The Treaty that history, and the English, forgot

Cue shock and outrage on social media. With my knowledge of Scotland’s long history with England, my only reaction was: “Why is anyone surprised?”

England’s leaders have a long and inglorious history of going back on their word when it comes to dealing with Scotland and the Scots, and today I will provide some examples. I will also show the demonstrable proof that Scotland was always an independent nation, perhaps the oldest in Europe, until a parcel o’ rogues sold out Scotland for a heap of silver in 1707.

Last week I also promised to give my views on the controversial matter of whether the Declaration really did influence generations of Scots and other peoples around the world.

This is controversial because more than a few historians, like Dr Bruce Durie, dismiss any connection between the Declaration of Arbroath and the US Declaration of Independence, a link which is often taken to be a given – the US Senate said so in 1998 when authorising Tartan Day. He says he can find no evidence that the Founding Fathers knew about Arbroath, and he also queries whether the “libertas” quoted in the Declaration means the same as “freedom” as Americans understand it.

Fair enough, but there’s no doubt that the Declaration was known by many people in the 18th century.

It had been printed and published at least four times in the early to mid-1700s.

Historian, writer and broadcaster Billy Kay’s excellent radio series The Declaration provided circumstantial evidence that figures in the Scottish Enlightenment knew about the Declaration and influenced Thomas Jefferson, the main author of the US Declaration of Independence, probably through the Rev Dr John Witherspoon, one of three Scots-born signatories.

One exceptionally interesting part of Kay’s series is the revelation that James Boswell, Dr Johnson’s biographer who is always said to be an arch-Unionist, quoted from it in his writing about the Corsican freedom fighter, Pasquale Paoli – a book which enjoyed great acclaim in the colonies before the American War of Independence.

Kay said: “Boswell was fascinated by the Declaration. In the university library in Leipzig during the Grand Tour, he comes across a copy of the Declaration and regales astonished scholars: ‘They were struck with the noble sentiments, at the liberty of the old Scots, and they expressed their regret at the shameful Union. I felt too, patriot sorrow – o infamous rascals who sold the honour of your country to a nation against which our ancestors supported themselves with so much glory! But I say no more but only, alas, poor Scotland!’”

The most influential Scot in the early days of the USA was not a politician or clergyman, but a writer – Sir Walter Scott. He was the most popular novelist of the early 19th century across America, and particularly the Southern states.

Though quite mystifyingly he doesn’t include it in his Tales of a Grandfather, Scott once wrote of the Declaration that it should have been written “in letters of gold,” and he referred to it in a couple of his novels.

In his book For Freedom Alone – The Declaration of Arbroath 1320, Professor Ted Cowan is in no doubt about its influence on centuries of Scottish history, pointing back to the first English translation that is still extant, dating from 1689, and the Glorious Revolution putting William and Mary on the thrones of England and Scotland.

Cowan has described it as “the first national or governmental articulation, in all of Europe, of the principle of the contractual theory of monarchy which lies at the heart of modern constitutionalism”.

PROFESSOR Richard Oram of Stirling University wrote this about his fellow historian’s book: “Cowan argues – and largely convinces – that the medieval theories of contractual government expressed in the document were far more than just empty rhetoric and that they remained at the heart of political debate in Scotland, rising repeatedly to the forefront during periods of constitutional crisis: the early fifteenth century; the religious conflicts of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries; the political revolution of 1688-90; the Union debate; the Jacobite challenge; and informing the opinions of the Scottish intellectuals who had a hand in the framing of the American document.”

Speaking last week on The Alex Salmond Show on RT about that “contractual government” theory, Cowan said: “It is a great moment in Scottish history. I think it is the beginning of the sovereignty of the people, and there is some evidence to back that up.”

Asked by Salmond if the Declaration should be ranked “right up there” with the great historic documents, Cowan replied: “I think it should be, and for that reason I think it’s very good that it is now on the Unesco list of absolutely crucial documents – that’s exactly where it belongs.”

For another modern perspective, I am content to rely on Glasgow University history Professor Dauvit Broun’s verdict: “It is a political document, and it should remind people of what cannot be denied, which is that Scotland was an independent kingdom and there was a moment in its history where that had to be asserted. It’s about Scotland as an independent kingdom in a Europe of independent kingdoms – that is what it’s all about. As a powerful statement with eventually a European reputation of a kingdom’s independence within a Europe of kingdoms, you don’t need much imagination to see how that resonates today.”

And so to the 1320s, and what I consider to be the greatest achievement of Robert the Bruce’s reign after the victory at Bannockburn – the Treaty of Edinburgh-Northampton of 1328.

