Extract from the remarkable
correspondence with authorities, in that delightful book by
Robbie the Pict, which led to the UK Government returning
the Stone of Destiny to Edinburgh, Scotland. The Stone, used
in the coronation of Scottish Kings, was taken from Scone by
Edward the First of England in 1296. Its return was agreed
under the Treaty of Northampton 1328, but the English
Government did not honour that treaty. It remained under the
throne of England in Westminster Abbey until 1996.
In 1950, four Scottish
students took the stone from Westminster Abbey, in a daring
venture, and brought it to Scotland in demonstration of the
country’s national aspirations. They later returned the
stone at Arbroath Abbey. The authorities decided not to
prosecute the four, out of fear of the reaction of the
Scottish people, and doubts about how a court case might go.
Their official excuse was that ‘ownership’ of the stone
might be difficult to prove.
But in 1996 (following
the letters reproduced below), at the instigation of Michael
Forsyth, then Conservative MP for Stirling, and Secretary of
State for Scotland, Prime Minister John Major announced that
the Stone would be returned to Scotland. Subsequent to the
announcement, the Stone was delivered to Edinburgh Castle on
November 15 1996.
The letters reproduced
in the following account tell how a remarkable Scot, Robbie
the Pict, challenged the Police, and legal authorities, the
Government, the Monarchy, and the Dean of Westminster, about
the theft and the reset or retention of the stolen property,
and demanded its return to Scotland. It is a fascinating and
amusing story.
The material is
reproduced by permission of the author, Robbie the Pict. Any
readers wishing to get a copy of the book may obtain it for
£ 5. Cheques should be sent to ‘Robbie the Pict’, Fordside
House, Broadford, Isle of Skye, IV49 9AB, Scotland, UK.
The correspondence,
with author’s notes, follows below:
First things first.
Has anyone ever reported the Stone as stolen?
To: The Chief
Constable of Perthshire
c/o Police Station
SCONE, Perth County
November 6th, 1993
Dear Sir,
As one of the five
million plus joint-owners, I wish to report the theft of a
large stone, known as the `Coronation Stone' or `Stone of
Destiny', from the Abbey or Palace of Scone.
With every respect for
your professional expertise, I can contribute the following
information in the hope that it may be of assistance to you
in your enquiries.
The stone measures
approximately 26" x 17" x 11" and is of dull reddish
sandstone with a few small embedded pebbles, perhaps quartz
and lydian. A mason might describe it as calcareous
freestone. It has iron rings attached to each end and the
whole weighs about 336lbs.
The stone is believed
to have been stolen in 1296 by an Edward Longshanks, also
known as Edward `the First', born on June 17, 1239 in
Westminster, Middlesex, England. The same individual is also
believed to be responsible for the murder of a Scotsman by
the name of William Wallace in 1305.
There are three
contemporary accounts of the theft: in the Chronicle of
William Rishanger, on page 168; in the Metrical Chronicle of
Harding; and in the Chronicle of Hemingford who quotes
Longshanks as saying that the stone shall be taken "as a
sign that the (Scottish) Kingdom had been conquered and
resigned". However, the most damning evidence would seem to
be available from the thief's own records. Edward `the
First' apparently kept something called a `wardrobe account'
which in the year 1300 shows an entry detailing a payment of
£1/19/7d for the adaption of Longshanks' chair to enable the
Scottish Coronation Stone to be fitted underneath it.
As to the present
location of the stone, there is a popular suspicion that it
lingers yet under the Kingdom of England's throne in
Westminster Abbey, London, which, if it were true, would
render either the Church of England or the present monarch
of England guilty of the offence of resetting stolen
property. Which particular criminal charges might be
preferred is, of course, a matter for the Procurator Fiscal
but I have every confidence that the report which the
Perthshire Constabulary will be able to submit can be such a
model of both independent integrity and thorough
investigation as to secure at least the return of the stone
to Scone, if not the conviction of those guilty of reset.
I would be obliged if
you would advise me of the name of the officer whom you
appoint to investigate this most important matter. In the
circumstances, no reward is being offered but in the event
of the stone being successfully and permanently returned to
the
Sovereign People of
Scotland I understand that a considerable sum of money will
be donated to the B.B.C. `Children in Need' Fund.
Yours faithfully,
Robbie the Pict.
I was still figuring
out how in practice we might raise some funds by touring the
Stone around the country when almost by return post a letter
arrived from Perth. I remember thinking 'This will give us a
whiff of how the proper channels might be.)
From: Chief
Superintendent J A MACKAY
Tayside Police
PERTH
11th November, 1993
Dear Sir,
I refer to your letter
of 6 November 1993 and I have to advise you that there is no
intention of conducting any enquiry of this nature.
Yours faithfully
J A MACKAY
Predictable response
from the police in the circumstances but the reply bears one
of Mr Major's nice new Charter Marks. They are of course
irrelevant to the subjects of the Kingdom of Scotland but
since Major does not generally understand that citizens are
the product of parliamentary supremacy, a concept alien to
Scotland, we will play along.
To: The Prime Minister
10 Downing Street
London WC1
England
30th November, 1993
Dear Mr Major,
This being Saint
Andrew's Day, may I bring to your attention a matter of
concern to many people in Scotland which you, in your
capacity as chief executive of the Crown, should be able to
resolve both justly and quickly.
On 6th November 1993 I
wrote to the Scottish police concerning the theft of the
Scottish Coronation Stone and a Chief Superintendent of the
Tayside Police replied on 11th November that there would be
no investigation of this theft. (Copies of the
correspondence are enclosed).
Now although I can
understand you thinking that this is a somewhat belated
complaint, I must assure you that this stone is something
dear to the hearts of the Scottish People and there seems to
be no legal justification for denying them the return of
what is unquestionably their legitimate property - were it
not so, the persons responsible for trying to recover the
stone in 1950 would surely have been charged with theft,
which did not happen.
However, it could be
said from one perspective that they had taken the law into
their own hands and I must assure you that I have no
intention of doing so. Since seeing the publication of your
Justice Charter for Scotland, I am encouraged to pursue the
matter through the proper channels, previously unavailable
to us. I was particularly heartened by the affirmations on
page 5 regarding `public expectations', where it states that
"The People of Scotland can expect their police `to detect
offenders and report them promptly to the Procurator Fiscal'
and `to act without fear, favour or prejudice'. You will
therefore understand my dismay and confusion when Mr
Mackay's letter came back with your Charter Mark on it, yet
failing to fulfil these promises.
I would therefore urge
you to rectify this blatant disregard for the principles and
detail of your charter and I would further call upon you to
honour the Treaty of Northampton of 1328, an instrument of
which was that `The stone on which the Kings of Scots were
wont to sit at their coronation, and which had been carried
away by Edward I, should be restored to the Scots.' I
believe it reflects badly on all nations of the British
Isles if England so obviously dishonours an international
treaty. If England needs a coronation stone as such, I
believe there is a West Saxon coronation stone, which would
be historically more appropriate, standing in a circle of
iron railings in Kingston-upon Thames High Street, and whose
employment would be more celebrated than resented.
