For Freedom Alone: The Declaration of Arbroath and the Limits of Power

William Wallace, a Scottish knight and leader during the First Scottish War of Independence, became a symbol of defiance. But it was Robert the Bruce, national hero of Scotland, that secured a path toward independence with his victory at Bannockburn in 1314. Despite this victory, Scotland needed recognition to ensure independence, especially from the papacy, which held immense moral and political authority in medieval Europe.

Eight Scottish earls and forty-​five barons signed and sent a letter to the pope. They appealed for Scotland’s independence in its long war against England and made plea to recognize Robert the Bruce as its rightful king.

Now known as the Declaration of Arbroath, it was a thoroughly medieval document: written in Latin, signed by nobles, and addressed to the papacy. People often dismiss the medieval ages as a dark era defined by ignorance, superstition, and unchecked tyranny, but the Declaration of Arbroath challenges this caricature. The Scottish nobles treated political authority as conditional, asserting that rulers exist for the sake of a people. When they fail, they may be replaced. The Declaration is both an expression of Scottish national self-​determination and a statement about the limits of kingship.

The nobles who signed it were not arguing in the tradition of classical liberalism, but their argument belongs to a longer tradition from which ideas about accountability, consent, just rule, and resistance would emerge.

Freedom is not presented as a privilege granted by a ruler. It is treated as something that cannot be surrendered without moral loss. The most famous passage of the Declaration reads:

Although the freedom the Declaration defends is that of a particular political community, articulated through its nobles within a feudal society, it reflects an emerging idea: political rule must be justified by those who live under it.

The most unique element of the Declaration lies in its treatment of kingship. The nobles affirm their loyalty to Robert the Bruce—but only conditionally. If he fails in his duty, they will replace him:

The king is not sacred; he is merely a servant of the people. His legitimacy depends on his ability to defend the freedom of the realm. If he betrays that purpose, he forfeits his right to rule. The power to judge the king lies with the nobles. While this does not amount to democracy or popular sovereignty in the modern sense, the principle is clear: political authority is conditional, not absolute.

The Declaration fits within a broader medieval tradition that placed limits on rulers. It echoes earlier ideas (like those of John of Salisbury) who argued that tyrants could be justly resisted.

The Declaration is addressed to the Pope. The Scots present themselves as a people unjustly attacked who are defending their independence. They invoke history, tracing their origins and emphasizing their autonomy. They cast the English king as a violator of justice and appeal to the pope as a moral authority who ought to intervene.

Rulers are not the ultimate source of legitimacy. They are subject to judgment, whether by God or, implicitly, by those they govern. The Scottish helped establish the principle that authority must answer to something beyond itself.

It is tempting to read the Declaration of Arbroath as a precursor to the American Declaration of Independence. There are similarities: both speak of freedom, both justify resistance, and both suggest that rulers who fail in their duties may be opposed.

But the Declaration of Arbroath does not articulate individual rights, equality, or universal principles. Its framework is feudal, its authors are noble, and its concern is the independence of a kingdom, not the liberty of individuals. To treat it as a modern liberal document is to misunderstand it, but to dismiss it entirely would be equally mistaken.

The Declaration of Arbroath is best understood as part of a longer tradition concerned with the limits of power. Across centuries, societies have wrestled with the same problem: how to justify authority and how to constrain it. The answers have taken many forms: custom, divine law, natural rights, but the underlying concern remains constant.

What the Scottish Declaration contributes is a clear assertion that rulers exist for the sake of those they govern, and that failure in that role has consequences. The idea of holding power accountable would reappear in later contexts: in the resistance theories of the early modern period, in the political conflicts of the English Civil War, in the writings of John Locke, and in the pamphlets of the American Revolution.

Ideas about the relationship between liberty and power often emerge in moments of crisis. The Declaration of Arbroath is a document written in the midst of conflict by people who believed their way of life was under threat. It is not an abstract philosophical treatise.

At the same time, historical context limits the Declaration’s significance. The freedom it defends is not universal. It exists within a hierarchical society marked by exclusion and inequality. This is still no reason to ignore Arbroath as this tension runs through the broader history of liberty. Expansions of freedom have often coexisted with limits and compromises to liberty. Principles have been articulated in narrow settings for a privileged few, before being extended more widely.

Recognizing this does not diminish the importance of such documents. It places them within the broader, more complex story of how ideas about liberty have developed over centuries.

The Declaration of Arbroath’s central claim is simple but enduring: bound by their duty to those they govern, a ruler’s authority may be withdrawn when they fail in that duty. It is not a complete exploration of rights, but it captures a core intuition that would echo across centuries: power without accountability is illegitimate.