All nationalism is based on mythical history and have to create their ideologies from whatever scraps come to hand, and the Scots version is no exception. But perhaps luckier than most with its many tales of romance. But we should not ahistorically give to a medieval mind the sensibilities of a later, modern age. Such as the idea of Wallace was an early exponent of “national liberation”. Wallace never fought for an abstract “people” or even “nation”, but always in the name of a legitimate power of which he was but the temporary protector or “Guardian” - the disposed king, John Balliol. It was William Wallace's sole aim to restore Balliol to the throne of Scotland.
The 1320 Declaration of Arbroath.
The preamble to the Declaration is characteristically medieval myth creation: it traces the wanderings of the “Scots nation” from “Greater Scythia” to Scotland, celebrates its triumphs over Britons and Picts, and survival from attacks by “Norwegians, Danes and English” . The names of Roger Mowbray and Ingram Unafraville, among the signatories, descendants from Anglo-Norman settlers invited to settle in Scotland during the reign of David, who themselves are mostly descended from earlier Viking invaders of what is now France from what is now Norway – a place somewhat far removed from Scythia.
"Yet if he should give up what he has begun, seeking to make us or our kingdom subject to the King of England 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; for, as long as a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be subjected to the lordship of the English. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself." - Declaration of Arbroath or properly titled "Letter of Barons of Scotland to Pope John XXII".
Stirring patriotic stuff. That it had ever existed was soon entirely forgotten and it was only rediscovered when a version of it was published by Sir George Mackenzie in 1680. It then becomes influential, but not really as an expression of nationalism but as support for those who wished to curtail royal power. It was only later that the Declaration of Arbroath came to be seen in purely nationalistic terms.
The above passage has been represented by some as the prototype for modern nationalism. Some have even gone so far as to assert that this represents “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.”
In truth, this passage suggests the function of the noble estate “as the defender of the kingdom against the claims of the individual monarch in a way that was entirely typical of absolutist Europe” says Davidson. Its message was two-fold. First, it was directed at Edward II, informing him that it was pointless for him to attempt to depose Robert with a more subservient king, since the remainder of the Scottish aristocracy would not cease its resistance. Second, it was addressed to Robert, making it clear that they would not brook his jeopardising their interests – which lay in their god-given right to unhindered exploitation of the mass of the peasantry – through making concessions to Edward.
To attribute to the Declaration of Arbroath modern connotations of nationhood is as false as to impart similar meanings to the Magna Carta. Both these documents should be seen for what they really were – an expression of the interests barons of the respective kingdoms and their determination to hang on to their privileges, against the monarch. To read into the Declaration the notions of a modern nation, not merely obscures its motives but “establishes a false identity” and “confers legitimacy on a key element in nationalist ideology, namely the primordial continuity of ‘the nation’ throughout history”, according to the historian (and SWP member) Neil Davidson.
Scotland in 1320 was a very different country to the Scotland we know today therefore we should not ahistorically give to a medieval mind-set the sensibilities of a later, modern age. So we should what did the signatories of the document actually mean by "we" and "freedom"? The "we" who attached their seals to the document were all noblemen. And it was their freedom that it concerned. The authors of the Arbroath declaration most likely used the word "people" to mean "people like us". There you have it. The “people” of Scotland were the nobles, the majority of whom at that time were still fairly much culturally Anglo-Norman, despite inter-marriage within the indigenous Scot-Gaelic ruling families and their further integration in terms of land holding and property ownership. As for the common-folk of Scotland; they had no say in the matter. Or in anything for that matter. The idea that the peasant in the fields or labourer in the towns had any type of say is laughable. The Declaration signatories certainly had no concept of popular sovereignty.
Those medieval signatories to the 1320 Declaration of Arbroath were merely feudal barons asserting their claim to rule and lord it over their own tenants and serfs, not leading any "liberation struggle". In fact, John de Menteith, who turned William Wallace over to Edward of England put his seal to the Declaration of Arbroath.
The claims that the Declaration challenged the traditional belief in the Divine Right of Kings and promoting in its place the notion that the nation itself was foremost and the monarch merely its steward, is argued solely to justify Bruce usurping the rightful king John Balliol, who it should be remembered Wallace acted as Guardian for. The section of the Declaration reading “if this prince [Bruce] shall leave these principles he hath so nobly pursued, and consent that we or our kingdom be subjected to the king or people of England, we will immediately endeavour to expel him, as our enemy and as the subverter both of his own and our rights, and we will make another king, who will defend our liberties” should be read as a cautionary warning and a veiled threat to Robert the Bruce himself for he had switched his allegence several times in previous years.
In a propaganda war, the Scots were at a disadvantage. The Pope in Rome had excommunicated Bruce who had decided to hell being just an English lord, I’d rather be a Scottish king and to achieve that goal murdered his chief rival in a church. He sent three letters to the Pope. The first was a letter from himself, the second from the Scots clergy, and the third from the nobles of Scotland that became known as the Declaration of Arbroath.
The lesser-known earlier 1310 Declaration of the Clergy (the clergy being usually the younger sons of the nobles) proclaimed the Kingship of Robert. It begins by stating that John Balliol was made King of Scots by Edward Longshanks of England, but goes on to criticise Balliol’s status, because an English King does not have any authority to determine who will be the King of Scots. Such authority rests with the Scots themselves and alone, ignoring the fact that the Scottish nobles had given up that right in negotiations with Edward over twenty years beforehand.
