With the beginnings of Viking raids into Scotland the center of Christian activity shifted from the Holy Isle of Iona to two places specifically that were later to become the wellsprings of Scots spirituality and unsurprisingly kingship; Dunkeld and St. Andrews. The confused beginnings of episcopal Christianity as opposed to the ascetic vein of worship is a definite and significant sign of consolidation of Scottish kingship. The spreading of a semi-independent movement with strong links in its not so distant past with the kings of the area and cults of the holy men of Colomba, Ninnian, Andrew, Adomnan and Peter acting as the major saints of what was fast becoming a national church.
The establishment of the relics of St.Colomba at Dunkeld by Kenneth I in 849 coincides with the unification of much of Scotland under its first high-king and enhancing the status of 'existing centers of royal and ecclesiastical authority.'
It was not long after this period that the Northumbrian Kingdom was taken over by Scandinavians who proved to be a greater worry than the Strathclyde Britons. From records such as the Anglo-Saxon chronicle we can see the destruction of the weak Kingdom of Strathclyde by Edmund King of Wessex who then gifted the Kingdom to Malcolm I in 945 . It was shortly after this time that the Kingdom of Alba was to find itself encircled by Scandinavians (Norwegians) in York, the Northern Isles and Caithness and in response the kingdom began to expand slowly into Moray in the north. But what was happening within the territories of the Kings of Alba was a 'recasting of kings as underkings, and eventually as territorial lords.' Those who were later to be referred to as "Lords of the Isles or Lords of Galloway' etc. were in reality kings in all but name
What is known is that by the year 1000 "Britons, Picts, Scots and Scandinavians came to owe common allegiance to a single king, 'of Scots'." Before the year 900 the word Alba had been used to refer to the whole of the British Isles but after 900 it came to mean the land 'over which the kings of Scots ruled and in which their people lived.'
The existence of an independent kingship of the northern British Isles can be seen operating under the auspices of a MacAlpine dynasty that was to last from approx. c.839 to 1093. The final king of this line was Malcolm III and it was during his reign that the balance of power within the British Isles was to change forever and the nature of kingship to be forever changed towards a more intensely feudal and administrative position. The Conquest of England by the Norman's from 1066 bought a powerful new influence to bear on the British Isles and one which had a distinct effect on the social conditions as well as the military. Between 1066 and 1294 Scotland underwent a process of Normanisation within the systems of government but more importantly one of Anglicization.
The incorporation of Moray, Ross, Galloway and the Hebrides was during the 12th century the major achievement for the Scottish crown. The consolidation of kingdoms in the 12th century by both the Scots and the English was to prove signifigant. The English were powerful in military terms but more significantly for them administration was to prove their strongest advantage for it allowed the raising of sizable armies and a system of taxation that ensured maximum revenues.
An achievement of unity amongst the peoples allowed the king to exercise his powers to both command and forbid in a manner that became increasingly Christianized and Westernized as time went by. Following the Norman conquest of England some headway was made by Norman's into Scottish society but importantly these men were with the Monarchy not against it. The Kingdom was not very advanced in its administrative capacities but neither it seems was it particularly demanding.
There was internal warfare within the Highlands and amongst clans but the military tradition was not as regulated as it was for the English. The king had a Fyrd he could command which provided him with men and this force was used sparingly and as a result the nobility was spared the excessive war taxation that the English again were held to. By 1286 states Duncan Scotland was ‘independent with a western monarchy…remarkably free from social pressures its unity was nonetheless flawed by a marked geographical division [in] its Celtic population.’ That Scotland was divided into Highlands and Lowlands is a significant factor in the study of the kingdoms unity. The Lowlands were Scots-English speaking, wealthy through trade and largely baronial while above in the Highlands ‘lay a Celtic population, sparse, poor and dominated by Magnates who appeared at the kings court only on major occasions.’ To be noted also is the cooperation of the English and Scottish nobility with many nobles holding land in Both Camps. While some Scots may have been subject to both the English and Scottish crowns it was the community in which they lived that their real allegiance lay.
This split between Highlanders and Lowlanders is illustrated further in this following long passage from the fourteenth century Scottish chronicler John of Fordun, describing the contrasts between the highlanders and the lowlanders:
The manners of the Scots vary according to their language, for they employ two languages, Scottish [Gaelic] and Teutonic [Scots/English]. The race of Teutonic language has the sea coasts and lowlands, that of Scottish language inhabits the mountainous areas and the outer isles. The race of the sea coasts is domesticated, civilized, faithful, patient, cultivated, decently dressed, refined and peaceable, devout in church worship, yet always ready to withstand any harm done by its enemies. The island or mountain race, however, is wild, untamed, primitive, intractable, inclined to plunder, leisure-loving, quick to learn, skilful, handsome in appearance but vilely dressed, and continually fiercely opposed to the English people and language, but also to their own nation, on account of the difference of language. Nevertheless they are loyal and obedient to the king and the kingdom, and also easily subdued to the laws, if they are ruled properly.
