thank god there was a reference to Stanley Baldwin. I never heard of him until The Rest is History and now I am sad whenever he is not mentioned in an episode 😂
You don't touch on class antagonism. When I left England in the early 70s I felt that the absurd class distinctions would surely just fade away. Alas not so. If anything the antipathy has become worse.
0:34 "...the vastness of England..." I suppose Orwell could be speaking of the many particularities of England which he goes on to mention, but as an inhabitant of North America, that phrase had me cracking up. 😅
I think patriotism is seen as embarrassing to the English, because it involves high emotion. And that is embarrassing. And it is not done to get too excited about anything, for good or for bad. Indeed, I always found the sight of the late Queen showing high emotion and excitement about horse-racing rather odd and undignified!!
I don't think that's right,not that it matters. England was 927 and Scotland was 1018 I think. Before that Malcolm McAlpine (not sure I spelled that correctly) was king of the Picts,not king of Scotland. Lothian was still ruled by the Angles if my memory serves. .I think it was Duncan ll that threw the English out of Lothian. Could be wrong,but I don't think I am.
I rather like you both as historians, but this effort was toe-curlingly priggish, self-righteous and arrogant in the manner of the most caricatured middle-class liberal. Self-awareness doesn't seem to be mutually inclusive with historical nowse and online affability...
@@JohnAsmith-rw6uo A few reasons, one you could have electors who don't vote for the person who won the state. Two you could have a president lose the popular vote but still win the election. Three the whole election is based on what a few states decided to vote for. These swing states are the most important and candidates spend most if not all their time in these states while ignoring the rest. Granted the rest of the states will vote for the same party again and again. Four states with a bigger population get more electors compared to states with smaller populations. Your electors are based on the number of representatives within the House and Senators. North Dakota for example gets three while California gets 54. There is also the possibility of a tie as it has happened before, however rare it is. Finally, it is extremely difficult for third parties to win. It is dominated by the Republicans and Democrats and has been that way since 1850.
@@Taqruinnius So you think a state like California swimming with illegal migrates should have more say than the people from Vermont. Also you do not want so many parties that split the vote down so a tyrants the Hitler can take power.
@@Taqruinnius l Would say except for the losers we have since 1988 it has worked out pretty good. I think l better way is to nominate better men for the job.
@@JohnAsmith-rw6uo I'm saying that the electoral college gives a state like Texas, California, New York, Florida more weight in terms of presidential elections than a state like North Dakota.
I don't really agree with the idea that devolution ignited nationalism, it merely gave an avenue for it to be aired rather than be ignored by the English. If the Scottish Parliament had never existed, I'd guarantee that there'd still be an existential angst of Scottish nationals wanting out due to anger over Tory policies and brexit. The Scottish Parliament just created a central focal point and leader apparent in the movement that'd otherwise be spread out among a smaller Westminster party and Scottish-based groups.
The Tories never did anything to Scotland that they didn't do to England or Wales. If the British Establishment hadn't imposed neoliberal globalisation and its attendant mass immigration, we'd still be in your precious EU - which itself has wrecked Europe
![BabyChiefDoit - Too Slow (feat. STAR BANDZ) [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zayaxws7RPg/mqdefault.jpg)
Love this discussion … you guys brilliantly unpacked a complex identity and his historical shifts. This could be more episodes!
thank god there was a reference to Stanley Baldwin. I never heard of him until The Rest is History and now I am sad whenever he is not mentioned in an episode 😂
You don't touch on class antagonism. When I left England in the early 70s I felt that the absurd class distinctions would surely just fade away. Alas not so. If anything the antipathy has become worse.
Identity replaced class fairly recently. Unfortunately (for lefties like me.)
0:34 "...the vastness of England..." I suppose Orwell could be speaking of the many particularities of England which he goes on to mention, but as an inhabitant of North America, that phrase had me cracking up. 😅
Whenever I get back to England I realise how complicated easy things are to get done,even more today.
I think patriotism is seen as embarrassing to the English, because it involves high emotion. And that is embarrassing. And it is not done to get too excited about anything, for good or for bad. Indeed, I always found the sight of the late Queen showing high emotion and excitement about horse-racing rather odd and undignified!!
