declaration of arbroath
The Declaration was part of a broader diplomatic campaign which sought to assert Scotland's position as an independent kingdom,[2] rather than being a feudal land controlled by England's Norman kings, as well as lift the excommunication of Robert the Bruce.[3] The Pope had recognised Edward I of England's claim to overlordship of Scotland in 1305 and Bruce was excommunicated by the Pope for murdering John Comyn before the altar in Greyfriars Church in Dumfries in 1306.[3]
The Declaration made a number rhetorical points: that Scotland had always been independent, indeed for longer than England; that Edward I of England had unjustly attacked Scotland and perpetrated atrocities; that Robert the Bruce had delivered the Scottish nation from this peril; and, most controversially, that the independence of Scotland was the prerogative of the Scottish people, rather than the King of Scots. In fact it stated that the nobility would choose someone else to be king if Bruce proved to be unfit in maintaining Scotland's independence. Some have interpreted this last point as an early expression of 'popular sovereignty'[4] – that government is contractual and that kings can be chosen by the community rather than by God alone.
It has also been argued that the Declaration was not a statement of popular sovereignty (and that its signatories would have had no such concept)[5] but a statement of royal propaganda supporting Bruce's faction.[6] [7] A justification had to be given for the rejection of King John in whose name William Wallace and Andrew de Moray had rebelled in 1297. The reason given in the Declaration is that Bruce was able to defend Scotland from English aggression whereas, by implication, King John could not.[8]
To this man, in as much as he saved our people, and for upholding our freedom, we are bound by right as much as by his merits, and choose to follow him in all that he does.
Whatever the true motive, the idea of a contract between King and people was advanced
The Declaration made a number rhetorical points: that Scotland had always been independent, indeed for longer than England; that Edward I of England had unjustly attacked Scotland and perpetrated atrocities; that Robert the Bruce had delivered the Scottish nation from this peril; and, most controversially, that the independence of Scotland was the prerogative of the Scottish people, rather than the King of Scots. In fact it stated that the nobility would choose someone else to be king if Bruce proved to be unfit in maintaining Scotland's independence. Some have interpreted this last point as an early expression of 'popular sovereignty'[4] – that government is contractual and that kings can be chosen by the community rather than by God alone.
It has also been argued that the Declaration was not a statement of popular sovereignty (and that its signatories would have had no such concept)[5] but a statement of royal propaganda supporting Bruce's faction.[6] [7] A justification had to be given for the rejection of King John in whose name William Wallace and Andrew de Moray had rebelled in 1297. The reason given in the Declaration is that Bruce was able to defend Scotland from English aggression whereas, by implication, King John could not.[8]
To this man, in as much as he saved our people, and for upholding our freedom, we are bound by right as much as by his merits, and choose to follow him in all that he does.
Whatever the true motive, the idea of a contract between King and people was advanced