So we can see that until the unfortunate death of Alexander III from whom was left no direct heir to the throne the Kingdom had existed in a largely peaceful state and continually making advances in the application of state machinery. As testament to this strength of community which did exist the example of the Guardians can be drawn upon as an example of what may even be termed Aristocratic egalitarianism and from Edward I's lack of concern at the state of affairs for several years following shows the existing community of the realm expanding to fill the gap left by their king. A testament to whatever unity had thus far been achieved.
The English had their eyes on the Scottish kingdom and as a result a process began in which the English would convince themselves that they were the rightful overlords of the realm to their north. By account of their own origin myths they asserted amongst themselves a right to the kingdom of the Scots.
The first allegation of Homage being owed to the Anglo-Norman royal house, specifically, dates from 1072 following the surrender of Malcolm II’s son Duncan of Scotland to William the Conquerors army and an understanding that Malcolm was now William's liegeman. The King of Scotland did not place much weight in this arrangement. In 1080 it is said also that Malcolm III again swore homage to William Rufus following the battle of Fallkirk yet this is unconfirmed.
Later the sons of Malcolm were by circumstance forced to accept support from the Anglo-Norman crown in a way which signified their status as vassals. Accepted to a degree through education as members of the English community of the realm they consequently had much to do with the Norman kings.
William I (the Lion) of Scotland was captured in 1173 at Alnwick after backing a rebellion led by the son of Henry II of England is the most concrete example of the submission of the Scottish crown to the English crown on which Edward I was to later draw upon. In 1173 the Treaty of Falaise the terms of William's submission to Henry II included he forfeiting of the five castles of Stirling, Edinburgh, Roxburgh,Berwick and Jedburgh. These were situated primarily along the border regions but Stirling can be considered to be Scottish heartland. More importantly the Nobles of the Scottish realm were now answerable to the English when only 200 years before they may have been in truth answerable to none. Although this state of affairs lasted for only 15 years it it made a powerful precedent for Edward the I'st for what was to be his attempt to finish the conquest of the British Isles began by his grandfather.
Between the years of 1296 and 1328 Scotland suffered an intense period of campaign by the English crown in its attempt to absorb the kingdom of Scotland as it had the lands of the Welsh. Between the years of 1328 and 1333 there was a short peace only to be followed by another 26 years of sustained warfare. This affected the border regions most heavily but in reality there were to be none in Scotland to remain untouched by this violence.
In an article in the periodical History Today (October 1996)Dauvit Broun wrote about the development of Scotland between 1000 and 1300 in an article in the entitled "When did Scotland become Scotland?" in response to an earlier article by Patrick Wormald entitled "When did England become England?". In this Broun poses the question of Scottish ethnicity. He establishes that at least the supposedly Irish 'Scots' and the Irish shared the same Gaelic 'high culture' and maintains that this culture and the claim of Scots decent from Ireland remained current right up until the 1320 declaration of Arbroath. However Broun notes that unlike England Scotland was never built on the foundations of a belief that there was such a thing as 'Scottish people'.
Brouns investigation into the question he presents take several forms. Whether the difference between the presence of a kingdom of Scotland automatically results in a people of Scotland. Whether it was through the advent of Scotland the state which Broun measures through charter production or whether it was the extent of the Scottish crowns influence on local areas that defined the people as united and thus through Scottish definitions of what Scotland was. It was during the mid-thirteenth century that Scotland was redefined from a 'patch-work of regions but a single country'
As to whether Brouns view is that a sense of Scottish ethnicity established itself in response to the wars of Edward I he does not make himself clear and only alludes to this in paragraph seven. In fact Broun argues that the sense of Scottishness was already established by the time Edward threatened the independence of the country and ‘all that was needed was for Scottish literati… to rewrite the story of Scottish origins to make sure that a sense of the Scots as a distinct people, inhabitants of an independent kingdom, was properly articulated.”
