Derek Mcclure's Impact On The Scottish Psyche In Medieval Scotland

The Declaration of Arbroath, possibly one of the most famous historical documents of its time, written in the name of the whole of The Community of the Realm of Scotland and fundamental to the unfolding of events in its aftermath. It was a famously eloquent political document in the form of a letter to Pope John XXII in April, 1320. It written by the Barons and The Peoples of Scotland asking him to recognise Scotland’s historical claim of independence, a plea for acknowledgement of right of the people of Scotland to live in peace, free from attack or the threat of attack from the English Crown and to recognise Robert the Bruce as their King. To asses the impact on the Scottish psyche in Medieval Scotland it is important to to understand
that the Kingdom of Scotland was “a community with a growing sense of common rights and identity” as well as a “diverse collection of local societies” bound together by loyalty to the crown”. The period leading up to the Declaration of Arbroath was a time of relative stability in Scotland despite the escalating hostilities between France and England. The death of Alexander III and of his grand-daughter, Margaret the Maid of Norway left Scotland without a ruler and the constant threat of war with England. This could be argued was the beginning of the battle for the survival of Scotland. In tracing the history of the Scots language, Derek McClure: Why Scots Matters ( p11), identifies medieval Scotland as an attractive place to do business.
With excellent trade, enterprise and prosperity, Scotland was a busy thriving economy trading in mainly wool, in the south as well as in Europe. As early as the 12th and 13th Centuries we can see that Scotland was ethnically and linguistically a diverse place. The peoples of Scotland were the Picts, the Britons, the Angles, the Norse and of course the Scots themselves, all united by common interests rather than where they were born or their blood line. This diversity was a great
strength. One of the main things that united them was the threat of Edward II - who, having completely overwhelmed Wales and substantial parts of Ireland, now turned his attention on Scotland. In William Ferguson’s The Identity of a Scottish Nation: (1989), attention is drawn to the idealogical battles fought alongside the violence, informing us of the deadly seriousness of the battle for hearts and minds through Celtic myths and legends and that the people’s right to exist depended on winning them. How much, if any, of this wonderfully historic document, rich in political and religious imagery and intrigue is based on myth or legend we cannot know.
But it begins by emphasising the ancient history of the Scottish people. “We have lived free from enslavement for the reign of 113 Scottish Kings”. The text draws parallels between the Jewish people crossing the Red Sea, twelve hundred years before the Scots own journey from Scynthia to their own Promised Land. Further biblical references to Scots being given a special place by Jesus among the Nations of the Earth, stating that Jesus called up Saint Andrew, the first of his Apostles to be a Patron to the Scots and protect them forever.
(1) The document highlights the Scots, who just wanted to live in peace, but who were constantly harassed by the King of the English. Presenting as an ally, he committed barbarous crimes of mass murder and cruelty sparing neither child nor woman subjecting the people to unimaginable horrors. While unused to war at that time, Brus eventually won a substantial victory over the English at Bannockburn by Robert the Brus and restored Scotland’s independence , returning freedom to the peoples. For this, Brus was made King. This was only possible through with the assent “of all of the people” Other essential factors were his right to succeed through birth and through the laws and customs of the land and he had to guide and protect the people better than they could themselves. Thus, the most famous paragraph in the Declaration of Arbroath “as long as but one hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule.”, a less well known and arguably more interesting statement can be found in the four lines immediately preceding it: “Yet if (our most tireless Prince, King and Lord, the Lord Robert (the Bruce) should give up what has begun, seeking to make us or our kingdom, subject to the king or the English we should exert ourselves at once to drive him out as our enemy and a subverter of his own right and ours, and make some other man who was well able to defend us, our King;…” A closer look at this section high-lights that in 1320, the Monarch - the Crown, was born of the state as opposed to the person who would become the Monarch. A powerful and enlightening statement they clearly state that the thought of Scotland as a nation as early as the thirteenth century and that people were sovereign. This raises three significants issues: That the Scots knew exactly who had the power and expected their King to be fit for purpose. ‘Defend our independence from England or you’ll be replaced by a man more up to the job’ The Lord King Robert, then could only be king so long as he could defend the people and all that they had achieved better than they could do themselves. 1. It confirms that Scotland is one of the oldest European nations.
2. Scotland, with all it’s diverse people and culture was united behind the King.
3. This made Brus legitimate so long as the people were satisfied with his performance. This further confirms that if the King ignored the will of the people, or failed to live up to the expectations of the people, his claim would be invalidated and he would be rendered illegitimate. The people were sovereign and they had proven that Scotland was an independent nation for much of its great history with its 113 home born Kings, the blessings of Jesus and the patronage of Saint Andrew. This serious and desperate plea to the Pope to intervene in Edward’s barbarity was concluded by the threat that God was all powerful and would make the Pope “responsible for the slaughter of bodies and the perdition of souls”.