman
Monday, October 27th, 2008, 02:09 PM
To generalise, the English are indifferent or accepting of the high numbers of Scots who hold sway at senior posts of English governance and civil service. Perhaps the English feel that the Scots make for good bureaucrats and administrators.

The English accept this state of affairs but would find it odd to draw the conclusion that the Scottish are superior. This is in contrast to Germans dominating the upper echelons of European nations they have migrated to, where there was a clear contrast between the native peasants and the minority rulers who gently pushed the adoption of their own language.

Look also at the prevalence of Scottish (and Irish) football managers in the English leagues (although less true today than in years past). One cannot say it is because football is more popular north of the border. Football is equally popular throughout all of the Isles, save for parts for Wales and Southern England. And before the influx of foreign players from Continental Europe and elsewhere, the backbone of many English teams were "hard man" Scottish players with a prolific work ethic.

Are not Scots also massively over-represented in the SAS special forces? I forget the statistic. Possibly also NCOs in the British Army are dis-proportionately Scottish. I thought as well of American Presidents with significant Scottish (or Ulster Scots) ancestry.

There could just be something about the Scottish mindset which lends itself very well to public service. The English are more phlegmatic.

Fortis_in_Arduis
Monday, October 27th, 2008, 04:23 PM
I am not terribly bright, nor a high flyer in any particular career, but remaining in Scotland was certainly not an option for this free spirit.

University in Aberdeen made for a tragic and frustrating social life as young talented Scotland gravitates to St. Andrews (where Margaret Thatcher's free-market ideology was developed, taught and promoted ;) ), Edinburgh or Glasgow.

Brain drain and economics are probably the main factors here, but I would concede that the Scots seem apt for public service; political Scots are particularly prone to expedience in pursuing their political ambitions and make their English contemporaries look like hapless neophytes.

Sigurd
Monday, October 27th, 2008, 04:42 PM
University in Aberdeen made for a tragic and frustrating social life as young talented Scotland gravitates to St. Andrews (where Margaret Thatcher's free-market ideology was developed, taught and promoted ;) ), Edinburgh or Glasgow.

Just because you tried your hand at history, mate... :D

Aberdeen's still top in Scotland for Law, well ahead of Edinburgh or Glasgow --- and St. Andrew's don't even teach it. Also 2nd in the UK I believe.

It is also scholarly excellent in a few other areas ... and St. Andrews is well over-rated (they've just stopped doing the courses they were no good at - that's why they are rated so high. Especially with those arrogant lads and lasses who think they're something better because they're at St. Andrews but more often than not are actually bankrupting their families rather than having any of the social standing they purport to have by studying there.

Rules for St. Andrews are easy also in the admissions department: You're a prefect at school, you get in. You're not a prefect at school, you don't get in. :P

Aberdeen is also the second oldest university in Scotland (after St. Andrews) and the fifth oldest in the UK, for having been around since 1495. So if anything, then it has tradition. :)

I do agree though that social life tends to be frustrating for the amount of idiots you get on campus and the going-downhill-by-the-year issue of possibilities to go out. The bars that are decent enough to go to can be counted on one hand, the rest are either trendy-clubs, or meat markets, or both. ;)

xcrawlxawayx
Wednesday, June 17th, 2009, 08:58 PM
I didn't realize that the English Population was so high wow..I feel soo like isolated lmao

Rhydderch
Wednesday, July 29th, 2009, 06:37 AM
I can't spek very well on the British situation, but it seems the Scots have a disproportionate influence in a number of areas. I am thinking of the huge influence they (and what we call the "Scots-Irish" i.e. "Ulster Scots") have had in American politics (and culture). Over one third of our Presidents have/had significant ancestry of this type.I think the same is probably true of Australia. The influence of the Scots in politics and other areas (the army and big business/finance come to mind) always seems to have been disproportionate to the percentage of them in the population.

As far as the UK is concerned, in addition to those leading politicians who are actually of Scottish birth, there are numerous others of Scottish background. In fact it's interesting how many British Prime Ministers have been of Scottish birth or descent.