"While the political entities and their followers squabble amongst themselves for political legitimacy, and while we remain critical of our brothers and sisters in arms, Scotland suffers under the Union, when it could be basking in the wealth of freedom. If you fall into this category, you need to pick your fights with the true enemy."
This sentiment is a critical reflection of the current state of Scotland’s independence movement, which, despite its noble aspirations, is riddled with internal divisions. History has shown that such fragmentation is often the Achilles' heel of political struggles, and Scotland’s past provides numerous examples of how disunity has weakened its efforts for self-determination.
Scotland’s modern independence movement, led primarily by the Scottish National Party (SNP), has achieved considerable success in recent years, culminating in the 2014 referendum where 45% of voters supported leaving the United Kingdom. However, despite this momentum, internal divisions have plagued the movement, from ideological splits within the SNP to the rise of smaller pro-independence parties like Alba. These factions often disagree on strategy, the timing of another referendum, and the very nature of an independent Scotland. This lack of unity undermines the cause, leaving the independence movement vulnerable to external forces—much like medieval Scotland before its unification under Robert the Bruce.
In the 13th and 14th centuries, Scotland faced a similar struggle for independence from England, a period that would later become legendary in Scottish history. Following the death of King Alexander III in 1286, Scotland was left without a clear heir, leading to political chaos. The ensuing succession crisis created factions within Scotland, with different noble families vying for power. This internal division made Scotland weak and vulnerable to external threats, particularly from Edward I of England, who saw the opportunity to impose English overlordship over Scotland.
The Scottish nobility initially sought a diplomatic solution, inviting Edward I to mediate the succession crisis. However, Edward used the opportunity to assert his dominance, demanding that all Scottish leaders swear fealty to him as overlord. This led to the installation of John Balliol as a puppet king, a move that deepened divisions within Scotland rather than resolving them. Some factions supported Balliol, while others sought to resist English control, creating a fractured political landscape.
One of the earliest figures to rise against English domination was William Wallace, a minor noble who led a guerilla resistance against Edward I’s forces. Wallace’s leadership was a rallying point for many Scots who were tired of English oppression. His victory at the Battle of Stirling Bridge in 1297 demonstrated that Scotland could defeat English forces when united behind a common cause. However, Wallace’s success was short-lived. His defeat at the Battle of Falkirk in 1298 and his subsequent betrayal—when he was captured and handed over to the English—exposed the fragility of the Scottish resistance. Wallace’s betrayal by Scottish nobles, many of whom sought to preserve their own interests, is a stark reminder of how internal divisions can sabotage a broader movement for independence.
Despite Wallace’s fall, his legacy would inspire future generations of Scots, most notably Robert the Bruce. Bruce initially wavered in his allegiance, at times supporting the English crown in a bid to secure his claim to the Scottish throne. However, after the murder of his rival John Comyn in 1306—a bold and ruthless move that eliminated one of the primary obstacles to his leadership—Bruce committed fully to the cause of Scottish independence. Bruce’s ascent to power was marked by his ability to unite Scotland’s warring factions. He forged alliances with key Scottish clans, consolidated his power base, and effectively became the figurehead of the independence movement.
Bruce’s most significant achievement came at the Battle of Bannockburn in 1314, where his forces decisively defeated the English army. This victory was not just a military triumph; it was the culmination of years of political maneuvering, in which Bruce had carefully built alliances and garnered support from all corners of Scotland. Bannockburn was a testament to the power of unity. It demonstrated that a divided Scotland was weak, but a united Scotland could stand against one of the most powerful armies in Europe. Bruce’s leadership turned the tide of the Wars of Independence, and by 1328, the Treaty of Edinburgh-Northampton recognized Scotland’s independence under his kingship.
The parallels between Bruce’s ability to unite Scotland and the modern independence movement are striking. In both cases, the primary obstacle to success has been internal division. Today, the SNP is the dominant pro-independence party, but it faces competition from factions within the movement, including the Alba Party led by former SNP leader Alex Salmond. These divisions are exacerbated by differences in opinion over the timing and method of pursuing independence. Some factions advocate for a more radical, immediate push for independence, while others, including SNP leadership have favored a more cautious approach, focusing on gradual progress and the legal route to another referendum.
The modern independence movement, like Scotland in the medieval period, risks sabotaging its own cause by allowing these divisions to overshadow the larger goal. Just as the Scottish nobles who betrayed Wallace or aligned with the English crown were more concerned with their personal interests than the common good, today’s factions within the independence movement often prioritize ideological purity or party loyalty over the collective goal of achieving independence. This fragmentation plays directly into the hands of those who wish to see Scotland remain within the Union. The British government has been able to exploit these divisions, much like Edward I did in the 13th century, by casting doubt on the feasibility and unity of the independence movement.
Furthermore, the question of unity extends beyond political parties to the broader electorate. In 2014, the independence referendum saw a 55-45 split in favor of remaining in the United Kingdom, but since then, public opinion has shifted. Polls in recent years have shown increasing support for independence, especially following the Brexit vote, which Scotland opposed. Yet, even among pro-independence voters, there is division over key issues such as Scotland’s economic future, its relationship with the European Union, and the role of the monarchy in an independent Scotland. These debates mirror the medieval struggles, where different factions had conflicting visions for what a free Scotland should look like.
The lesson from Scotland’s medieval history is clear: unity is the key to success in any movement for independence. Bruce understood this, and his ability to bring together the various factions under his leadership was crucial to Scotland’s victory at Bannockburn and its eventual independence. Today’s leaders of the independence movement would do well to heed this lesson. While ideological differences are inevitable, they must not be allowed to fracture the movement to the point of ineffectiveness. The true enemy is not the pro-independence faction with a slightly different vision, but the forces that seek to keep Scotland within the Union.
If the independence movement can find a way to unite, as it did under Bruce, it stands a much greater chance of success. But if it continues to squabble, as Scotland did before Bannockburn, it risks prolonging its suffering under the Union. History has shown that disunity is a recipe for failure, and the modern movement must choose whether to repeat the mistakes of the past or to learn from them.