Petition PE781 was lodged by John Stewart Heselden and calls on the Scottish Parliament to commemorate the 700th anniversary of Sir William Wallace's death on 23 August 2005; to mark the date an annual event in the Scottish calendar thereafter; to acknowledge on public record that William Wallace was not guilty of the charge of treason laid before him; and to make representations to the United Kingdom Parliament for a declaration of his innocence and that he be exonerated of that charge.In response to a parliamentary question, Frank McAveety MSP stated:"The 700th Anniversary of William Wallace's death will be a significant attraction for visitors to Stirling in particular and Scotland as a whole. We are therefore working with Stirling Council, VisitScotland and Historic Scotland to develop an appropriate programme of educational activities and events for August 2005."—Official Report, Written Answers, 14 September 2004; S2W-10150.Phil Gallie MSP lodged a motion about Sir William Wallace in May 2002, which called on the Parliament to recommend that"a posthumous pardon for the charge of treason laid against him be granted."To achieve the outcome that the petitioner seeks, Scottish ministers would need to make representations to the United Kingdom Government and in particular to the Home Secretary through more informal mechanisms. Do members have a view on the petition?
Official Report · Committee
New Petitions
Sir William Wallace (PE781)
Speakers
Choose an MSP to read only their contributions- Michael McMahon Lab 12
- Sandra White SNP 8
- Helen Eadie Lab 2
- John Scott Con 2
- Jackie Baillie Lab 1
The record
25 contributionsI declare an interest. I am a member of the William Wallace Society and I was the society's press officer for many years.The petitioner makes a good point. On numerous occasions people have approached various councils, particularly Renfrewshire Council, because Elderslie is in that council's area, to seek recognition for and commemoration of William Wallace. It would be right at least to mark the anniversary of his death. Perhaps we should write to the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport—the minister is no longer Frank McAveety, but Rhona Brankin—to ascertain what the Executive is doing to mark the 700th anniversary of William Wallace's death.
The new Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport is Patricia Ferguson.
Sorry, you are right. Rhona Brankin is the new Deputy Minister for Health and Community Care. When people move about so much it is hard to remember.The committee's paper indicates that although a pardon can be sought, it will not necessarily be granted. The paper refers to"an absolute or free pardon, which sets aside the sentence but not the conviction."The petitioner's point is that William Wallace should never have been convicted of treason, because he lived long before 1707. The Scottish Executive should write to the Westminster Parliament, the royal family—or whoever it might be appropriate to write to—to seek an apology for what happened. I do not see why William Wallace should receive a pardon; he committed no crime. How can someone be exonerated for committing treason when his country was a separate entity at the time? We should seek assurances from the minister about what the Executive is doing about the 700th anniversary and we should ask the Executive to contact the Westminster Parliament and the royal family and ask for an apology for the appalling treatment of William Wallace all those years ago.
I find that argument a bit esoteric. If William Wallace did not commit treason by challenging the laws of the time, why is he a hero?
How could he commit treason? Scotland was an independent country at the time and William Wallace was fighting an oppressor.
I take the point. We could get into an argument about the nature of William Wallace's crime, but how can we sit here many hundreds of years after the event and exonerate someone for doing something that they obviously felt that they had to do?
The petitioner is not asking the committee to exonerate William Wallace. He is asking us to find a vehicle for securing a pardon. My point is that there does not need to be a pardon because as far as I am concerned no crime was committed. The petitioner asks for a pardon; I think that we should ask for an apology for the disgraceful way in which William Wallace was treated. The man was hung, drawn and quartered all those years ago.
We must take account of the petition, which asks the Parliament to take specific action. We must consider whether we can take such action.
link
I do not for a minute diminish the sense of injustice that people clearly still feel, despite the fact that 700 years have passed. However, to echo the convener's point, the petition does not ask for an apology from anyone; it asks specifically for a pardon. Equally, the advice that we have been given is that although a pardon would set aside the sentence, it would not set aside the conviction, so we are at cross-purposes about what people want.I support whole-heartedly the part of the petition that calls for a programme of events to mark the 700th anniversary of William Wallace's death. It is appropriate that we write to the Executive and try to elicit more detail about the range of events planned, but I am not prepared to go beyond that.
