New Petitions

Good morning. I will try for double time as it has been a round trip of more than 500 miles to get here. It is a difficult exercise to meet the time limit of three minutes.

The petition aims to return the tethering stone of Scone to Scone. Previously, the Scottish offices of the UK Executive stated that the preference of the Secretary of State for Scotland was to house what they call the stone of destiny in Edinburgh Castle. The 29 people who replied to a consultation exercise in agreement with that supposedly outnumbered an unstated number of signatories to the petition organised by Perth and Kinross Council, which is surely more reflective of the wishes of the local owners. The statement adds:"It is unlikely that it is a fake brought out to fool Edward I's officials in 1296, but an older, possibly Pictish stone".It is indeed a Pictish tethering stone. It is a substitute not a fake and before it was used for securing cuddies it was a cludgie stane, which capped an old dungeon used as a defecatory. It is not the Scots coronation palladium, known as lia faill. That would be infra dignitatem.While I was preparing a private prosecution of the Queen of England for resetting the tethering stone from the door of Scone Palace, I received a letter from the Scottish Office. It stated:"the Stone is owned by the Crown, being monarch and Government for the time being of Great Britain"and as the Queen had decided that it should be returned to Scotland, any question concerning Crown property would be decided under Scots law. In Scots common law, it would be fair to suggest that the first claim of ownership would be that of the people of Scotland, as Moot hill—or boot hill—is traditionally independent ground. Since the very public theft by the English king in 1296, no lawful deed has been generated that indicates transfer of ownership to the English Crown, as the Crown until 1707, and probably beyond, must be described. On the contrary, the treaty of Edinburgh of 1328 consents to the return of the stone removed from Scone. The petition therefore must also call on the Queen of England to honour the terms of that treaty.Any other claim depends on the misconceived insistence that the tethering stone from Scone is somehow Crown property or was originally Scottish Crown property. It is not. It is the property of the people of Scone in former Pictland, now called Scotland. The petition therefore accuses the Crown of continuing to reset stolen property and, if it fails to return the stone, demands that the Crown produce proof of ownership. The Scottish Parliament must stand as an impartial broker in this contest of ownership, lest it be seen as an agent of the English Crown interest and oppressive towards Scone.Some constitutional points are important in this affair. In international terms, the tethering stone is the traditional property of the north British Picts. It is a native artefact of unknown antiquity that predates the arrival both of the Scots from Ireland and of the English from Germany in the 5th century AD.While the native British are denied self-determination we will tend to favour any kingdom that acts under law, as was our tradition and the original tradition of the Scots.The Scottish Parliament is thus requested to serve the interests of the Scot-ish people in this matter and, acting under law, to order the UK Executive in Scotland to return the tethering stone immediately to its lawful owners, the community of Scone. We are sorry to tell the English monarchs that our tethering stone is more from Bridgend than Bethel.

I would support the wish of Perth museum to house the stone.

Yes. The museum has wonderful facilities. The stone would stimulate visitor numbers to Perth. It is expensive to see the stone in Edinburgh and it is also difficult to access, from the point of view of parking and so on. If the stone helped to take visitors from Edinburgh to Perth that would be all the better, as Edinburgh is saturated with visitors.

I have had discussions with Mike Taylor and he is perfectly happy with that. Indeed, he was almost insulted when I suggested that his 10 guards could not take care of the tethering stone of Scone. On a more serious note, the museum is perfectly happy that it can handle security and does not see it as a problem. I am sure that the museum could enter into dialogue about that. However, the museum would like the whole question downgraded to being about the tethering stone of Scone, an interesting artefact, rather than a supposed palladium of regal status. It is taking a long time for people to realise that the abbot of Scone played a wee joke by substituting the stone. That sticks in the gullet of certain people in the Executive.

Yes. That is the proper place for it. It is not the stone of Edinburgh—it is the stone of Scone.

I consider this a matter of justice and law and order. That aspect was not taken on in the consideration of the previous petition. I mean no disrespect to the committee, but there is a significant point of law relating to ownership, proprietorship, deed and title and what is proper. I admit that that puts the committee in a slightly embarrassing situation because it must decide which master it should best serve. The Scottish Parliament is an extension and an agency of the Westminster Parliament, but it is also hoping to get on its feet as a persona in law that reflects the interests of the Scottish people. The stone is a litmus test. I understand why that might have been glossed over previously—perhaps because of the novelty of asking for the return of the supposed stone of destiny. However, there is a serious point underlying the petition. If we are to be a community under law, if not a kingdom under law, the law of the land is important to the people. The System 3 poll that was done at the time far outweighed the 29 people whom Michael Forsyth phoned up. The poll organised by The Herald showed that 68 per cent of people were in favour of returning the stone to Scone.

Yes. However, the police have clearly refused to act, as they consider this to be a political matter. The letter from the chief superintendent states:"I refer to your letter of 6 November 1993 and I have to advise you that there is no intention of conducting any inquiry of this nature."The investigation is not getting off the ground via the usual channels—that is to say, by reporting the theft to the police.

