MEDIEVAL scholars believed that the island of Britain was seen as fundamentally Scottish, research by a leading historian has suggested.
Research by the University of Glasgow’s Professor Dauvit Broun has revealed that Scottish historians and writers in the 1380s and 1520s regarded the Scottish kingdom as equivalent to Britain, adding it was not as common as the tendency to refer to Britain as England, but it was similar in effect.
Professor Broun argues that this discovery challenges the modern understanding of British identity, and that the research suggests that Scottish independence can be entirely compatible with being British.
He added that the findings also question whether, rather than a shared Britishness, there have for centuries been distinct Scottish, English, and Welsh versions of being British.
Professor Broun’s revelation comes from a recently discovered booklet from the early 16th century, which helps to reveal the unexpected relationship between Scottish independence and British identity that has been overlooked.
While England’s identification with Britain has existed for over a millennium, Professor Broun has discovered a parallel tradition where Scots envisioned Britain as "an extension of Scotland".
Writing in the Journal of Scottish Historical Studies, which was published on Wednesday, three Scottish writers outlined a vision of Britain as a kingdom ruled by the Scottish monarchy – effectively a Scottish kingdom expanded to island-wide scale.
Scottish History professor Broun said: “A close reading of work by medieval Scottish historians and scholars shows they firmly believed that Scottish independence was entirely compatible with British identity.
“In this era, Britain was not seen as an English-dominated kingdom, as is often how it is viewed today, but rather a space that could be ruled by the Scottish monarchy.
“This idea of Britain as fundamentally Scottish is a surprising and provocative viewpoint in today’s often polarised debates around national identity.”
The so-called “founding father of Scottish unionism”, John Mair, was a key figure in Professor Broun’s analysis as he held a vision of a Scottish kingdom which expanded to include England.
While advocating for a marriage-based union between Scottish and English royal houses, Professor Broun argues that Mair envisioned this primarily from a Scottish perspective with the assumption that a Scottish king would rule Britain.
Professor Broun’s analysis includes a previously unpublished manuscript booklet – St Andrews Chronicles, which is now held at the University of St Andrews Libraries and Museums, from around 1511 which provided a rare insight into how ordinary educated Scots engaged with these ideas.
The homemade booklet contains a collection of historical texts about Scottish and British origins, king lists and chronicles which suggested British-Scottish connections were of interest beyond elite scholarly circles.
Researchers said the physical characteristics of the booklet suggest it was created for personal use.
The booklet also appeared to have copied an earlier compilation, which itself may have expanded upon an even earlier collection of texts, Professor Broun said.
He added it suggests that British Scottish historical perspectives were being transmitted and expanded by ordinary educated Scots over time.
The arrangement of historical material in the booklet combines Scottish royal dynasties and events with outlines of Britain as a kingdom from ancient times similar to Mair's approach but predating his work.
The manuscript’s significant focus on Malcolm III and St Margaret – appearing twice in different sections – mirrors the view that the Scottish royal line’s connection to Anglo-Saxon royalty gave Scottish kings a claim to Britain as a whole.
Professor Broun said it reinforces the distinctly Scottish-centric view of British history articulated particularly by the Scottish historian John of Fordun in the 1380s.
Writing in the journal Professor Broun said that “appropriating Britain as an extension of your country was not, therefore, unique to England: the Scots did it, too”.
Professor Broun finishes by asking “if there is such a thing as a shared Britishness beyond the mere fact of inhabiting the same island: are there only Scottish, English and Welsh British identities, each with their own spectrum which have only occasionally intersected to become a common Britishness?”
