Scaramouche--

Great handle, by the way--Raphael Sabatini? As I recall, Scaramouche swashed and buckled with the best.

However:

Your list of the signers of the Declaration of Arbroath is basically meaningless. So it was signed by the ruling classes (who, surprise, surprise) also happen to be the literate classes.    Your point?

If the non-ruling classes were totally ambivalent about whether they were subordinate to the English or to the Scots, how could Wallace, and later Robert the Bruce collect armies, which were not all ruling classes, to fight the armies of Edward I and later Edward II?

One of the ways the English assured anti-English feeling, which made possible the rise of Wallace, and later Robert the Bruce, is by "extracting from the subject Scots, by taxes and sequestration, funds...so urgently required for the war against France". "William Ormesby, the Chief Justice...with a dog-like fidelity hunted out all who had not signed instruments of fealty, proclaimed them outlaws and seized their properties and goods. A growing band of outraged and dispossessed men" (and not all, I suspect, literate) "took refuge in the forests and mountains..." --from Robert the Bruce, by Ronald Scott.

Face it , Scaramouche, there was really was some anti-English feeliing in Scotland, even by some of the non-ruling classes, and possibly even some feeling of being Scots. Obviously, however, we'll never know what the non-literate classes really felt, so it's pointless to speculate. But your assumption that they were ambivalent has no more validity than projecting 19th century nationalism onto them, especially if any got the word that they were being taxed to finance the English king's foreign wars.


So unless, as I suspect, you are nothing more than an agent provacateur on this topic, it makes no sense to pursue it further.