What is better than two historians fighting it out? Not much, in my book.
One says that Scotland is fairly insignificant in UK history: "It is a statement of fact. Scotland matters for a single reason, which is its involvement with England from the 17th century onwards ... I love Scotland but it is not an important country."
The other, well, disagrees most heartily: "This is a basket of cheerfully stupid English prejudice. Of course it is true that Scotland is not important to England ... It is a fact that England failed to reduce it to Scot-shire and maybe that's a source of annoyance to some people in England. "
Fightin' words.
2 comments:
James Buchan makes essentially the same point in CROWDED WITH GENIUS, that 1745 was a hinge-year between backwardness and British-influenced modernity. Or, to be blunt, that Hume, Smith, and company owe more to London than Edinburgh.
James Buchan makes essentially the same point in CROWDED WITH GENIUS, that 1745 was a hinge-year between backwardness and British-influenced modernity. Or, to be blunt, that Hume, Smith, and company owe more to London than Edinburgh.
Post a Comment