The Declaration stated: “The people, therefore, and commons of the foresaid Kingdom of Scotland, ...agreed upon the said Lord Robert, the King who now is, in whom the rights of his father and grandfather to the foresaid kingdom, in the judgement of the people, still exist and flourish entire; and with the concurrence and consent of the said people he was chosen to be King, that he might reform the deformities of the kingdom, correct what required correction, and direct what needed direction; and having been by their authority set over the kingdom, he was solemnly made King of Scots... And if any one on the contrary claim right to the foresaid kingdom in virtue of letters of time past, sealed and containing the consent of the people and the commons, know ye that all this took place in fact by force and violence which could not at the time be resisted.”
Like a lot of such grandiose statements we've seen down through the ages, the Clergy's declaration was nothing more than misleading propaganda, which sought to disguise the facts of history.
A more modern myth connects the Declaration of Arbroath with the American Declaration of Independence because both enshrined in their declarations the principle that sovereignty rests with the people. Firstly, as noted already it was not a "declaration" in the sense of the American Declaration of Independence or the French Declaration of the Rights of Man but a plea to the Pope. The Act of Abjuration (1581), where the Dutch deposed their Spanish ruler for having violated the social contract with his subjects could be just as easily cited as the influence on the American Declaration of Independence. Or even the English Declaration of Rights, which deposed King James II and brought to power William and Mary of Orange can be said to have had an influence on the Founding Fathers.
Nor should we over-look that although the Declaration of Arbroath says that the King of Scotland can be deposed if he abuses his power one hundred and five years earlier than the Declaration of Arbroath, at Runnymede, King John was forced to sign Magna Carta, giving his English subjects rights including the right to establish a monarchs rule. Nor should it be forgotten that between 1320 and 1603, Scotland had 11 monarchs. 3 of those (James I, James III, and Mary) were removed through assassination, civil war or deposition. In the same period, England had 18 monarchs. Of which no fewer than 7 (Edward II, Richard II, Henry VI, Edward IV, Edward V, Richard III, and Jane) were removed through civil war or deposition. So who, exactly, had the richer tradition of overthrowing monarchical power?
If heroes are required then instead of Wallace or Bruce, the Scottish workers should look to the likes of Wat Tyler and John Ball, commoners, who in the 1381 Peasants' Revolt took London and beheaded the Archbishop of Canterbury. The true history of the exploited is about the resistance of the Levellers and Diggers and the Chartists not the winners and losers of aristocratic family feuds for the throne of Scotland. Why does Scotland need independence? The answer is not ‘freedom’. One could be forgiven for mistaking the Scot Nats as living in some small colonised state located somewhere in the Third World during the 60s. Their language is very much in terms of ‘us’ and ‘them’: oppressed and oppressor, Edinburgh versus Westminster. Alex Salmond inhabits a fantasy land in which Scots are the hapless victims of their parasitic Southern neighbours: saddled with problems not of their own making, denied a say in their destiny, living under the imposed dictates of a foreign tyranny. The cultivation of victimhood is essential fodder for nationalists.
Scottish nationalism is based on a myth: the myth that Scottish people are different from Englishmen, Irishmen, Welshmen, or Cornishmen. Most Scots define themselves as Scottish rather than British. Nationalism is what you get when you take differences – primarily historical and cultural, bolstered by peripheral political and economic claims – and elevate them above commonalities. That focus on difference is distorting; it’s what makes nationalism inherently small-minded, historically inaccurate, foolish and dangerous. In the case of Scotland commonalities with the rest of the United Kingdom so vastly outweigh distinctions. What makes someone Scottish in the first place? There are nearly half a million each of Englishmen and Scots living in each other’s geographical boundaries, so that measure seems inadequate, and century upon century of cohabitation has blurred the lines of ancestry such that one can hardly claim Scottishness by descent. Both English and Scots have added their blood to the line on both sides stretching back centuries; it’s simply impossible to disentangle the two. Differences in speech, dress, pastimes or traditions seem too superficial to form the basis for any real distinction.
Workers in Scotland and the rest of Great Britain share a common tongue, common values, common aspirations and common interests: they have shared and forged a common history, and should now be looking to a common future. One thing that is the same, the world over, is the economic plight of the working class and the domination of the bourgeoisie and it is that which must be addressed. Building revolution in a single county, region, state or country is not sustainable or desirable over a long term. For world socialism without borders, whether they are the walls of a factory, the cubicles of an office, or the borders of a nation state. All such boundaries must be torn down. So that we can finally be free.
The working class must determine its own destiny and to the extent that the working class holds nationalist ideas, it is allowing its destiny to be determined by the capitalist class. Unity must be established between the exploited regardless of nationality and race. That is basically the same point that Marx made when he said “labour in the white skin can not be free as long as labor in the black skin is branded.” And in referring to the need to overcome the hostile attitude of the English worker towards the Irish workers, Marx wrote: “He...turns himself into a tool of the aristocrats and capitalists against Ireland, thus strengthening their domination over himself.”
Socialism can not be accomplished under the national relations engendered by capitalism. Socialism must be worldwide or it cannot exist at all. The world is irresistibly being driven to interdependence. National states cannot resolve such global problems as climate change, depletion of energy and natural reources or deal with the effects of pollution of all kinds on land and ocean, the ecological disasters facing fauna and flora. In the end, nationalism and the national State will have to disappear. The only race is the human race.
No comments:
Post a Comment