Berkley Center

Since my arrival in Scotland, I have been told time and time again about the treacherous villainy of Edward II, also known as Edward “Longshanks,” who violently brought William Wallace’s quest for Scottish freedom to an end. I have been regaled with the history of the “Stone of Destiny” and the cruel imprisonment and execution of Mary, Queen of Scots by her cousin, the English monarch Elizabeth I. For reasons I can’t really explain, I just took these stories at face value. I slipped out of my typical role of questioning history student and into the role of tourist and foreigner. It wasn’t until I took a trip to London last month that I realized just how different this history was from the English (and maybe even British) version of events.

On our tour of Westminster Abbey, Mary, Queen of Scot's imprisonment and execution by her cousin—who was also buried nearby—was barely mentioned. Edward II’s reign was described as if the unification of England and Scotland was a mutually agreed-upon event and that he was simply the benevolent ruler who made it possible. In Scotland, any discussion of Edward II is laced with bitter venom and usually leads to a discussion of everyman hero William Wallace, who fought to the death to protect the rights and freedoms of his Scottish homeland. In England, though, not only did Wallace not earn a mention, his entire rebellion was glossed over.

What was most different, however, was the Abbey’s discussion of what the Scots refer to as the “Stone of Destiny.” According to Scottish legend, wherever this stone lay, so did the true ruler of Scotland. For centuries it was used as the throne for the king of Scotland, until the thirteenth century, when the stone was stolen by Edward I during his invasion. If he was going to rule Scotland, he knew it had to be more than a military victory. He had to have a symbolic victory as well, and the removal of the Stone of Destiny was the perfect symbol of the subjugation of the Scots by the English.

In the Abbey, however, they didn’t even call it the same name. They called it the “Stone of Scone” and only referenced it in relation to the Coronation Chair—which was built by Edward I to house the stone and show that he was fulfilling the prophecy of the stone. He sat on it; he ruled Scotland. Their bland description stripped the history of the stone of its incredible symbolic power for the Scottish people and reduced it to just a rock. The tour instead made a big deal about the stone’s return to Scotland by the “benevolent British government.” They probably just forgot to mention that they only returned it to try to counteract the plummeting popularity of the UK government among the Scottish people.

As a history major I have always been taught that there is always another side to the story, and it’s my job as historian to go below what’s presented on the surface of a source to find the bias and to seek alternate explanations for historical events. Since my studies have showed me time and time again that nothing in history is as cut and dry as it first seems, I shouldn’t have been surprised to encounter different versions of the same history presented within the same country, but I was. Once I started to think about it, though, I realized just how common this phenomenon is. Most people in Scotland see themselves as Scottish first, British second. They take pride in their history, their flag, their heroes, and their poets. It’s much the same in the United States. After all, there are still those who refer to what is generally called the Civil War as the “War of Northern Aggression,” and I have found myself time and again identifying myself as specifically Californian instead of generally American to foreign strangers.

What is the most interesting about all of this is how these historical differences run far deeper than the English may care to admit. The United Kingdom may exist politically, but culturally speaking, there is no such thing as the United Kingdom. How these differences will continue to play out has yet to be seen, but with the Scottish ballot initiative to declare independence fast approaching, those who value the sanctity of the United Kingdom may want to take a hard look at how they talk about and treat their Northern brethren.