Scotland: History of a Nation
Geography and the origins of the Scottish question
Professor Dauvit Broun, Professor of Scottish History, University of Glasgow
“There was
an earlier
sense of
the king as
representing
ultimate
authority.
This was not
linked to law
and custom,
but was
grounded in
geography.”
Professor Broun
is the author
of Scottish
Independence and
the Idea of Britain:
From the Picts
to Alexander III
(Edinburgh
University Press,
March 2007).
What is a nation? The answer
changes over time. When new
ideas of nationhood take root,
more nations come into being.
The nations that already exist
usually survive and adapt to the
new ideas. The previous ideas
that spawned the older nations,
however, persist at some level.
If we peel back the layers far
enough, we eventually arrive at
an era when geography was the
prime factor.
In the 19th century it was
thought that nations were
defined by language and
culture. It was on this basis
that many of today’s European
countries became independent
after the First World War, and
again after the fall of the Iron
Curtain. However, the basic idea
of national sovereignty – that
peoples should be independent
and self-governing – first
took shape in the decades
after 1200. In the 13th
century, government
changed fundamentally.
Previously, government was
experienced spasmodically
when the king on his travels
stopped by in your locality.
From 1200, administrative
developments meant that
royal authority became
accessible continuously. It no
longer depended so much on
the king’s personal availability. A
king was now only regarded as a
king if he could exercise this new
kind of authority. As a result, all
kingdoms which survived into the
13th century were regarded as of
equal status. It was also assumed
that each had its own uniform
laws and customs. This sense
of sharing laws and customs
under the ultimate authority of a
king made it natural to assume
that each kingdom constituted
a distinct people. They survive
as national identities to this day,
for example in England, France,
Norway and Scotland.
But these were not ‘nations’ in
the 19th-century sense. Although
medieval people were acutely
aware of differences in language
and culture, this was not
necessary for a sense of national
identity. What defined a Scot or
an Englishman was allegiance to
the king of Scots or the king of
England as the latest in a long
line of kings. In the Declaration
of Arbroath (1320), the ancient
freedom of Scots was asserted
through their obedience to an
unbroken line of 113 kings. Even
when kingdoms were later united
under a shared monarch, their
national identity continued.
Although the 13th-century idea
of ‘nation’ was different from that
of the 19th and 20th centuries,
they were closely related. What
changed was that, instead of
royal authority as the prime
element, the focus shifted to the
people and what was regarded as
their natural characteristics, such
as language. What, then, were the
precursors of the 13th-century
idea of sovereign kingdoms?
There was an earlier sense of
the king as representing ultimate
authority. This was not linked
to law and custom, but was
grounded in geography. Although
there were many kings in Ireland
and Britain, it was assumed
that one was paramount in
each island. Because islands
were permanent, this creat