Skip to main content

The Declaration of Arbroath.

The Declaration of Arbroath is to go on display next year. It will go on show at the National Museum of Scotland in Edinburgh from 27 March 27 to 26 April 2020 to commemorate the 700 years of its signing.
Stirring patriotic stuff yet after 1320, the Declaration of Arbroath was quickly forgotten and only resurfaced in 1680 when it becomes influential, not as an expression of nationalism, but to support those who sought to curtail royal power. It was only later that the Declaration of Arbroath came to be seen in more nationalistic terms.
Scotland in 1320 was a very different country to the Scotland we know today and therefore we should not give to a medieval mind-set the interpretations of a modern age.
So what did the signatories of the document actually mean by "we" and "freedom"? The "we" who attached their seals to the document were all noblemen. And it was their freedom that the authors of the Arbroath declaration were solely concerned about. Certainly not the liberties of their serfs and servants. The common-folk of Scotland had no say in the matter. The idea that the peasant in the fields or guildsman in the burghs had any sort of say is laughable. The “people” of Scotland meant the nobles, the majority of whom were still culturally Anglo-Norman, despite inter-marriage. The Declaration signatories certainly had no concept of popular sovereignty of any Scottish citizens.

Those medieval signatories to the 1320 Declaration of Arbroath were merely feudal barons asserting their claim to rule and lord it over their own vassals, and most definitely not leading any "liberation struggle" as some left-nationalists would like to represent it as.
The oft-quoted section of the Declaration reading:
 “..if this prince [Bruce] shall leave these principles he hath so nobly pursued, and consent that we or our kingdom be subjected to the king or people of England, we will immediately endeavour to expel him, as our enemy and as the subverter both of his own and our rights, and we will make another king, who will defend our liberties”

This should be read as a cautionary warning and a veiled threat to Robert the Bruce himself for he had switched his allegiance numerous times in the past.

The lesser-known earlier 1310 Declaration of the Clergy (the clergy being usually the younger sons of the nobles) proclaimed the Kingship of Robert. It begins by stating that John Balliol was made King of Scots by Edward Longshanks of England, but goes on to criticise Balliol’s status, because an English King does not have any authority to determine who will be the King of Scots. Such authority rests with the Scots themselves and alone, ignoring the fact that the Scottish nobles had given up that right in negotiations with Edward over twenty years beforehand.

The Declaration stated:
 “The people, therefore, and commons of the foresaid Kingdom of Scotland...agreed upon the said Lord Robert, the King who now is, in whom the rights of his father and grandfather to the foresaid kingdom, in the judgement of the people, still exist and flourish entire; and with the concurrence and consent of the said people he was chosen to be King, that he might reform the deformities of the kingdom, correct what required correction, and direct what needed direction; and having been by their authority set over the kingdom, he was solemnly made King of Scots...And if any one on the contrary claim right to the foresaid kingdom in virtue of letters of time past, sealed and containing the consent of the people and the commons, know ye that all this took place in fact by force and violence which could not at the time be resisted.”
Like a lot of such grandiose statements we've seen down through the ages, the Clergy's declaration was nothing more than misleading propaganda, which sought to disguise the facts of history.
In 1305, William Wallace was captured in Robroyston near Glasgow by John de Menteith, a Scottish knight and handed Wallace over to the English to be executed. Menteith put his seal to the Declaration of Arbroath. 
Why does Scotland need this affirmation of independence? The answer is Scottish nationalism is based on a myth: the myth that Scottish people are different from Englishmen, Irishmen, Welshmen, or Cornishmen. But differences in speech, dress, pastimes or traditions are too superficial to form the basis for any real distinction. Workers in Scotland and the rest of Britain share a common tongue, common values, common aspirations and common interests: they have shared and forged a common history, and should now be looking to a common future – the world socialist cooperative commonwealth of common ownership.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

What do we mean by no leaders

"Where are the leaders and what are their demands?" will be the question puzzled professional politicians and media pundits will be asking when the Revolution comes. They will find it inconceivable that a socialist movement could survive without an elite at the top. This view will be shared by some at the bottom. Lenin and his Bolshevik cohorts argued that we couldn't expect the masses to become effective revolutionaries spontaneously, all on their own. To achieve liberation they needed the guidance of a "vanguard party" comprised of an expert political leadership with a clear programme. The Trotskyist/Leninist Left may remix the song over and over again all they want but the tune remains the same: leaders and the cadres of the vanguard can find the answer; the mass movements of the people cannot liberate themselves. The case for leadership is simple. Most working-class people are too busy to have opinions or engage in political action. There’s a need for some…

Lenin and the Myth of 1917

A myth pervades that 1917 was a 'socialist' revolution rather it was the continuation of the capitalist one. What justification is there, then, for terming the upheaval in Russia a Socialist Revolution? None whatever beyond the fact that the leaders in the November movement claim to be Marxian Socialists. M. Litvinoff practically admits this when he says:In seizing the reigns of power the Bolsheviks were obviously playing a game with high stake. Petrograd had shown itself entirely on their side. To what extent would the masses of the proletariat and the peasant army in the rest of the country support them?”This is a clear confession that the Bolsheviks themselves did not know the views of the mass when they took control. At a subsequent congress of the soviets the Bolsheviks had 390 out of a total of 676. It is worthy of note that none of the capitalist papers gave any description of the method of electing either the Soviets or the delegates to the Congress. And still more cu…

No More Propertyless

Socialism is the name given to that form of society in which there is no such thing as a propertyless class, but in which the whole community has become a working community owning the means of production—the land, factories, mills, mines, transport and all the means whereby wealth is created and distributed to the community. The first condition of success for Socialism is that its adherents should explain its aim and its essential characteristics clearly, so that they can be understood by every one. This has always been the primary purpose of the Socialist Party's promotion of its case for socialism. The idea of socialism is simple. Socialists believe that society is divided into two great classes that one of these classes, the wage-earning, the proletariat, is property-less the other, the capitalist, possesses the wealth of society and the proletariat in order to be able to live at all and exercise its faculties to any degree, must hire out their ability to work to the capitalis…