OOH, I do declare. Another waddle back into the mists of history this week, folks, to the 14h century, when men were men and never did Pilates.
Our fuzzy focus is on the Declaration of Arbroath. You ken what I mean, right? Scots are notoriously ignorant of their own history but even the dimmest of them – George Galloway, say – knows about the DoA: “It’s that manky bit of parchment wi’a the daft wee tassles hingin’ oaf it.” That’s the one. What did you expect? Basildon Bond with PTO written at the bottom?
Let us look, then, at what it said, bearing in mind that, aside from the most famous lines, there’s a fair amount of bilge. We should remind ourselves, too, that it was a letter to the Pope, and so it starts with, “devoted kisses of your blessed feet”. Whatever turns you on, I suppose. Blessed be the feet. It’s just a blessing that Orangemen and their own never-quoted declaration – The Treaty of Union – hadn’t been invented yet.
Following the feet there’s some right dodgy history about the Scots originating in Greater Scythia, a sort of Greater Strathclyde without the buses. It was in modern Ukraine, so how they ended up here is a mystery. Maybe they had a Young Persons Chariotcard.
Allegedly, these fine folk blootered the Britons and the Picts then, later, “the Norse, the Danes and the English”. They were among the first Christians – gullible – and lived “free and untroubled”, skipping daily through daisy meadows, until that King Edward of England turned up murdering folk, burning monasteries and generally arson aboot.
READ MORE RAB: Sir Alex Ferguson or Fergie to us
Luckily, “Lord Robert, like another Maccabaeus or Joshua” (righty-oh) fought back to ensure Scotia’s freedom. Now comes the famous bit (improvised by me from various translations – see important point below): “Listen up: As long as but a hundred of us remain alive, we will never submit to English rule. No way. It is not for honour nor riches nor glory that we fight, but for freedom alone, which no true man gives up except with his life, ken?”
These are amazingly stirring words from a period when we assumed everybody was dense. Admired throughout the world, they’re said to have inspired the American Declaration of Independence, though that is disputed yada-yada.
The document was signed on 6 April, 1320, at the monastery of Arbroath and sent forth, luckily not via Hermes or the Pope would still be waiting for it or have received a note saying “left in laundry pail” whence it was destroyed after soapy medieval immersion in Fairy Non-Bio Mucus Powder.
The document was signed by some right toffs on behalf also of the “other Barons, Freeloaders and all the common people of the kingdom of Scotland”. Not “Freeloaders”, sorry, “Freeholders”. Of course, the common people didn’t have a scoobie about any of this, but just sat aboot on tree stumps chewing grass and periodically saying “Aye” in a resigned voice.
Oddly, you’d think, there appears to be no Macs among the signatories, though there is a Donald Campbell, who was also known as Domnhall mac Cailein (mac Cailein being a name Campbells often took; it means “son of Colin”; ruddy confusing). I might have missed others, as some are just listed in translations by first name (Rab, Tam, Shuggie) and place.
Fergus Ardrossan sounds like a made-up character from Chewin’ the Fat. Someone with a row of pens in his cloak’s top pocket. Other great Scots-sounding names include Roger de Mowbray, William de Monte Alto, and even Magnus Jonsson, Earl of Orkney, who presumably didn’t read it properly or skipped over the bit about the dastardly Norse. Before this gives unionists the chance to rejoice – “See, they weren’t even really Scottish” – a few signatories changed sides later, which proves they were Scottish.
Bear in mind the Deccie was written in Latin, a language you can translate any way you like. Put two Latin translations next to each other and you’ll find no two words the same. There’s a fair chance the famous document actually says: “We, the undesigned, demand better public lavatory facilities for all in Arbroath.”
Alba party leader Alex Salmond appears to have “kingdom” translated as “realm” in his pocket edition. Earlier this week, on the Deccie’s 701st anniversary, announcing his plans to take over the nation, he kept referring to “the realm of Scotland”.
It sounded curiously antiquated. Today, “realm” is usually associated with fairies. Difficult to see Eck in a wee frock, waving a wand as he blunders through the air on a joist before alighting on a dandelion and crushing it flat under his great weight.
READ MORE RAB: Van Halen or Ravel?
The modern SNP under Nicola Sturgeon, meanwhile, could have issued their own new declaration like Eck: “Let us be clear: For as long as there a hundred genders of us, we will never submit to Salmond nor tolerate hate havers at ye banqueting table. It is not for baby boxes that we fight, but for our salaries and pension rights alone, which no woke politician gives up without a tweet.”
I should have explained that the purpose of the letter – written by Bernie of Kilwinning – was not just to get Scotland’s nationhood recognised but to have the Pope’s excommunication of Robert I rescinded. Boabie (the Bruce) had earlier told the Pope where he could shove his desired truce during the First War of Scottish Independence.
How was the document received? Evidence indicates that Pope John 22 just put it on a pile with his leccy bill and bank statements, to be looked at later. They should have sent it to him again in red ink and headed it “Final Notice”.
At any rate, four months later, the Pope finally got round to writing back, saying he yearned for “pacification” beween Scotland and the baddies, and urging everyone to render service unto their maker, Jehovah the Merciless.
Today, Scots are once more trying to have their independence recognised, not by the Pope but by Boris Johnson. However, having so far proven unwilling to plant devoted kisses on the PM’s ankle socks, the constitutional impasse continues at the time of going to press.
Our columns are a platform for writers to express their opinions. They do not necessarily represent the views of The Herald.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel