The purpose of this chapter is to understand how and why divergent opinion groups emerged in the first decade of the Covenanting venture at national and local level. By analysing how the National Covenant and the Solemn League and Covenant were drawn up and received, it will show that multiple interpretations emerged from at least as early as 1639. These divergent interpretations centred on two main points: monarchical allegiance and ecclesiastical government. Designed to appeal to a broad base of opponents to Charles I's ecclesiastical policies, the National Covenant was ambiguously worded. Although the wording of the Solemn League and Covenant was slightly more forthright regarding allegiance and confession, subscription to both covenants led to a variety of positions emerging. Successive Covenanting governments sought to enforce universal adherence to particular interpretations of the covenants through resubscription campaigns in 1639 and 1648. Rather than unify the nation under one banner, the resubscription campaigns brought underlying tensions to the surface, fostering the development of a variety of positions at local level and entrenching division. The development of royalist, episcopalian, hardline and conservative Covenanting positions from 1638 to 1649 is analysed in detail here. It is argued that Covenanting encompassed a broad spectrum of ideas and the engagement of ordinary people through subscription campaigns allowed for the development of conflicting and highly fluid opinion groups both at national level and in the localities of Scotland.

The emergence and growth of divergent Covenanting positions is something that has not been given substantial attention in the historiography of this period. In 1973 David Stevenson first wrote of ‘royalist covenanters’, and Edward Cowan's work on James Graham, first marquis of Montrose, provides a clear analysis of how a Covenanting leader also held strong royalist inclinations. Few other works seriously engage with this issue. Barry Robertson’s 2014 monograph highlights the complexity of royalist thought in Scotland and Ireland but the relationship between royalism and Covenanting remains largely unexplored in the historiography. An exception is Scott Spurlock’s 2013 article, which highlights the contested nature of Covenanting, arguing that unresolved issues such as monarchical allegiance caused divisions from the start.