His rise to kingship of the Scots, his leadership at Bannockburn, and the Declaration had not gained what he most wanted – the recognition of his right to be called King of Scots.

You will recall from last week that, after the Declaration, King Robert had to crush the attempted coup known as the Soules Conspiracy, the likely objective of which was to depose the Bruce and put Edward Balliol, son of the abdicated King John “Toom Tabard” on the throne, with English backing.

The Scots and English had a truce for two years from 1319 to 1321, but King Edward II of England could never forget his humiliation at Bannockburn, and he threatened war against Scotland. The Bruce got there first, raiding south as far as York in a bid to capture prisoners to be held for ransom.

THE King was also talking to some of the great Northern lords and it looked as if they would do a separate deal with the Bruce to stop him destroying their land. Thomas, Earl of Lancaster, was one of the rebel barons but paid for it with his life after the Battle of Boroughbridge was won by forces loyal to Edward.

Encouraged by ending the civil war in England, Edward came north with a great army, but Bruce deployed the same tactics he had used prior to Bannockburn, destroying anything that could be of use to the English, who were forced to retreat when famine and disease broke out.

They burned Holyrood, Melrose and Dryburgh Abbeys, so now Bruce had the chance to show the Pope how bad Edward was. In October 1322, Bruce mounted what became known as the Great Raid, cutting a huge swathe of destruction through the north of England, culminating in the Battle of Old Byland which was a Scottish rout, forcing Edward to flee from nearby Rievaulx Abbey.

The chronicler Sir Thomas Gray wrote: “After Byland, the Scots were so fierce and their chiefs so daring, and the English so cowed, that it was no otherwise between them than as a hare before greyhounds.”

The Earl of Carlisle, Andrew Harcla or Harclay, sought a truce with King Robert in January 1323, so Edward had him executed for treason.

Now, the Pope in France relented and indeed brokered a 13-year truce between England and Scotland, seeming to recognise the Bruce as King. But that truce did not last, with Edward allowing his privateers to capture Scottish ships and kill their crews. That outrage made King Robert renew the Auld Alliance with France in 1326’s Treaty of Corbeil.

But civil war was brewing in England again. In January, 1327, Edward II was deposed by his wife Isabella, her lover Roger Mortimer and, crucially, by his own son, who became King Edward III.

Though a teenager, Edward III decided to teach the Scots a lesson by refusing a truce, but it hugely backfired. The Scots raided south again and won the Battle of Stanhope Park near Durham in August 1327. The new young king was trapped in his tent that night and almost killed by Sir James Douglas and his men. This would be the same Edward who would start the Hundred Years War, and would come back to Scotland with more success in the 1330s, in his bid to put Edward Balliol on the Scottish throne.

At that time, however, with his mother and Mortimer still calling the shots, Edward just did not have the money for a retaliation into Scotland.

His father also died, assassinated by Mortimer’s ruffians, who killed him with a hot poker inserted into his backside.

So, in early 1328 Edward and Robert agreed to a truce, and both kings signed the Treaty of Edinburgh-Northampton which, among other things, arranged the marriage of Edward’s sister Joan to the Bruce’s young son and heir, the future David II.

The Treaty of Edinburgh-Northampton should be given much more recognition than it is. Kings of England had recognised Scotland’s independence before, most notably in the Treaty of Durham of 1136, sealed between David I, King of Scots, and the English King Stephen.

We do not know the full details of the Treaty which King Robert sealed in Edinburgh in March, 1328, the Parliament of England ratifying it two months later. We do know that once and supposedly for always, England recognised that Scotland was a fully independent nation, and that Robert the Bruce was the King of Scots and he and his heirs would be recognised as such.

The exact words were that the kingship “shall belong to our dearest ally and friend, the magnificent prince, Lord Robert, by God’s grace illustrious King of Scotland, and to his heirs and successors, separate in all things from the kingdom of England, whole, free, and undisturbed in perpetuity, without any kind of subjection, service, claim or demand”.

Edward also agreed to return the Stone of Destiny. In return, Scotland would pay Edward £100,000 in reparations and make no further claims on English territory such as Northumberland.

King Robert I had just over a year to enjoy the hard-won peace. He died at his home in what is now West Dunbartonshire on June 7, 1329, a month short of his 55th birthday.

Edward III waited just a few short years before invading Scotland with his puppet Edward Balliol. The Stone of Destiny stayed in Westminster Abbey. Perfidious Albion indeed.

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: http://www.thenational.scot/subscribe. Thanks – and stay safe.