"6th April, seven hundred years ago..." Topic

the Scots nobles appended their seals to parchments asserting the right of their country to be free of the domination of another. The import of that declaration has been variously estimated by various authorities. Its importance as a historical document cannot be overlooked. Well, maybe that should read "ought not"; despite the efforts of several Scots to get some kind of TV documentary aired on this anniversary, the BBC has ignored these repeated approaches. Bring on another series about Queen Victoria and her heavy-jawed brood, about the unprincipled "Windsors", about Henry VIII again, about anything which can have a "re-make" slopped out for the Polloi. The North Britons here don't bother, but we Scots do. Pure ragin' so Ah'm urr.

Read it in full, but I abbreviate: we are the Scots. We came over from Ireland and destroyed the Picts. And now we won't give it up…

I would hold certain truths to be self-evident. But you have omitted one vital aspect of the D of A; in principle, a king's authority lasts only so long as he maintains the rights and well-being of the people. In response to the implied point about conquest and possession, the well-being of a realm definitely involves its being defended from foreign aggression.

@advocate. Scots destroyed the Picts. Don't think so. The first king of Scots was almost certainly a Pict himself, although raised in the Scots territory of Dal Riata. Picts ard alive and well in modern Scotland, but now they, the Angles, the Gaels, the Norse and the Strathclyde Britons are all "Scots".

@Steamingdave2 – it isn't @advocate saying that, it is the declaration itself:
" Afterwards, coming from there, one thousand two hundred years from the Israelite people's crossing of the Red Sea, to its home in the west, which it now holds, having first thrown out the Britons and completely destroyed the Picts…"
"…expulsis primo Britonibus et Pictis omnino deletis…"

Whatever the actual history, that was the belief of the writers.

Indeed, Swampster, that was my point.
Robert, the "Nationalist" take on the Declaration is all about defending independence, not about how they took it from others in the first place. My main point being that things just aren't as simple as people often make out.

Yes, that's the reason for the hint conveyed by the "hold these truths…." phrase, the source of which must surely be recognised widely. It's evident that groups of people have been conquered or destroyed by other groups for as long as they could be called "people", or at least "hominids". Sometimes it's called things like "Manifest Destiny", "Progress","The March of Civilisation" or "The White Man's Burden". Further, it's often stated that concepts of Nationality are not as relevant to Mediaeval Europe as to Modern, a statement with which I would also agree (while nevertheless being aware from near-contemporary writings in Scotland that the concept is not at all irrelevant). Finally, the explicit characterisation of the relationship between a Monarch and the Realm which I indicated above is of such importance that it cannot legitimately be excluded from any worthwhile summary, or from any abbreviation which is other than a distortion. And the point about the BBC is significant too, in a more immediate context.