Virtue signals received loud and clear.
Chill out mate
@@mrshivers4828 I'm chill mate. Are you?
If you think that was virtue signalling then i suggest that you might need to buy a dictionary.
~ "el Imperio británico todavía tiene su eco en la historia,,," ❤
Ah, England. Those blue remembered hills where I cannot go again.😢
Whenever I go back to England the first thing I think is that everybody has their head in the sands about a gigantic problem.
The guest speaker certanly got it wrong about Labour not getting elected again, or the SNP holding up thier majority.
The kingdom of Scotland was founded in the 9th Century whereas England became a kingdom, after Scotland, in the 10th Century.
I don't think that's right,not that it matters.
England was 927 and Scotland was 1018 I think.
Before that Malcolm McAlpine (not sure I spelled that correctly) was king of the Picts,not king of Scotland.
Lothian was still ruled by the Angles if my memory serves.
.I think it was Duncan ll that threw the English out of Lothian.
Could be wrong,but I don't think I am.
And?? Your point??
When the English talk about Englishness they are talking about themselves....
I rather like you both as historians, but this effort was toe-curlingly priggish, self-righteous and arrogant in the manner of the most caricatured middle-class liberal. Self-awareness doesn't seem to be mutually inclusive with historical nowse and online affability...
There wasn't enough history in the discussion, especially pre-20th century history.
And I’m sorry but David Cameron and the Tories did more to fan the flames for Scottish nationalism and isolate them more than Tony Blair ever did
Well-- one comment. Here in America, intellectuals like yourselves do not get so wonderfully giddy about sports. What a wonder! Why is this?
You mustn't have seen me watch the Bill's game last night
You think there aren't intellectuals who are into sports in the US?
Chomsky is a lifelong Baseball fan.
They were talking about intellectuals. @@Johnconno
@@andrewmcmurray8081 Hilarious. 🌹
Your parliamentary system can't be any worse than the electoral college.
Why is that?
@@JohnAsmith-rw6uo A few reasons, one you could have electors who don't vote for the person who won the state. Two you could have a president lose the popular vote but still win the election. Three the whole election is based on what a few states decided to vote for. These swing states are the most important and candidates spend most if not all their time in these states while ignoring the rest. Granted the rest of the states will vote for the same party again and again.
Four states with a bigger population get more electors compared to states with smaller populations. Your electors are based on the number of representatives within the House and Senators. North Dakota for example gets three while California gets 54. There is also the possibility of a tie as it has happened before, however rare it is.
Finally, it is extremely difficult for third parties to win. It is dominated by the Republicans and Democrats and has been that way since 1850.
@@Taqruinnius So you think a state like California swimming with illegal migrates should have more say than the people from Vermont. Also you do not want so many parties that split the vote down so a tyrants the Hitler can take power.
@@Taqruinnius l Would say except for the losers we have since 1988 it has worked out pretty good. I think l better way is to nominate better men for the job.
@@JohnAsmith-rw6uo I'm saying that the electoral college gives a state like Texas, California, New York, Florida more weight in terms of presidential elections than a state like North Dakota.
I don't really agree with the idea that devolution ignited nationalism, it merely gave an avenue for it to be aired rather than be ignored by the English. If the Scottish Parliament had never existed, I'd guarantee that there'd still be an existential angst of Scottish nationals wanting out due to anger over Tory policies and brexit. The Scottish Parliament just created a central focal point and leader apparent in the movement that'd otherwise be spread out among a smaller Westminster party and Scottish-based groups.
The Tories never did anything to Scotland that they didn't do to England or Wales. If the British Establishment hadn't imposed neoliberal globalisation and its attendant mass immigration, we'd still be in your precious EU - which itself has wrecked Europe
Felt very Tory this
What absolute rubbish.
The most English podcast ever. Literally and figuratively tone deaf to the world.
that's the charm. The insouciance is refreshing. As an American I love their irreverence
These two are what we call here in Scotland " Little Englander Gammons". 😏
@@beachcomber1able You are of course free to make your own podcast about Scottishness and what it means to you.
Romanov the Windsors