I cannot guarantee
canonisation, but I assure you that you would earn your
place in Scottish history as a Prime Minister who had
demonstrated justness and wisdom toward the People of
Scotland.
Yours faithfully
Robbie the Pict
From: The
Correspondence Secretary
10 Downing Street
London SW1A 2AA
9 December 1993
Dear Mr Pict,
The Prime Minister has
asked me to thank you for your recent letter which is
receiving attention. A reply will be sent to you as soon as
possible.
Yours sincerely
Mrs J Crawley
More than a month goes
by. A little reminder is apparently required.
To: The Prime Minister
LONDON
England
12th January, 1994
Dear Mr Major,
Thank you for the
courteous acknowledgement of receipt of my letter of the
30th of November last year.
However I must draw
your attention to the fact that more than a month has
elapsed since the penning of that communication and to date
there has been no further elucidation of the Crown
Executive's position regarding this considerable `affair of
state'.
I urge you not to
underestimate the public interest in Scotland in securing
justice in this matter.
Yours faithfully.
Robbie the Pict
From: The Scottish
Office
Management, Organisation and Industrial Relations Division
EDINBURGH
13 January 1994
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your
letter of 30 November 1993 to the Prime Minister regarding
the Scottish Coronation Stone. Your letter has been passed
to The Scottish Office and I have been asked to reply.
You enclosed with your
letter copies of your correspondence with the Tayside Police
regarding the Stone and your belief that it was stolen from
the Palace of Scone in 1296. It would appear that the Police
do not believe an offence has taken place. Neither the Prime
Minister nor the Secretary of State has power to direct the
Police in the investigation of offences, which is the
responsibility of the Lord Advocate and the Procurator
Fiscal.
With regard to the
present siting of the Stone you may be interested to know
that in 1951 following the Stone's return to Westminster
Abbey the Government of the day considered carefully where
it should be kept. In view of the Stone's association with
the Coronations the conclusion reached was that it should
remain with the Coronation Chair in Westminster Abbey. It is
felt that the presence of the Stone of Destiny at
Westminster is a potent and continuing reminder of
Scotland's distinctive place within the United Kingdom.
Yours faithfully
M NEALE
Desperate twisting of
the Police response. Clutching at straws. Are the Police
happy with this interpretation? Why does the Chief Executive
of the Crown have no power to direct his own political
appointee? A potent and continuing reminder indeed.
To: The Chief
Superintendent
Tayside Police
Perth
13 April 1994
Dear Mr Mackay,
Thank you for your
letter of 11th November, 1993, which I read with interest.
Obviously a matter of such significance to the People of
Scotland is not respectfully served by a two-line dismissal
from a policeman so the subject was then raised with the
gentleman who was responsible for introducing your `charter'
scheme. (Enc. 1).
He, in turn, referred
the matter to the Scottish Office (Enc. 2) but this response
puts a very different slant on the matter. The critical
sentence is, of course, "It would appear that the Police do
not believe an offence has taken place." Quite
understandably, the Scotsman of January 26th reported this
as the Tayside Police officially ruling `no theft' after
almost 700 years. However, this spurious interpretation of
your original response is compounded in its obfuscation by a
declaration of impotency to direct the police, which,
although legally appropriate to Scotland, makes a mockery of
any type of redress of grievance through citation of
chartered promises. This puts the ball firmly back in your
court and your position badly needs clarification.
I would understand
from your letter that you were wilfully refusing to conduct
an enquiry, despite a complaint from a member of the public,
but you were not identifying the reason(s) for your refusal.
You are, of course, entitled to think that the enquiry is
time-barred, frivolous, political or whatever and the People
would just have to work from there. The reply from the
Scottish Office, however, goes further than that and credits
you with a professional evaluation, namely "no offence has
taken place". They also seem happy to stand behind this
dubiously constructed barricade and thus justify a complete
failure to adequately respond to a wholly legitimate
complaint. I believe that these same `authorities' would be
quick to advise people to `go through the proper channels'.
Therefore, in pursuit
of the proper channel, I must ask you if you accept the
interpretation which has been credited to you by the
Scottish Office. As a Chief Superintendent of the Tayside
Police are you content to go on record as saying to the
People of Scotland that as regards the question of the
alleged theft of the Stone of Destiny from Scone Palace it
is your belief that no offence has taken place?
If you are not content
to be thus credited I invite you to clarify your position.
Many thanks for your time and considerations.
Yours sincerely,
Robbie the Pict.
From: Chief
Superintendent J A MACKAY
Tayside Police
PERTH
19 April, 1994
Dear Sir
Thank you for your
letter of 13 April 1994, with enclosures.
I note your detailed
views on the matter and your comments in the penultimate
paragraph. I wish to draw your attention to the fact that my
only comment on the subject was contained in my letter to
you dated 11 November 1993. Again I must advise you that
there is no intention of conducting an enquiry of the nature
suggested.
Yours faithfully
J A MACKAY
Thank you Chief
Superintendent. I thought that was what you said. Let's draw
this shabby sophistry to the attention of the man on whose
behalf it purports to be written.
To: The Prime Minister
LONDON
England.
April 25th, 1994.
Dear Mr Major,
I wrote to you on
November 30th, 1993, concerning the theft of the Scottish
Coronation Stone by the King of England in 1296. You
forwarded my letter to your office in Scotland and I have
since received a reply dated January 13th, 1994, from an `M.
Neale', whose function is not identified, of the
`Management, Organisation and Industrial Relations
Division'. Belying the spirit of chartered accountability,
the author of this letter justifies his stone-walling of the
question in two equally repulsive and unprincipled fashions.
Firstly, he interprets
Chief Superintendent Mackay's reply as the Police not
believing that an offence has taken place. Aside of being
manipulative buck-passing, this looks like deceitful
interpretation only and one must ask why, of all the
possible reasons that might exist for Mr Mackay's advice
that there is no intention of conducting any enquiry, M.
Neale chooses this particular one. One must point out to M.
Neale that Mr Mackay employs the present tense and in the
same way that a Government Minister says that he cannot
foresee any circumstances in which he would be involved in a
leadership challenge, one is obliged to point out that
things can change. However, the writer goes on to compound
this sad sophistry by suggesting that the responsibility for
investigation lies with the Lord Advocate and the Procurator
Fiscal, as they would now seem to be obliged to do without
fear or favour, never mind under Scottish legal procedure.
A second fetid odour
from this reply arises when M. Neale writes that the present
location of the Stone is `a potent and continuing reminder
of Scotland's distinctive place within the United Kingdom'.
Having previously identified the English king's motive of
deliberately placing the Stone underneath the throne of
England as a perhaps more potent reminder of the Kingdom of
Scotland being `conquered and resigned' I confess to not
knowing whether this comment is determined ignorance or
malicious sarcasm. Either way, I consider it to be highly
offensive to the Scottish People and it takes no account of
what their wishes might be concerning the re-siting of the
Stone after the last attempt to return it to its lawful
owners.
Following the new
proper channel indicated by M. Neale, I will alert both the
Lord Advocate and the local Procurator Fiscal to the
inactivity of the chartered Police but I feel that you could
simplify and shorten the proceedings considerably if, in
your capacity as Chief Executive, you were to instruct the
appropriate people to do the proper thing, according to your
Justice Charter if not simply common decency or even
Scottish Common Law.
Although M. Neale
claims that you do not have this power, it would be more
pragmatic to accept that the powers of Walpole's
unconstitutional creation, the office of Prime Minister,
prevail at least over its employees as long as Scotland is
subjected to the alien burden of English parliamentary
sovereignty. You must enjoy both a legal and moral right to
be able to honour your charters in the meanwhile.
I enclose copies of my
recent correspondence with Chief Superintendent Mackay.
Yours faithfully,
Robbie the Pict
The Scottish Office
Management, Organisation and Industrial Relations Division
EDINBURGH
9 May 1994
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your
further letter of 25 April to the Prime Minister concerning
the Scottish Coronation Stone. Your letter has been passed
to the Scottish Office and your comments have been noted.
Yours faithfully
M MELROSE
This reply came in an
envelope which was franked to give a new local-rate
telephone number for the Scottish Office, seeming to invite
the people to call directly and get straight answers to
straight questions. I found out later that the public,
perhaps jaundiced with chronic cynicism, never used the
service but I thought I would try it anyway. Within a few
moments the said Mrs Melrose became very uncomfortable and
eventually confessed that she didn't know anything about the
constitution and she had no qualifications in Law. 'Passed
to the Scottish Office' turned out to mean only that it had
arrived in her office and the sum total of her action on
behalf of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom on a
significant affair of state was to note my comments. Grossly
inadequate attitude, blending smug ignorance with imperial
arrogance. Beginning to replicate the 'Homo Sovieticus'
mentality which I had wrestled with for a year in
post-Soviet Estonia.
The Scottish Office
Management, Organisation and Industrial Relations Division
James Craig Walk
Edinburgh
EH1 3BA
23 May 1994
Dear Sir
I refer to your recent
telephone conversation with Mrs Melrose during which you
asked for a more substantive response to your letter of 25
April to the Prime Minister than that given in Mrs Melrose's
letter of 9 May.
There is in fact
little that can be added to what was said in my letter of 13
January which was issued in response to your earlier letter
of 30 November 1993 to the Prime Minister. The Tayside
Police have now on 2 occasions informed you that they have
no intention of conducting any enquiry of the nature as
suggested by you. The Prime Minister, as I said in my letter
of 13 January cannot direct the police to carry out an
investigation:- that as you know is a matter for the Lord
Advocate and the Procurator Fiscal.
With regard to the
present siting of the Stone, I assure you that the remarks
made in my letter of 13 January were not in any way meant to
be offensive or sarcastic. They were simply a statement of
the reasons that lay behind the decision made by the
government of the day in 1951 to keep the Stone at
Westminster. They should not therefore be interpreted as
being a comment on the view held by yourself and others that
the Stone should be situated elsewhere. The sincerity and
strength of your views on this subject is fully recognised.
Finally, I understand
from Mrs Melrose that you are unhappy that your letters have
not received a personal reply from the Prime Minister. May I
explain that the Prime Minister receives many thousands of
letters from members of the public each week covering a wide
range of subjects. In these circumstances it is not
possible, as I am sure you will agree, for each letter to
receive a personal reply from the Prime Minister or to be
dealt with by his office. Most letters therefore are quickly
passed to the department responsible for the subject matter
of the letter to consider and issue a reply.
Yours sincerely
M NEALE
OK another dead end
bunch. Change of tack.
The Procurator Fiscal
PERTH
23 June 1994
Dear Sir,
I enclose copies of
correspondence relevant to the pursuit of justice in the
question of the theft of the Coronation Stone of Scotland
from Scone Abbey, in your jurisdiction, in 1296.
As you can see, the
Scottish Office has identified your office twice as the
proper channel through which to pursue this matter.
This letter is thus a
formal request that you arrange the recovery of the
Coronation Stone, under the terms of the Treaty of
Northampton/Edinburgh of 1328 if necessary, or, if you feel
that you do not have the authority to recover this type of
stolen property from a place as politically sensitive as
England, please forward this complaint to the Lord Advocate
for Scotland. The responsibility must lie somewhere or the
Justice Charter is a worthless insult to our intelligence.
I thank you for your
time and considerations.
Yours faithfully,
Robbie the Pict.
Procurator Fiscal's
Office
52 Tay Street
PERTH
24 June 1994
Dear Sir
I refer to your letter
dated 23 June 1994 and acknowledge receipt of the copy
correspondence which you enclosed.
I have decided to
comply with your request in its alternative form and have
today forwarded your complaint to the Lord Advocate.
Yours faithfully
I A McLeod
Procurator Fiscal
Decent and proper
response. Well done the Fiscal!
Law Officers'
Secretariat
Crown Office
25 Chambers Street
Edinburgh
19 July 1994
Dear Sir
I refer to your letter
of 23 June 1994 addressed to the Procurator Fiscal at Perth.
The letter has been passed to this office for attention.
We do not intend to
instruct either the Procurator Fiscal or the police to
enquire into this matter.
Yours faithfully
L M TAGGART
Law Officers' Secretariat
Now there is a
surprise. If the Lord Advocate for Scotland will not attempt
to recover one of Scotland's most significant State
possessions let's see what the Monarch in whose name he acts
has to say about the justice of that decision.
Buckingham Palace
LONDON
England
SW1
23 October, 1994
Your Majesty,
I regret to say that I
have to write to Your Majesty as a last resort in an attempt
to secure justice regarding the retrieval of the Stone of
Destiny, unlawfully removed from Scone Abbey in 1296.
Given that, on the
last two occasions on which persons have tried to recover
the property they have been treated as criminals, I decided
to present the argument for the just and proper return of
stolen property on paper and pursue justice through `the
proper channels'. (I enclose the relevant correspondence).
In short, the
government's Justice Charter for Scotland is proved
worthless in that there is no intention to investigate
`without fear or favour' and, in truth, I will be pleasantly
surprised if you yourself actually exert your personal
authority on this question, even when you are personally
involved, I have become used to a bland reply from a robotic
civil servant in the `Scottish' Office.
However, I try to
continue to believe in justice as a fundamental principle of
civilisation so I have to ask you, on behalf of myself and
the other people of Scotland, to instruct the appropriate
authorities to return this piece of property to Scotland
where it must be held in public trust until the people
decide what they want to do with it.
Yours faithfully,
Robbie the Pict
Buckingham Palace
4th November, 1994.
Dear Mr. Pict,
I am commanded by The
Queen to thank you for your letter of 23rd October about the
Stone of Destiny.
Her Majesty
appreciates receiving views and comments from the many
people who write to her, and your particular letter has been
carefully noted. I should perhaps add, though, that while
The Queen has a duty and a right to express her views to her
Government, her position as a constitutional Sovereign also
requires Her Majesty to act on the advice of her Ministers.
The Queen would not, therefore, intervene publicly in
matters such as the one you have raised, where
responsibility rests with Ministers. As you have already
received a reply from the Scottish Office, Her Majesty is
unable to help you further.
Yours sincerely,
(SIMON GIMSON)
Her Majesty would
appear to be standing on the stool of monarchial privilege
only available to her in her capacity as Queen of England.
Fine, as we always suspected she was as heart, but will she
be drawn on this?
Buckingham Palace
LONDON
England
31 March 1995
Your Majesty,
Thank you for your
letter of 4 November 1994, the contents of which I have now
had the chance to evaluate.
Your reply is of great
interest because it identifies what you believe to be your
constitutional position, that of acting primarily and
fundamentally as the Queen of England. It is understood
that, technically speaking, there has been no such entity as
the Queen of England or the country or Kingdom of England
since 1707, or even of Great Britain since 1800, but
nonetheless the People of England seem to think of you as
their queen first and foremost, and they are to a great
extent followed by the world in this respect. A Queen of
Scots, within the terms of our cultural tradition, would
have had the constitutional authority to challenge the
illegal imposition of the 'Poll Tax' in Scotland one year
prior to its application in England. This enactment remains
a clear breach of Article 18 of the Treaty of Union.
Failure to defend the
People of Scotland against their being used for political
experimentation was to bow entirely to the English Bill of
Rights of 1689, and its shifting of sovereignty from monarch
to parliament (an act prior to the Treaty of Union and
irrelevant to Scotland). To allow yourself to be described
as a 'constitutional Sovereign' essentially subject to the
'advice of her Ministers' is to adopt the traditional stance
of only the Queen of England. This point is made not to be
critical but simply to illustrate the constitutional
impossibility of wedding the helms of incompatible ships.
People in Scotland who have resisted the Poll Tax are being
hounded for payment under threat of the public sale of their
household effects. This is done in the name of 'the Crown'
which is the symbol of Westminster authority. A Queen of
Scots could not allow this to happen to her People.
On the specific
question of the Stone of Scone, our Coronation Stone, your
reply refers me, on a constitutional basis, back to
ministerial level, a place from which neither justice nor
satisfaction has been forthcoming, but this course of action
is only appropriate under English Law. Under Scots Law there
is no statute of limitation on the crimes of theft and reset
of stolen property and both yourself as the person claimed
by the Dean of Westminster to be the owner and the Very
Reverend Michael Mayne as 'custodier' in Westminster Abbey,
are open to the latter charge regarding the Stone of Scone.
There is no immunity from prosecution available to the
monarch in Scotland. Our tradition is to be a democratic
sovereignty within the Law, as even King Robert the Bruce
found out to his cost in a Highland court.
It is pointless
returning to the Crown ministers or their constables who
have clearly displayed their dereliction of duty as regards
the recovery of Sovereign Scottish property. The impression
given is that they would only respond to a Royal decree. If
an appeal to the monarch is equally fruitless, and with the
stone being essentially the property of the People, the only
remaining course of action is for the matter to be presented
to the Scottish Public at large. It must be remembered that
1996 would bring 700 years of English possession of our
Coronation Stone and the pride of many Scots will find that
prospect unethical and unpalatable.
Regretfully, I am not
aware of any surviving coronation stone which can be
creditably connected to the history of the Angles, but there
is an apparently genuine Saxon coronation stone in Kingston
upon Thames High Street. Given that you are clearly in a
position to return our Stone without ministerial
interference, may I suggest that it is commanded to be
placed in the A.K. Bell Public Library in Perth, in trust
for the People of Scotland, until such time as the People
decide what they want to do with it. By that action the
terms of the Treaty of Northampton would be honoured.
Yours faithfully,
Robbie the Pict
Encs. 1. Anderson's
Criminal Law of Scotland: Theft
2. Anderson's Criminal Law of Scotland: Reset
Buckingham Palace
London
England
10 May 1995
Your Majesty,
Having received no
reply to my letter of the 31st of March, I must assume that
you are adhering to the constitutional position which you
identified in your letter of 4th of November.
As I stated in my last
letter I have no faith in the Crown's Westminster operatives
and I am confident that justice would not be served by
repeating myself to them. It is clear for all to see that
there is no intention of honouring the pledge made in the
Justice Charter for Scotland, that crime will be prosecuted
without fear or favour, and instead we experience a stark
refusal to act at all. It would appear that even the
Procurator Fiscal, who did at least make an attempt to place
the matter in front of persons responsible, is subject to an
insidious political control.
It is further clear
for all to see that the Kingdom of England, who-ever is now
its sovereign director, has no intention of honouring the
terms of the Treaty of Northampton, particularly in regard
to recognising the Kingdom of Scotland's sovereign
independence and our right to have our Coronation Stone
returned.
Given the
clarification of the English Crown positions, and given that
all recognisable avenues of redress of grievance have been
neutered by the enforcement of Westminster parliamentary
sovereignty, it is left to a Scottish commoner to speak on
behalf of the clear majority of the People of Scotland who
consider themselves to be the true inheritors of the Stone
of Scone, as opposed to the English Crown.
I must hereby ask that
Your Majesty commands that "the stone on which the Kings of
Scots were wont to sit at their coronation, and which had
been carried away by Edward 1", and which the same treaty
said "should be restored to the Scots", be finally returned
to Scotland. I must further request that the Stone of
Destiny is transported to Letham Village Hall in Angus by
midnight on the 19th of May, 1995, in time for the
celebration of Dunnichen Day. The 1310th Anniversary of the
Battle of Nechtansmere is, of course, on Saturday the 20th
of May.
I wish to assure Your
Majesty of my total respect for your position as Head of the
British Commonwealth, a sentiment I believe to be held by
all decent and reasonable people in Scotland, no matter how
determined they are that the Kingdom of Scotland should
again enjoy its right to sovereign independence and
self-determination.
Yours faithfully,
Robbie the Pict
PICTISH FREE STATE
PRESS RELEASE
RETURN OF THE STONE OF DESTINY - FIRST ASKING
In November 1993 a
campaign was begun to secure the return of the Scottish
Coronation Stone by 'going through the proper channels'. The
theft of the Stone was therefore reported to the local
police but they refused to conduct any enquiry. Similar
stonewalling was displayed by the offices of the Secretary
of State for Scotland, the Prime Minister, the Lord Advocate
for Scotland and the Queen of the United Kingdom. In our
view, the only proper response was from the Procurator
Fiscal in Perth who forwarded the papers to the Lord
Advocate.
In her reply, the
Queen has identified government ministers as those
responsible for resolving such issues, however she has since
been made aware that under Scots Common Law she would be
open to arraignment on charges of resetting stolen property,
as would her 'custodier', the Very Reverend Michael Mayne,
Dean of Westminster Abbey. There is no statute of
limitations in Scots Law for the crimes of theft or
receiving stolen property: nor can the receiver ever acquire
title to an item of stolen property.
As regards 'taking
stock' in Scotland, government ministers have totally failed
to get anywhere near 'basics' on the longest standing 'law
and order' issue between the two kingdoms.
The Stone of Destiny
is the symbol of the sovereignty of the People of Scotland
and as we approach the real likelihood of the return of the
Scottish Parliament, it is proper that the touchstone of
statehood is again within the borders of our ancient
kingdom.
