I think we need to restate this question after revising some of your fundamental assumptions so they line up a bit more with the situation on the ground.

First, though Charles II was also a Stuart, the Jacobite movement was named for his brother and successor, James VII of Scotland and II of England, and the movement did not exist until James was deposed in the 'Glorious' Revolution of 1688-9, to be replaced with William III and Mary II. Stuart adherents in the years after the revolution were called Jacobites after the Latin Jacobus, for James.

Second, since 1603, England and Scotland had been 'conjoined' countries under the same British regnal rule but with separate parliaments. This was indelibly altered with the Treaty and Act of Union in 1707, which established a universal British Parliament while devolving the Parliament of Scotland. Such a massive change reignited disaffection about the Revolution settlements north of the border and re-raised questions of sovereignty in the political, economic, and confessional spheres. The next fifty years or so were packed with Jacobite intrigue and a number of armed attempts at restoring a Stuart on the thrones of the three kingdoms of Scotland, England, and Ireland. These risings began and ended in Scotland and featured mostly Scottish supporters, but Jacobitism was always an international movement and this was reflected in the diverse makeup of supporters – both sentimental and pragmatic – in Britain, on the Continent, and beyond.

So in reframing your question, Scotland, as a united nation, never joined a universal 'Jacobite rebellion'. Some Scots expressed Jacobitism through toasting, plotting, contributing money, or picking up arms, but so did hundreds of English, Irish, and French. Cross-country support was seriously threatening to the Whig government under George I and George II, but it was never enough to land a Stuart back on the thrones. In short, the movement was plenty broad but nowhere near deep enough to sustain a dedicated and viable challenge to the establishment. Just to give you an idea of how modest the effective support was, in 1745-6, a little over 1% of Scotland's population (or about 4.4% of the adult male population) joined the last Jacobite rising in arms. It was not the largest of the risings, but it was certainly the most effective.

As for what the Stuarts promised potential supporters in Scotland and elsewhere, ambiguous freedoms were always part of the offer. These included freedom of expression, of religion, and of economic and political sovereignty. But the Stuart monarchy was deeply rooted in ancient traditions of Divine Right and was decidedly a more rigid and conservative regnal choice when juxtaposed with the 'progressive' rule of the Hanoverian monarchs. Both sides thought they were preserving Britons from corruption and foreign influence, and this is recorded in their proclamations and political treatises. The Stuarts could and did guarantee freedoms should they be restored, but whether they could have delivered on those promises is another question entirely.

Hoping this has been of some help in addressing your question. If you would like to read a bit more about the context of Jacobitism, I would recommend any of the books on this list of ten essential titles by some of the luminary scholars of the subject.

Happy hunting!

Yours,
Dr Darren S. Layne
Creator and Curator, The Jacobite Database of 1745