ÒFor so long as 100 of us
remain alive, we will never
give consent to subject
ourselves to the dominion
of the English. For it is
not glory, it is not riches,
neither is it honours that
we fight and contend for,
but freedom alone, which
no honest man will lose
except with his life.”These words were written 700 years ago in
April 1320, but they speak a language of
liberty that resonates today. They represent
the climax of a letter best-known as the
Declaration of Arbroath. It was written on
behalf of the barons and community of
Scotland to Pope John XXII during the long
conflict to secure the sovereignty and rights
of their kingdom, known as the Scottish
Wars of Independence. Six years after his
triumph at Bannockburn, the letter support-
ed the efforts of the Scottish king, Robert
Bruce, to secure recognition in his ongoing
fight with the English crown, now
represented by Edward II.
In just over a thousand words the declara-
tion articulated Scotland’s cause, its ancient
pedigree as a European nation and a Chris-
tian land, and its endurance through “innu-
merable oppressions” and “barbarities”
inflicted by English king Edward I (father of
Edward II). It insisted the Scots were not
simply fighting as subjects of a monarch.
Although the declaration held up King
Robert as the leader who had delivered his
people “from the enemy’s hand”, it asserted
that, should he “consent that we be subjected
to the king or people of England, we will...
expel him as our enemy... and make another
king who will defend our liberties”. In these
terms, Scotland’s struggle was for “freedom
alone”, and would be upheld even in the teeth
of their own ruler.
The power of these words and the ideas
behind them underpin the modern fascina-
tion with the Declaration of Arbroath.
Comparisons have been made between the
declaration and Magna Carta, produced in
England a century earlier in the struggle
between King John and his English subjects.
Both texts were written during conflicts in
which the freedoms and status of communi-
ties were threatened by tyrannical rulers,
internal or external. Both asserted the rights
of subjects to resist misrule, and even to
restrain or overthrow kings who failed to
sustain their liberties. However, the declara-
tion was very different from Magna Carta.Declaration of Arbroath
CROWN
COPYRIGHT:
NATIONAL
RECORDS
SCOTLAND,
SP13/7
Red letter day The Declaration of Arbroath, sealed by dozens of earls and barons, was sent
to Pope John XXII to moderate his hostility as the Scots attempted to resist English aggressionIt was not a detailed statement of legal rights
but a piece of rhetoric. Rather than compel-
ling the king to accept a series of specific
limitations on his authority, the declaration
was designed to persuade an external figure,
the pope, of the justice of the Scottish cause.
Moreover, while Magna Carta, in a
curtailed form, rapidly became regarded as
a touchstone of good law in English politics,
the Declaration of Arbroath had no parallel
significance for later generations of Scots.
A contemporary copy was preserved but the
declaration was primarily known from its
inclusion, along with other diplomatic
material from the struggle with England, in
late medieval Scottish chronicles. It was only
in 1680, 360 years after its composition, that
the declaration was lifted from these and
printed, bringing it to wider notice. Its
language and ideas excited theorists and
pamphleteers looking for historical evidence
for ancient constitutions. The declaration was
employed to justify the deposition of James
VII of Scotland (II of England) in 1688–89,
and during the next century was absorbed
into arguments about Britain’s liberties and
constitution evolving from a tradition of
resistance to tyrannical monarchs.A symbol of Scottish identity
Yet with its rejection of English rule, the
dec laration never sat comfortably within this
British framework. As movements to secure
home rule or independence for Scotland
developed in the 20th century, it became
increasingly identified as a text whichproclaimed the country’s right to self-deter-
mination. The name given to the text reflected
this. Often described as a “letter” or “mani-
festo” before 1900, from the 1920s the titles
“Declaration of Arbroath” or even “the
Scottish Declaration of Independence” were
preferred, reflecting its importance to
contemporary politics. By the 1960s, when
thoughts were turning to the 650th anniver-
sary, the declaration was seen as a potent and
widely recognised symbol of Scotland’s
historical independence.
Questions over the commemoration of
the anniversary were a political hot potato.
Officials advised that “in view of the great
effort nationalists will put forth to make the
celebrations a rallying point, we should seek
perhaps to make our offerings seem adequate,
but not excessive”. The issuing of a commem-
orative stamp, which represented the main
official response to the occasion, seems to
have avoided accusations of excess.
Even in the 50 years since 1970, the
significance of the declaration has shifted.
Although Scottish politics has moved onto
more contemporary ground, the Declaration
of Arbroath has retained its importance in
popular consciousness as a symbol of
Scottish identity and as a statement of
popular rights. The 6th April, the date of the
declaration, was adopted as Tartan Day by
the US Senate in 1998 as a means of
celebrating Scotland’s contribution to North
America. Furthermore, in 2016 the
Declaration of Arbroath was added to the
Unesco Memory of the World register, whichÒFor so long as 100 of us
remain alive, we will never
give consent to subject
ourselves to the dominion
of the English. For it is
not glory, it is not riches,
neither is it honours that
we fight and contend for,
but freedom alone, which
no honest man will lose
except with his life.”
