I WAS very interested to read Hamish MacPherson’s article “Celebrating Arbroath, even under lockdown” published yesterday in The National.
The article is comprehensive in covering the background and content of the Declaration of Arbroath, but it does perhaps bury the lede (to use the modern journalistic parlance).
It’s inevitable that the past be observed through the prism of the present, and so our modern interpretation of the Declaration as a foundation of sovereignty is understandable. However, as well as including what is undoubtedly an expression of Scotland’s independence, the Declaration also commits the Scottish people to the horror of the then ever-present war of the Crusades. Hamish describes this promise as “a master stroke”.
READ MORE: Celebrating Arbroath anniversary, even under coronavirus lockdown
As it turned out, Scotland did not play any significant role in the war in the east, but the promise made by the nobles on behalf of the people of Scotland cannot be so glibly disconnected from the other more palatable sections of the Declaration. If the letter had been successful in the fullest of its ambitions we would now have in our history books accounts of the Scottish blood wasted on foreign soils to no purpose except the aggrandisement of the great and mighty.
The fact that we don’t is down to circumstance and the politics of the time, but the promise made cannot be ignored, and it should not be dissociated from the Declaration of Independence. The document must be understood in its entirety, with all of its purpose intact, if it is to be understood at all.
If I was an opponent of Scottish independence I would point to the Declaration of Arbroath as being as much a promise of war as of independence. We cannot bring one section of the letter into view without risking criticism when the less savoury parts are also exposed.
At a time when we are seeking to make friends and influence people, we might be wise to exercise caution over what we choose to celebrate.
Stewart Robinson
Musselburgh
Scotland is in lockdown. Shops are closing and newspaper sales are falling fast. It’s no exaggeration to say that the future of The National is at stake. Please consider supporting us through this with a digital subscription from just £2 for 2 months by following this link: www.thenational.scot/subscribe. Thanks – and stay safe.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel