Not sure what you would consider "interesting info," but I can definitely give you the cause and outcomes.

In the late 13th Century and Early 14th, England had attempted to assert its supremacy over Scotland - primarily starting with Edward I's decision to strip John Balliol of his title of King of Scotland, and then garrison Scotland with English troops and lords. This of course led to unrest, rebellions under William Wallace and Andrew Moray, another invasion by Edward I, a temporary settlement and then more strife. After a time, two leading Scottish Nobles came to the forefront of resistance against England, specifically John Comyn and Robert Bruce. These two had their own veritable factions within Scotland, and their holdings in Buchan and Galloway respectively made these areas centers of Scottish resistance. The Comyns and Bruce's maintained an uneasy alliance for a time, but this did not stop another invasion from Edward I from pillaging their lands and castles, thereby bringing an end to this rebellion.

The situation seemed to be relatively peaceful for a time, and the English had instituted a new set of laws and governing codes to appease the Scots. This ended when Robert Bruce apaprently killed John Comyn his rival, thereby upsetting the delicate balance of Scottish politics. Bruce then rushed to Scone and had himself crowned King (he had a legitimate claim, as his grandfather had been one of the claimants back when Balliol had been crowned). This set off another wave of unrest across Scotland, though Bruce was quickly dealt with by the English authorities. He escaped death or imprisonment and may have spent time in the Hebrides, gathering aide and assistance from the Gallo-Norse Hebrideans.

Now is when Bannockburn came into the picture. After a long campaign of hit and run tactics, Bruce finally had regained some level of control on Mainland Scotland. The final piece of the puzzle was Stirling Castle, the strategic center piece to Scotland's heartland, which had been captured by Edward I before his death and remained the primary castle in English hands. By besieging the Stirling, Bruce was threatening to break the last tenuous grip that England had on Scotland. It was also in some ways a direct front to Edward II, who could not allow his father's last achievement to so easily slip away, especially in the face of baronial unrest and resentment at home.

Thus Edward II marched north with a large army composed of English knights and thousands of Welsh and English archers. Bruce prepared to meet the English south of Stirling at Bannockburn, a marshy area with a small stream running through it. The advantage of terrain lay with the Scots, who could funnel the English assault because of the restricted landscape, as well as the fact that the English heavy cavalry would have trouble deploying on the wet, marshy ground.

You didn't ask much about the battle itself, but it was essentially a heavy English defeat. Primarily Edward II made the mistake of not relying on his archers to break up the Scottish Pike formations, as his father had done at Falkirk. Instead the English attempted to attack Bruce with heavy cavalry alone, and were quickly repulsed - well formed pike formations are almost impervious to cavalry. After the English fell back in disarray, Bruce proceeded to attack their disordered ranks, and it seems that a second Scottish force may have attacked the English flank (there are some sources that attest to this, but this flanking manoeuvre is not mentioned in all of them). In any case the English were unable to form up, because of the Scottish attack and the restricted terrain, and were forced to retreat. When Edward II retreated the rest of his force fell into a disorderly withdrawal that ended with many being killed by vengeful Scottish peasants. The defeat was comprehensive.

The outcome was that Scotland obtained the strategic advantage against England for many years. Scottish raids into northern England became common place, and Bruce instituted many military reforms. Primarily he encouraged Scottish commanders to refrain from fighting pitched battles, and rely on the difficult terrain and their speed of movement to defeat the unwieldy English armies. This strategy was very successful for the most part, and Scottish defeats in later years are primarily a result of commanders attacking the English head on. In addition, Edward III (the son of Edward II) and his generals learned from the defeat and never again utilised cavalry charges against Scottish pike formations. Instead they relied on dismounted infantry, and specifically longbowmen, to break up the Scots.

I hope some of that was helpful! As with all Medieval battles, I gain some of my knowledge from Charles Oman's The Art of War in the Middle Ages. It's a dated source and the numbers for each side are wildly inaccurate, but they nonetheless give you a good idea of the movement of each force, at least as much as the Chronicles can tell us.

Another good source would be Michael Brown's The Wars of Scotland, 1214-1371, and this in particular goes into detail on Bruce's origins and legacy.