As instigator of this
initiative, I have asked to Queen to organise the return of
the Stone of Destiny to Letham Village Hall in Angus, by
midnight on Friday, the 19th of May, the eve of Dunnichen
Day. This year is the 1310th anniversary of the Battle of
Nechtansmere, a rout of the expansionist Ecgfrith and his
Angles by King Brude of the Picts.
In the event of the
Stone not being returned, other civil forms of campaign will
be pursued. In the event of the return of the Stone at any
time or in any circumstances, we advocate its placement in
the Public Library at Perth, a city which we have previously
proposed as the new legislative capital.
Given that the
parliamentary representative for Perth and Kinross has not
yet been chosen, we feel that candidates for this post can
best demonstrate which master they intend to serve by
answering 'yes' or 'no' to the question; 'If you were
elected, would you lead a campaign for the return of the
Stone of Destiny to its home neighbourhood in Scotland?'. We
invite supporters of unionist parties whose party loyalty is
compromised by this question to abstain in favour of a full-
choice referendum concerning the nature of the Scottish
Parliament.
Robbie the Pict
Founder, Pictish Free State.
Thank you boys and
girls!
BUCKINGHAM PALACE
19th May, 1995
Dear Mr Pict,
Thank you for your
letters of 31st March and 10th May.
As I have said in the
past, The Queen much appreciates receiving views and
comments from the many people who write to her. Your
particular letters concerning the Stone of Destiny have been
very carefully noted and I am to thank you again for
writing.
I believe that this,
therefore, now brings our correspondence on this matter to a
close.
Yours sincerely,
(SIMON GIMSON)
Decided to change tack
and in my capacity as Secretary of Clan Robertson, an
activist wing of the Clan Donnachaidh Society wrote to
Raymond and George Robertson. The Stone question was tagged
on to the rear of what looked like the serious contemporary
political question, the request for a judicial review of the
Treaty of Union.
Clan Robertson
County of Perth
Dear Mr Robertson,
This organisation is
committed to the restoration of the Kingdom of Scotland's
right to act as a self-determining nation.
To this end, we
propose a judicial review of the Acts of Union of 1706 and
1707 and support the campaign for the return of the Stone of
Destiny to the County of Perth.
Given that yours is
one of the voices which must speak for and defend the
sovereign rights of the People of Scotland in the parliament
of Westminster, can we count on you to give your support to
these proposals?
NOTE: At this point
the letters differed.
Variation 1. to
Raymond R. We note with appreciation that your party, along
with the Green Party pressure group, is the only party in
Scotland which acknowledges Scotland's right to absolute
independence, free of any preconditions which might oblige
the People of Scotland into any other form of union.
Variation 2. to George
R. We note that even as a Robertson you serve a unionist
party based in the English capital. Your party's policy
towards questions of Scotland's future seems to consistently
dictate to the People without any respect for their wishes.
Do you not think that a Constitutional Convention should
have allowed for the possibility of the sovereign People
wishing to consider absolute Independence? Before you force
or foist your parliament on the People would it not be
prudent to hold a Scottish Labour Party referendum, prior to
any General Election, which included the consideration of
full independence. This would both elicit the opinion of
your own party membership, which might not be as favourable
to control by Westminster as your own, and save any
ill-judged or presumptious pronouncements on what the People
of Scotland might want.
Yours sincerely,
R.T.P.Robertson
Secretary.
House of Commons
LONDON
June 28th 1995
Dear Mr Robertson,
Thank you for your
letter of June 20th. As a proud Scot, I too care deeply
about Scotland. That is why I have absolutely no intention
of supporting your campaign.
Scotland is thriving
as a full and equal partner in the United Kingdom. She is a
self-confident and successful nation and has prospered
through the Union. I could list a set of statistics to
support this case, for example the fact that Scotland
exports more per head of population than Japan. I will
content myself with pointing out that Scotland after almost
300 years of Union is far more prosperous, innovative and
diverse than it was pre 1707.
I will instead ask you
one simple question. If Scotland were to become independent,
how would you propose to balance the £8 billion deficit
which Scotland would face? The figure of £8 billion is not
merely a piece of political propaganda. Rather it is the
considered view of the House of Commons Library, the
independent Fraser of Allander Institute and the Scottish
Office. The panacea solution usually offered by nationalists
to the deficit problem is that of oil revenues. The harsh
fact is that even if Scotland were to receive the total UK
Oil revenue (a highly unlikely scenario), then Scotland
would still face a spending shortfall of £6.7 billion every
year.
I am not sure whether
your intention is to paint all those who refuse to support
your campaign as unpatriotic Scots. Let me be quite clear. I
am Scottish. I am proud to be Scottish and as a patriot I
want what is best for Scotland. That is why I will continue
to put the case strongly for the Union.
Yours sincerely,
Raymond S. Robertson
MP
This man needs
psychiatric help! He also demonstrates an abysmal grasp of
the basics of International Law. Under such cannons a nation
is a unit of personality in law and as such has the
universally recognised right of self-determination. Thatcher
for example would never admit that Scotland was a nation
unless it tried to fill its boots. She only ever conceded
that 'Scotland was, along with Wales and Northern Ireland,
an integral part of the United Kingdom'. Note the omission
of England.
House of Commons
LONDON
30 June 1995
Dear Mr Robertson
Thank you for your
letter of 20 June but no you cannot count on my support for
these proposals.
I think that judicial
review of an Act of Union is a waste of money and time. If
there are people in Scotland who wish for a separate
Scottish state then they can vote for the separatist party.
In its sixty year history it has never managed to gain
anything like a majority of the Scottish people.
I appreciate the
politeness of your request but cannot feel any sympathy for
the cause you are promoting. I am committed to the future of
Scotland and making it a strong and vibrant country with its
own Parliament firmly inside the United Kingdom. I believe
that is what the vast majority of the people of Scotland
want and I see it as my historic responsibility to deliver
that.
Best wishes.
Yours sincerely
George Robertson
Perhaps this lad could
go halfers on both the therapy and the Law School fees.
Decided to solicit the
responses from the SNP and the Secretary of State to the
same questions, having had coverage in the Herald which gave
some credence to the Clan Robertson movement.
Letter to Michael
Forsyth which I am still trying to find!
Reply from his
Constituency Secretary
18 July 1995
Dear Mr Robertson
Thank you for your
recent letter addressed to Mr Forsyth. As this matter falls
within the responsibilities of the Scottish Office, I have
passed it to his Private Office, and he will reply to you
direct from there in due course.
Yours sincerely
Diana Forsyth?
Is the use of the
adverb declining terminal?
St Andrew's House
Edinburgh
4 August 1995
Dear Mr Robertson
Thank you for your
letter of 14 July regarding the right of the Scottish people
to self determination and related matters.
On the question of
self-determination I can confirm that the Government's view,
which has been expressed on a number of occasions by the
Prime Minister, is that no Nation can be held irrevocably in
a Union against its will. If, therefore, parties supporting
independence received the majority of support in Scotland at
a future General Election Parliament would need to consider
whether to take legislative action. Ultimately, any decision
on independence for Scotland could only be taken by
Parliament.
