Well, now here's the problem. Things don't happen in isolation, nor do nations become "great" or "invent" things.Shakespeare I'll give, but that's just one man.
The industrial revolution was mostly down to the steam engine, courtesy of a certain Scotsman, James Watt. This is the #1 issue I have with the English, claiming credit for stuff you didn't do.
Could Watt have invented the steam engine without the prerequisite financial and educational investment that came from the situation in "The West", and more specifically Britain during this period?
Could Bell have "invented" the telephone? Or Baird the television?
No. So it's as equally ridiculous to say that "Scotland is responsible for all Britian's achievements" as it is to say "England is the only reason Scotland does anything".
The industrial revolution (which never existed, by the way - just like most Whiggish interpretations of history, it's just a label attached to a number of perceived social changes) was down to a number of factors. The financial expansion of the bourgeois classes. The improved agricultural techniques. The rationalisation of engineering, agriculture, social policies, tax collection and so forth. The "discovery" of steel. The improvements to mining efficiency. The improved education of the higher classes. Social acceptance of new ideas based on "science".
All of these things allowed someone who happened to be from Scotland to invent the steam engine for the purposes of industry (he wasn't the first to work out that steam pressure could make things move).
No nation and no man is an island.