Editing Declaration of Arbroath (section)

==Debates==
Some have interpreted this last point as an early expression of [[popular sovereignty]]{{sfn|McLean|2005|p=247}}&nbsp;– that government is contractual and that kings can be chosen by the community rather than by God alone. It has been considered to be the first statement of the contractual theory of monarchy underlying modern constitutionalism.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Cowan|first=Edward|title="for freedom alone": The declaration of arbroath, 1320|publisher=Birlinn Ltd|year=2013|isbn=978-1-84158-632-8|location=Edinburgh|pages=50}}</ref> 

It has also been argued that the ''Declaration'' was not a statement of popular sovereignty (and that its signatories would have had no such concept){{sfn|Kellas|1998|p=35}} but a statement of royal propaganda supporting Bruce's faction.<ref>{{cite book|last=Fugelso|first=Karl|title=Memory and medievalism|year=2007|publisher=D. S. Brewer|isbn=978-1-84384-115-9|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=m542R9ygB3QC&pg=PA138|page=138}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last=McCracken-Flesher|first=Caroline|title=Culture, nation, and the new Scottish parliament |year=2006|publisher=Bucknell University Press|isbn=978-0-8387-5547-1|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=YInDkqRVQOwC&pg=PA246|page=246}}</ref> A justification had to be given for the rejection of [[John of Scotland|King John Balliol]] in whose name [[William Wallace]] and [[Andrew de Moray]] had rebelled in 1297. The reason given in the ''Declaration'' is that Bruce was able to defend Scotland from English aggression whereas King John could not.<ref>{{cite book|author1=Robert Allan Houston|author2=William Knox|author3=National Museums of Scotland|title=The new Penguin history of Scotland: from the earliest times to the present day|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=HhQTAQAAIAAJ|year=2001|publisher=Allen Lane|isbn=9780140263671}}{{page needed|date=April 2016}}</ref>
{{Blockquote|To this man, in as much as he saved our people, and for upholding our freedom, we are bound by right as much as by his merits, and choose to follow him in all that he does.}}
Whatever the true motive, the idea of a contract between King and people was advanced to the Pope as a justification for Bruce's coronation whilst John de Balliol, who had abdicated the Scottish throne, still lived as a Papal prisoner.{{sfn|Barrow|1984}}

There is also recent scholarship that suggests that the Declaration was substantially derived from the [[Irish Remonstrance of 1317|1317 Irish Remonstrance]], also sent in protest of English actions. There are substantial similarities in content between the 1317 Irish Remonstrance and the Declaration of Arbroath, produced three years later. It is also clear that the drafters of the Declaration of Arbroath would have access to the 1317 Irish Remonstrance, it having been circulated to Scotland in addition to the Pope. It has been suggested therefore that the 1317 Remonstrance was a "prototype" for the Declaration of Arbroath, suggesting Irish-Scottish cooperation in attempts to protest against English interference.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Duffy |first=Seán |date=2022-12-13 |title=The Irish Remonstrance: Prototype for the Declaration of Arbroath |url=https://www.euppublishing.com/doi/10.3366/shr.2022.0576 |journal=Scottish Historical Review |volume=101 |issue=3 |pages=395–428 |language=en |doi=10.3366/shr.2022.0576|s2cid=254676295 }}</ref>