I note that Clan
Robertson proposes a judicial review of the Acts of Union of
1706 and 1707. That must be a matter for your organisation
but I certainly would not offer any support for such a move.
I would say that the Treaty of Union which was ratified by
these Acts was by any standpoint a remarkable achievement in
that it was entered into voluntarily by two Parliaments.
What, perhaps is more remarkable is the fact that these Acts
remain in force today, nearly 300 years later, as a basic
legal framework for the Union of Scotland and England. Under
this framework Scotland's distinctiveness as a Nation has
been safeguarded and enhanced whilst at the same time
Scotland has benefited from having economic prosperity,
security and real influence in the wider world. All of this
and more has been achieved through the Union and I strongly
believe that we should continue to build on the
opportunities that the Union gives Scotland rather than
contemplate breaking up the partnership.
Finally I note your
organisation's support for the return of the Stone of
Destiny to Scotland. Since it was returned to Westminster
Abbey in 1951, successive Governments have taken the view
that it should remain there as a reminder of Scotland's
place in the Union. It is an issue however that does raise
strong and sincere feelings in many Scots, and I am
conscious of that.
Yours sincerely,
Michael Forsyth.
Calls Scotland a
Nation with a capital. Weak on constitutional points. Treaty
cannot be ratified by Acts which precede it. The 'treaty' is
entirely notional and has never been ratified. Demonstrates
chronic kindergarten mentality on the question of nationhood
and seems to forget that Edward 1 put the Stone UNDER the
English throne deliberately. Less treasonous than Raymond
Robertson on the question of the Stone's return.
Letter to Alex Salmond
was as per the Robertsons but the variation in the final
paragraph ran:
We thank you for your
time and consideration, but also have to ask if your chosen
political party would give consideration to outright
independence, as opposed to another union, should the People
so chose?
The Member of
Parliament for Banff and Buchan
26th August 1995
Dear R T P Robertson,
Thank you for your
letter of 14 July.
The Scottish National
Party supports the doctrine of the sovereignty of the
Scottish people, and quite clearly it will be up to the
people to decide the relationship an independent Scotland
would have to various international bodies, such as the EU.
I recently wrote an
article for the Herald newspaper in which I called for among
other things, the return of the Stone of Destiny to
Scotland, and so wish you well in your own campaign.
Yours sincerely
Alex Salmond
Time to take a
slightly different line, given the slamming noise from the
official portcullis.
27 October, 1995
Procurator Fiscal's
Office
52 Tay Street
PERTH
Dear Sir,
I write to request
your permission to mount a private prosecution against the
Very Reverend Michael Mayne, Dean of Westminster, London,
England.
I believe that he is
holding, on behalf of The Queen, an item stolen in Scotland
from the Abbey in Scone, namely a coronation stone, property
of the sovereign People of Scotland.
Although I believe The
Queen is arraignable as potentially guilty of resetting
stolen property, she has the protection of English
constitutional immunity and has already claimed it in
correspondence concerning this matter. She thus rejects the
tenets of Scots common law.
I am willing to supply
you with copies of all relevant correspondence on this
subject which has arisen since I last communicated with your
office.
Yours faithfully,
Robbie the Pict.
Procurator Fiscal's
Office
52 Tay Street
Perth
31 October, 1995
Dear Sir,
I thank you for your
letter dated 27 October 1995.
In order to mount a
private prosecution in the High Court you require not my
permission but that of the Lord Advocate. Accordingly I have
sent him a copy of your letter and anticipate that he will
be in touch with you shortly.
Yours faithfully
IAIN MCLEOD
Procurator Fiscal
Crown Office
Law Officers' Secretariat
25 Chambers Street
EDINBURGH
4 December 1995
Dear Sir,
You wrote to the
Procurator Fiscal at Perth on 27 October requesting his
permission to mount a private prosecution against the Dean
of Westminster. I have also seen the Procurator Fiscal's
reply. I should point out, however, that as the alleged
offence is being committed in London, the Scottish courts
would not have jurisdiction. Accordingly, quite apart from
any concerns over the merits of the matter, I should point
out that it would not be competent for either the Lord
Advocate or the Procurator Fiscal to concur in a private
prosecution.
Yours faithfully
W A GILCHRIST
Rt. Hon. Michael
Forsyth M.P.
Secretary of State for Scotland
New St. Andrew's House
EDINBURGH
13 December, 1995
Dear Mr Forsyth,
I have been engaged
for over two years in going through the 'proper channels' to
secure the return of a property of the sovereign People of
Scotland, namely the Stone of Scone, also known as the
'Stone of Destiny'.
Her Majesty the Queen
of England makes it quite plain that this is a question for
her ministers and thus directly and specifically for you.
As one of the sovereign People of
Scotland I must formally ask you to request the return of
this stolen property in fulfilment of the terms of the 1328
Treaty of Northampton. The stone is, of course, a litmus
test of Scottishness and its denial is a denial of the
country, the people, the flag and the sovereignty of
Scotland. Your tenure of the office of Secretary of State
for Scotland, not to Scotland, encourages me to hope that
you will choose which master it is proper and loyal to
serve, the alternative being a temptation to treasonous
conduct.
Yours sincerely,
Robbie the Pict.
Rt. Hon. Michael
Forsyth M.P.
Secretary of State for Scotland
St. Andrew's House
EDINBURGH
31 January, 1996
Dear Mr Forsyth,
I wrote to you on 13
December, 1995 asking you to request the return of the Stone
of Destiny on behalf of the People of Scotland, as agreed by
the Kingdom of England in the Treaty of Northampton (1328).
To date I have
received no reply. Since 6 weeks have now passed and the
summer of 1996 would mark seven centuries of illegal holding
of the Scottish People's property by the English Royal
Family, I must now ask if making no response is your final
and official reply.
Yours sincerely,
Robbie the Pict
THE SCOTTISH OFFICE
DOVER HOUSE
WHITEHALL
LONDON SW1A 2AU
29 February 1996
Brian D Robertson Esq
(Robbie the Pict)
Dear Mr Robertson
Thank you for your letters of 13 December
and 31 January concerning the resting place of the Stone of
Destiny.
I have noted your
views.
Yours sincerely
Michael Forsyth
At this point there
have been discussions on the Isle of Skye with prominent
individuals who are very concerned about the adverse effects
of the extortionate Skye Bridge tolls. I bring them up to
date with the recovery campaign thus far and an alliance is
hatched for the common good of both.
PRESS RELEASE 24
March, 1996 SKETIS HERITAGE TRUST, ISLE OF SKYE
FORMAL PURCHASE OFFER for the STONE OF DESTINY
Deeply concerned by
indications of a negative long-term effect on the tourist
trade on the Isle of Skye of a £75 toll on tourist buses,
and believing that these indications should be responded to
before serious damage is done to the good name of Skye
world-wide, and,
Considering that the
£4 admission charge on top of the considerable expense of
travelling from anywhere in Scotland to the south of England
is unfair to the People of Scotland who might wish to view
their Coronation Stone and,
Noting that 700 years
have elapsed since the theft of the Stone in 1296 by the
English King Edward 1 and that the Stone is long overdue for
return, especially since this was promised by international
constitutional contract in the Treaty of Northampton in
1328,
This Trust feels that
the Stone of Destiny ought morally and practically to be
returned to Scotland, initially to the Isle of Skye, where
it would be displayed to the better financial advantage of
the People of Scotland and with considerably more dignity.