Brouns introduction to the concept of a Scottish national identity states that it was following Edward's invasion and attempted subjugation of the Scottish people that an identity formed amongst the inhabitants of present day Scotland began to feel themselves as a particular entity. A phenomenon that Broun alludes to but does not specifically state is a process of definition of ‘us’ in this case the people of the Scottish kingdom and ‘them’ who were the English invaders. As history has shown us there is no better way for a population to identify itself as being unique and united as when it is facing some grave external threat that extremes of polarization even to the extent of unification amongst disparate peoples and a drawing together an unity in even such integral things as origin myths. Now in order for the English who were busily trying to cement their physical overlordship of the people of the area they had to use much force and in order to repel this threat the people of the Kingdom were forced to mobilize on a scale that obviously was previously unheard of in the Scottish realm
Because of the chance creation of a kingdom unified under a single king Broun sees it mabey as more important in defining a sense of Scottish identity through the implementation of centralized government. For this the process of Normanisation can be seen as an affector. The influence of the French norms can be seen during the glorious reign of King David I through comments made by William of Malmsbury to the extent of which King David offered Tax breaks for three years for those subjects who would ‘live in a more civilized style, dress with more elegance and learn to eat with more refinement.’ A powerful statement of what was obviously deemed to be desirable, and to integrate Scotland with the idea of a broader European standard of culture. Now it must also be noted here that when the French did arrive in Scotland it happened to be on the side of the crown and this proved to be a great boon for the beginning of more effective government of the Kingdom.
The implantation of Norman culture within the English countryside was mirrored in Scotland. But there it was the imposition of English culture that was to have a great effect for English was to be the language of business and business the language of wealth and the road to security for the freemen of the Scottish realm.
The rise of William Wallace in 1296-7 is one example that a strong 'national psyche' already existed within Scotland The popular ideological differences between the gens were not entirely removed as Smouts chapter on 16th century Scottish society shows but a broad sense of unity allowed the idea of natio to prevail for the expulsion of the English. While scholars may cite either Cinead mac Alpin or Mael Colum mac Cinead as being the first kings of a united Scotland it can generally be supposed that even until and 1707 unification that Scottish ethnicity was not regimented amongst the peoples of the land.
Following a history which can best describe the unity of Scotland as fragmented the wars of Edward the first of England against the lands of the Scottish Crown and particularly his focus on the absorption of the Scottish Crown allowed for the first time a coherent sense of national identity to arise. The question of Loyalty had been posed and although much of Scotland was split on the question of who the rightful king was the events primarily allowed the Scottish people to gain a clear picture of themselves as quite different from the lowland invaders. Initially it was the recognition of the overlordship of the kings of Argyle that was the object of dispute for the Northern British Isles. As each leader of men was taken under the banner of the King of Albia and resistance squashed at the local level there existed the notion that the King was distant and had little real affect on the lives of locals. Once this unit of organization was threatened by King Edward especially and the necessity arose for large armies to be raised then the preferred unit of Loyalty became the King of Scots rather than the King of England. The example had already been placed before these men of the Kingdom of Wales fell with much loss to the armies of Edward I. In the face of such serious threat the only thing that could preserve the way of life for the freemen and bonded of the Scottish King would be mass mobilization against the defenders.
From the early beginnings of tribal authority in Scotland to the establishment of resistance against Edward I the whole of Europe experienced a series of advances in governmental administration. Scotland was no different and a centralized authority increased its hold. The Scottish Church was also a particularly instrumental institution in this process at the grassroots level as a unifier of people as it was throughout latinised Christendom. It seems that the mass violence created an enmity of such greatness that this coupled with increasing levels of administration that filled the vacuum of previous centuries and at least bought the common people to a realization of borders and brotherhood that transcended the localized rule of the magnates for the time being at least.
Sources:
Barrel, A.D.M., Medieval Scotland Cambridge 2000
Bartlett, R., Medieval and modern concepts of race and ethnicity,Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies:Durham:Winter 2001
Broun, Dauvit., When did Scotland become Scotland? History Today, London:Oct 1996 (no page # available for footnote due to natuer of ProQuest printout)
Brown, M.H., Scottish Border Lordship, 1332-58 Historical Research :Feb 1997: Oxford
Campbell, E., Were the Scots Irish?, Antiquity ; Cambridge:Jun 2001
Duncan, A.A.M., The nation of Scots and the Declaration of Arbroath The Historical Association:London:1970
Gillingham, J., The English in the Twelfth Century. Imperialism, National Identity and Political Values in Bennet, M., Medieval Britain: Myth, Power and Identity – Selected Readings p.45
Harvey, B the Twelfth and thirteenth Centuries Oxford:2001
Lynch, M., Scotland Pimlico:Kent:1992
Smout, T.C., A History of the Scottish People 1560-1580 London:Fontana, 1998
Stones, E.L.G., The Submission of Robert Bruce to Edward I, C.1301-2
Campbell, E “Were the Scots Irish?”