These words were written 700 years ago in
April 1320, but they speak a language of
liberty that resonates today. They represent
the climax of a letter best-known as the
Declaration of Arbroath. It was written on
behalf of the barons and community of
Scotland to Pope John XXII during the long
conflict to secure the sovereignty and rights
of their kingdom, known as the Scottish
Wars of Independence. Six years after his
triumph at Bannockburn, the letter support-
ed the efforts of the Scottish king, Robert
Bruce, to secure recognition in his ongoing
fight with the English crown, now
represented by Edward II.
In just over a thousand words the declara-
tion articulated Scotland’s cause, its ancient
pedigree as a European nation and a Chris-
tian land, and its endurance through “innu-
merable oppressions” and “barbarities”
inflicted by English king Edward I (father of
Edward II). It insisted the Scots were not
simply fighting as subjects of a monarch.
Although the declaration held up King
Robert as the leader who had delivered his
people “from the enemy’s hand”, it asserted
that, should he “consent that we be subjected
to the king or people of England, we will...
expel him as our enemy... and make another
king who will defend our liberties”. In these
terms, Scotland’s struggle was for “freedom
alone”, and would be upheld even in the teeth
of their own ruler.
The power of these words and the ideas
behind them underpin the modern fascina-
tion with the Declaration of Arbroath.
Comparisons have been made between the
declaration and Magna Carta, produced in
England a century earlier in the struggle
between King John and his English subjects.
Both texts were written during conflicts in
which the freedoms and status of communi-
ties were threatened by tyrannical rulers,
internal or external. Both asserted the rights
of subjects to resist misrule, and even to
restrain or overthrow kings who failed to
sustain their liberties. However, the declara-
tion was very different from Magna Carta.
Declaration of Arbroath
CROWN
COPYRIGHT:
NATIONAL
RECORDS
SCOTLAND,
SP13/7
Red letter day The Declaration of Arbroath, sealed by dozens of earls and barons, was sent
to Pope John XXII to moderate his hostility as the Scots attempted to resist English aggressionIt was not a detailed statement of legal rights
but a piece of rhetoric. Rather than compel-
ling the king to accept a series of specific
limitations on his authority, the declaration
was designed to persuade an external figure,
the pope, of the justice of the Scottish cause.
Moreover, while Magna Carta, in a
curtailed form, rapidly became regarded as
a touchstone of good law in English politics,
the Declaration of Arbroath had no parallel
significance for later generations of Scots.
A contemporary copy was preserved but the
declaration was primarily known from its
inclusion, along with other diplomatic
material from the struggle with England, in
late medieval Scottish chronicles. It was only
in 1680, 360 years after its composition, that
the declaration was lifted from these and
printed, bringing it to wider notice. Its
language and ideas excited theorists and
pamphleteers looking for historical evidence
for ancient constitutions. The declaration was
employed to justify the deposition of James
VII of Scotland (II of England) in 1688–89,
and during the next century was absorbed
into arguments about Britain’s liberties and
constitution evolving from a tradition of
resistance to tyrannical monarchs.A symbol of Scottish identity
Yet with its rejection of English rule, the
dec laration never sat comfortably within this
British framework. As movements to secure
home rule or independence for Scotland
developed in the 20th century, it became
increasingly identified as a text whichproclaimed the country’s right to self-deter-
mination. The name given to the text reflected
this. Often described as a “letter” or “mani-
festo” before 1900, from the 1920s the titles
“Declaration of Arbroath” or even “the
Scottish Declaration of Independence” were
preferred, reflecting its importance to
contemporary politics. By the 1960s, when
thoughts were turning to the 650th anniver-
sary, the declaration was seen as a potent and
widely recognised symbol of Scotland’s
historical independence.
Questions over the commemoration of
the anniversary were a political hot potato.
Officials advised that “in view of the great
effort nationalists will put forth to make the
celebrations a rallying point, we should seek
perhaps to make our offerings seem adequate,
but not excessive”. The issuing of a commem-
orative stamp, which represented the main
official response to the occasion, seems to
have avoided accusations of excess.
Even in the 50 years since 1970, the
significance of the declaration has shifted.
Although Scottish politics has moved onto
more contemporary ground, the Declaration
of Arbroath has retained its importance in
popular consciousness as a symbol of
Scottish identity and as a statement of
popular rights. The 6th April, the date of the
declaration, was adopted as Tartan Day by
the US Senate in 1998 as a means of
celebrating Scotland’s contribution to North
America. Furthermore, in 2016 the
Declaration of Arbroath was added to the
Unesco Memory of the World register, which