TO THIS END, WE HEREBY
OFFER THE SUM OF A QUARTER OF A MILLION POUNDS STERLING TO
THE PEOPLE OF ENGLAND, TO DO WITH AS THEY CHOOSE, FOR THE
RETURN OF THE SCOTTISH CORONATION STONE OF SCONE, KNOWN AS
THE STONE OF DESTINY AND CURRENTLY LOCATED UNDER THE MONARCH
OF ENGLAND'S THRONE IN WESTMINSTER ABBEY, LONDON, ENGLAND.
THIS OFFER WILL BE IN
EFFECT FOR A PERIOD OF TEN DAYS ONLY, FROM NOON ON THE 26TH
DAY OF MARCH 1996 UNTIL NOON ON THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL 1996,
THE EVE OF SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE DAY.
The Sketis Heritage
Trust, a consortium of five persons with business interests
and who live on the Isle of Skye, is an apolitical and
unaligned organisation formed solely for the purpose of
facilitating the return of the Scottish Coronation Stone, an
utterly Scottish cultural and historical artefact. In the
event of the Stone being properly returned to the Scottish
People as a result of financial arrangements made by the
Trust, the Trust proposes to the People that it is permitted
to place the Stone on public display in a series of
locations, firstly on the Isle of Skye and thereafter
throughout the whole of Scotland, where an admission charge
of not more than one pound sterling would be payable. It is
further proposed that the touring of the Stone be allowed to
continue until such time as any purchase price and
operational costs have been met. When these matters have
been settled the Trust proposes that the Stone is returned
to the People of Scone in the County of Perth, Scotland.
The Trust confirms
that Robbie the Pict, founder of the Pictish Free State, a
legal pressure group which holds land on the Isle of Skye on
behalf of the People of Scotland, is authorised to speak and
negotiate on behalf of the Trust ad interim. He is in
possession of legal affirmations which guarantee the sum
offered but has undertaken not to reveal the identity of
trustees until the legitimate and competent English agent is
identified. Thank you.
TELEPHONE/FAX 01 470
572 317 CONTACT ROBBIE the PICT
From Thomas Wright's
History of Scotland 1874
TREATY OF YORK,
EDINBURGH AND NORTHAMPTON, 1328/29
This parliament met at
York on the 1st of March, 1328, and the grand point of
dispute was then conceded, that Robert Bruce should be
acknowledged as king of Scotland, and that Scotland itself
should be recognised as a free kingdom for ever.
The instrument of
renunciation was worded as follows:- "Whereas we, and others
of our predecessors, kings of England, have endeavoured to
obtain a right of dominion and superiority over the kingdom
of Scotland, and have thereby been the cause of long and
grievous wars between the two kingdoms; we, therefore,
considering the numerous slaughters, sins, and bloodshed,
the destruction of churches, and other evils brought upon
the inhabitants of both kingdoms by such wars, and the many
advantages which would accrue to the subjects of both
realms, if, by the establishment of a firm and perpetual
peace, they were secured against all rebellious designs,
have, by the assent of the prelates, barons, and commons of
our kingdom, in parliament assembled, granted, and hereby do
grant, for us, and our heirs and successors, whatsoever,
that the kingdom of Scotland shall remain for ever to the
magnificent prince and lord Robert, by the grace of God, the
illustrious king of Scots, our ally and dear friend, and to
his heirs and successors, free, entire and unmolested,
separated from the kingdom of England by its respective
marches, as in the time of Alexander king of Scotland, of
good memory, of late deceased, without any subjection,
servitude, claim, or demand whatsoever.
And we hereby renounce
and convey to the said king of Scotland, his heirs and
successors, whatever right we, or our ancestors in times
past, have laid claim to in any way over the kingdom of
Scotland. And by these same presents we renounce and declare
void, for ourselves and our heirs and successors, all
obligations, agreements, or treaties whatsoever, touching
the subjection of the kingdom of Scotland, and the
inhabitants thereof, entered into between our predecessors
and any of the kings thereof, or their subjects, whether
clergy or laity. And if there shall anywhere be found any
letters, charters, muniments, or public instruments, which
shall have been framed touching the said obligations,
agreements, or compacts, we declare that they shall be null
and void and of no effect whatsoever.
And, in order to the
fulfilment of these premises, and to the faithful
observation thereof, in all time coming, we have given full
power and special authority to our faithful and well-beloved
cousin, Henry de Percy, and to William le Zouche of Ashby,
to take oath upon our soul, for the performance of the same.
In testimony whereof we have given this our letter patent,
at York, on the 1st of March, in the second year of our
reign, by the king himself and his council in parliament."
After a full
renunciation of sovereignty like this, the object of all
Bruce's efforts for so many years, the terms of a peace were
soon arranged. This peace was concluded at Edinburgh on the
17th of March, 1328, and it was confirmed on the part of
England in a parliament held at Northampton on the 4th of
May following. It was to be cemented by a marriage between
prince David of Scotland, then five years old, and the
princess Joane of England, who was two years his senior.
The two kings engaged
to assist each other against all enemies, always saving to
the king of Scots his ancient alliance with the king of
France; and each engaged not to give any aid to the rebel
subjects of the other. All writings and documents relating
to the attempt to establish a feudal superiority over
Scotland were to be sought up and sent to the king of Scots,
and the English king was to assist Bruce in obtaining at the
court of Rome a recall of the sentence of excommunication.
On the part of the
king of Scotland it was covenanted that certain English
barons who had been deprived of their lands in Scotland
should be restored; and, in further consideration of this
advantageous treaty, Bruce was to pay to the English
government twenty thousand pounds sterling within three
years, at three separate terms. It was further stipulated,
in a separate instrument, that the fatal stone of Scone,
which had been carried away from Scotland by Edward I.,
should be sent back.
The populace of London
rose tumultuously when they heard of the terms of the
treaty, and proceeding in a riotous manner to Westminster,
declared their intention of hindering the stone, one of the
glorious trophies of the first Edward, from being carried
away.
All the above from
Thomas Wright's History of Scotland, Edinburgh 1874.
The Treaty of
Northampton was so unpopular in England that it was simply
removed from their national records, an action such as would
receive the whole-hearted approval of Stalin. The Scottish
Coronation Stone was not mentioned in the treaty itself,
but, in a 'separate instrument', it was stipulated that 'the
stone on which the Kings of Scots were wont to sit at their
coronation, and which had been carried away by Edward 1'
should be restored to the Scots.