This does not need to be a constitutional matter—it has been made a constitutional matter by the thieves. They have made this into a special case, when in fact we are talking about the theft of a stone from the front of the palace at Scone. This is an ordinary criminal inquiry that the police have decided is of a political nature. The people do not agree.

Yes. The stone of Scone should be returned to Scone.

The technicality to which Phil Gallie refers is a very radical technicality—it is called the law of the land. The previous submissions that were made concerning the location of the stone in Edinburgh Castle were repelled on the basis that the authorities were very happy with the increase in the number of visitors to the castle. Why should Edinburgh be able to exploit that? Perth should enjoy the benefit of the increased number of visitors, because it is the stone's home town.There is another agenda that steers people into providing a false justification for keeping the stone in Edinburgh. Frankly, I think that this is a red-face issue, which boils down to law and order. That is the basis on which the authorities must be called to account, because they are not playing a decent game and are not giving the stone back to the people to whom it belongs.

The stone belongs to the people of Scone.

The legalistic argument relates to a straight case of theft. The treaty of Edinburgh of 1328 is also important. In that treaty, Edward III asserts that the stone that was taken from Scone should be returned. Let the treaty be honoured. I am very suspicious of having the issue made subject to economic surveys and to consideration of the merits of tourism traffic movement. If we take that route, the stone could stay in Edinburgh Castle for the next 100 years. The authorities have shown their hand on previous occasions, when they did not take seriously factors such as those that I have just mentioned. There is an overwhelming argument for stimulating interest in Perth museum, which is an efficient, well-run museum that should receive support. If that support could be provided by returning the stone, why is the Executive resisting the measure?

Where would the stone be moved from? Edinburgh Castle is a British army station—it looks as though there is oppressive retention of that imagined palladium. The truth is that that is absurd. Let Perth and Kinross enjoy its wee chuckle. Let it have the stone on view locally—it will still be an attraction for everyone in Scotland. If a person can get to Edinburgh, they can get to Perth. That is where the stone properly and justly belongs. It is a matter of law and order.

With respect, I do not want to send the petition to the law courts. An order should come from the Parliament.

Basically, I do not care what shenanigans and manoeuvring need to happen in the world of politics or of law to get it there. If the stone is properly returned to the community to which it belongs, I and the people who support the petition would be satisfied.

Admission to the former is free, but it is £4.50 to see the stone, as far as I know.

There will be a queue and car parking costs. It is a couple of hundred pounds to get a car back if a ticket has expired by the time a person gets back from the queue.

That is why I have emphasised to the committee that it can act in a transcendent manner. It is clear that the police did not act without fear or favour. I was told privately that the issue is a political red-hot potato. If that is the case, it will take an organisation such as the Parliament to take an Alexandrine sword through this Gordian knot and say, "If the issue is political and involves law and order, we should defend the people's interests and take a decision over the heads of Chief Superintendent MacKay and the procurator fiscal." The procurator fiscal, to whom I wrote, also said that and referred me to the Scottish Office. That is how a private prosecution started that lasted for three years. We began to get action only the night before John Major announced that he was returning the stone. I sent a list of 13 legal challenges to the constitutional unit of the Home Office the night before. They recognise that there is a question of theft and are trying to deal with it without losing face.

Do not be scared of those people.

You need not ask them to act at this point.

It is a matter of public record in common law that the king of England ordered the stone to be removed. The treaty of Edinburgh and Northampton, another matter of public record, promises it back.

I would say that the United Kingdom is a notional treaty between the kingdom of Scotland and the kingdom of England. No document to that effect has been signed and there has been no visible consent by the sovereign people of Scotland. The basis for the use of the term United Kingdom is quite shaky and the basis for calling the country Great Britain was shaky up until 1800. The terms of the Act of Union 1707 still contain reference to the rights of the kingdom of Scotland, so the arrangement, which has been in existence for only 300 years, is temporal. Sumaria was in existence for 3,000 years.

In Scotland, we are not obliged simply to follow established practice. It is a particularly English concept that if one gets off with something for long enough, it becomes an imperialistic right. The example of child abuse counters that argument: the fact that a case of child abuse has been going on for 18 years, say, does not make it right. That is the short answer.

That is a problem for guilty imperialists, not for the present petitioner. I will not press them on where the Koh-i-noor diamond came from. Perhaps a Robbie the Pict in India might want to take that up. That is an issue for the guilty imperialists and whomever they robbed in the course of their imperialism.

I am very much obliged.

The System 3 survey in The Herald, which was carried out when the stone was about to be returned in 1997, is indicative of the will of the people on that; it is much more indicative than the phone-round that was organised by Michael Forsyth. It is worth remembering that only 29 people in the country voted to put the stone in Edinburgh Castle. That view was considered to outweigh a petition that Perth and Kinross Council raised, the number of signatories to which the Scottish Office would not admit. The jemmying in of the stone to Edinburgh Castle needs to be re-examined. The people should have more say on that.