I agree with Jackie Baillie. In order to get more information, it might be helpful if we could pursue the suggestion in our papers that we get an academic perspective on the matter from Professor Edward Cowan and a legal perspective from the Crown Office.
That might help us with our deliberations.
I come to this from a different perspective to Sandra White's in that I am a unionist. It could strengthen the United Kingdom if Wallace were granted a pardon on the 700th anniversary of his death, in the spirit of bringing the countries of the UK together, rather than the issue continuing to divide them after all these years.
The petition is asking for William Wallace to be exonerated. I do not know whether that equates to a pardon.
That is the point I was making. The petitioner does not ask for a pardon for William Wallace; he asks for"a declaration of his innocence and that he be exonerated of this charge." The briefing note explains the legal aspect of what a pardon means under English law. It says that Wallace cannot be pardoned because the conviction would still be there. It also says that it could be argued that the United Kingdom Parliament could deal with the issue on the basis that it has vested in it the sovereignty of the pre-1707 Scottish Parliament. We could still contact the UK Government. John Scott makes a valid point. The reason I raised the matter is that I am a proud Scot and I want an independent Scotland, but I can see exactly where John Scott is coming from too. I do not want to continue arguing; I just want people to be treated equally. Perhaps a declaration of William Wallace's innocence would go some way to changing aspects of the relationship between Scotland and England.
What do we do? Do we write to the people whom Helen Eadie suggested and see whether we can get more clarity on what we can do in respect of the petition?
I omitted to mention the Clan Wallace Society. It might be appropriate to get an indication of its views.
Are members happy to do that?
We can all agree to write to the Minister for Tourism, Culture and Sport—I have decided who the minister is now—to ask what the Executive is doing. I do not see why we should write to the Clan Wallace Society. I am familiar with the society and I am sure that it would support any moves that we make on pushing this matter forward. The first part of the suggestion is fine, but the Executive should write to the UK Parliament to get a declaration from it of the innocence of William Wallace and his exoneration of the charge. I have a slightly different view from the rest of the committee.
Are you asking us to find out whether the Executive is prepared to go to the UK Government with that proposal?
Yes.
We can find that out. There are two parts to the petition. One is about marking the anniversary of Wallace's death and the other is to ask what the Executive intends to do about seeking exoneration. We should put those two specific points to the Executive and await its response before we make further decisions. On Helen Eadie's suggestion, I wonder whether it would help us to know what other organisations, such as the Clan Wallace Society, think about the petitioner's request.
I am quite prepared to take that on board.
It makes sense to gather information by asking as many people as we can think of who might have a relevant interest. Once we have heard their views, we can then decide how we want to take the petition forward—if we want to take it forward.
Are members happy with that?Members indicated agreement.
Motions, questions and votes
Linked from this item of the Official ReportIn this meeting
Everything on 10 Nov 2004 →- Scottish Parliament Public Petitions Committee Wednesday 10 November 2004 Petitions · 1
- New Petitions Petitions · 1
- New Petitions Petitions · 66
- New Petitions Petitions · 14
- New Petitions Petitions · 11
- New Petitions Petitions · 25
- New Petitions Petitions · 25
- Current Petitions Petitions · 20
- Current Petitions Petitions · 9
- Current Petitions Petitions · 15
- Current Petitions Petitions · 9
- Current Petitions Petitions · 4
- Current Petitions Petitions · 7
- Current Petitions Petitions · 12
- Current Petitions Petitions · 10
The type of each item (debate, statement, questions, members’ business and so on) and the times shown are worked out by this site from headings, the chair’s opening words and the Official Report’s running timestamps. They are not the Parliament’s own classification. Text: the Scottish Parliament Official Report.