PRESS RELEASE 5 APRIL,
1996 SKETIS HERITAGE TRUST, ISLE OF SKYE
FORMAL PURCHASE OFFER for the STONE OF DESTINY
By the end of the 10
day set period, noon today, no competent authority has
stepped forward on behalf of the People of England to accept
the sum of £250,000. It is unclear to the Trust whether that
is because the amount offered is not sufficient, no-one
dares to identify themselves as claiming ownership of the
Stone, there is no longer a democratic forum through which
the People of England can speak or that the People have
simply not been made sufficiently aware of the offer.
To counter these
difficulties it is the intention of the Trust to target the
Dean of Westminster, the Very Reverend Michael Mayne, with
the specific question of ownership.
It is a further
intention of the Trust to approach the Lady Diana, Princess
of Wales, to act as a Cultural Ambassador in this matter,
specifically to negotiate with the authorities in England on
behalf of the People of England for the purpose of securing
the sum offered in exchange for the Stone and subsequently
managing or placing the resultant charitable fund.
It is a further
intention of the Trust to reproduce the relevant extracts
from the Treaty of Northampton of 1328.
The Trust has
undertaken to actively explore the possibility of increasing
the amount offered and possibly the number of trustees.
These matters are
expected to take some time and given that the attention of
the People of Skye will be focused on the first trial for
non-payment on April 11 and the matter of raising a defence
fund to counter the denial of legal aid, the Trust feels
that it can make no substantial statement on this matter
until Sunday the 5th of May.
The Trust would like
to thank the members of the Press who did have the
independence and integrity of mind to carry the story and it
feels sure that there will be interesting developments by
May 5th.
To: The Lady Diana,
Princess of Wales
Kensington Palace
London, England
April 10th, 1996
Dear Princess Diana,
As you may be aware
through media reportage, the SKETIS HERITAGE TRUST has been
formed by five Skye residents who, extremely concerned at
the effect on the vital Tourist Trade of toll charge of
£37.50 each way for a tour bus, wish to bring the Stone of
Scone back to Scotland, initially to the Isle of Skye, where
it would serve as a tourist attraction and hopefully
compensate to some degree for the extortionate toll regime.
(The toll for a car and caravan will be £10.40 each way from
May 1st).
To this end the Trust
has offered the People of England, whom we trust are close
to your heart, the sum of £250,000 in exchange for the
return of the Stone of Destiny to Scotland, but as the first
period of offer closed on April 5th no communication had
been forthcoming on behalf of the People of England and the
Trust wondered if perhaps there was some difficulty in
establishing a negotiating agent who might handle the
English end of things.
The Trust has also a
deep faith in the integrity and decency of the actual People
of England. The Trust believes that if the English People
become properly aware that the Stone was originally stolen
by King Edward 1 in 1296 and that provision was made in a
treaty between the two kingdoms to return 'the stone on
which the Kings of Scots were wont to sit' (Treaty of
Northampton 1328/9), then they would have no difficulty with
the idea of the Stone returning to Scotland.
To this end the Trust
would be honoured if you would accept the role of agent and
negotiator on behalf of the People of England.
The Trust realises
that this may turn out to be a matter of some delicacy but
what good experience for someone aspiring to a full-blooded
diplomatic post. There is a huge constitutional vacuum
between England and Scotland at the level of the People.
Admittedly the People of England were obliged out of their
sovereign role by the 18th century Bill of Rights, while the
People of Scotland retain their sovereign authority, but
that should not prevent communication at a level of mutual
respect if not on constitutional parity. The two peoples
have doubtless much in common.
In practical terms the
proposed office need not be very time consuming. The Stone
is in Westminster Abbey and the Very Reverend Michael Mayne,
Dean of Westminster must be in possession of at least useful
information on the question of alleged ownership in England.
If any difficulties arose on the topic of legal ownership a
telephone call or fax to the Trust contact number would
bring swift legal clarification from the Scottish
perspective.
Yours sincerely,
Robbie the Pict
Authorised spokesman, Sketis Heritage Trust.
To: The Very Reverend
Michael Mayne
Dean of Westminster
Westminster Abbey
LONDON
England.
April 10th, 1996
OWNERSHIP OF THE STONE
OF SCONE
Dear Reverend Mayne,
By way of
introduction, this letter is written on behalf of a
consortium of five residents of Skye who have formed
themselves into the SKETIS HERITAGE TRUST, whose sole and
stated aim is to facilitate the return of the Stone of Scone
to Scotland and ultimately to Scone itself, from where it
was stolen.
To this end the Trust
made an offer of £250,000 to the People of England for the
Stone but at the end of the ten day offer period, no-one had
come forward on behalf of the English People to negotiate
for the available sum.
Given the current
location of the Stone, the Trust inevitably must now ask you
'Who do you consider to be the legal owner of the Stone of
Scone at present, and is that claim of ownership under Scots
or English Law?'
Given also the level
of Scottish public interest in the question the Trust would
be obliged if this aspect of the problem could be cleared up
as soon as possible.
Yours sincerely,
Robbie the Pict,
authorised agent,
Sketis Heritage Trust
Isle of Skye
Scotland
First lodging of the
critical questions to a man who might actually try to answer
honestly, unless the politicians or their operatives get to
him first.
To: The Lady Diana,
Princess of Wales
LONDON,
England
April 10th, 1996
Dear Princess Diana,
As you may be aware
through media reportage, the SKETIS HERITAGE TRUST has been
formed by five Skye residents who, extremely concerned at
the effect on the vital Tourist Trade of toll charge of
£37.50 each way for a tour bus, wish to bring the Stone of
Scone back to Scotland, initially to the Isle of Skye, where
it would serve as a tourist attraction and hopefully
compensate to some degree for the extortionate toll regime.
(The toll for a car and caravan will be £10.40 each way from
May 1st).
To this end the Trust
has offered the People of England, whom we trust are close
to your heart, the sum of £250,000 in exchange for the
return of the Stone of Destiny to Scotland, but as the first
period of offer closed on April 5th no communication had
been forthcoming on behalf of the People of England and the
Trust wondered if perhaps there was some difficulty in
establishing a negotiating agent who might handle the
English end of things.
The Trust has also a
deep faith in the integrity and decency of the actual People
of England. The Trust believes that if the English People
become properly aware that the Stone was originally stolen
by King Edward 1 in 1296 and that provision was made in a
treaty between the two kingdoms to return 'the stone on
which the Kings of Scots were wont to sit' (Treaty of
Northampton 1328/9), then they would have no difficulty with
the idea of the Stone returning to Scotland.
To this end the Trust
would be honoured if you would accept the role of agent and
negotiator on behalf of the People of England.
The Trust realises
that this may turn out to be a matter of some delicacy but
what good experience for someone aspiring to a full-blooded
diplomatic post. There is a huge constitutional vacuum
between England and Scotland at the level of the People.
Admittedly the People of England were obliged out of their
sovereign role by the 17th century Bill of Rights, while the
People of Scotland retain their sovereign authority, but
that should not prevent communication at a level of mutual
respect if not on constitutional parity. The two peoples
have doubtless much in common.
In practical terms the
proposed office need not be very time consuming. The Stone
is in Westminster Abbey and the Very Reverend Michael Mayne,
Dean of Westminster must be in possession of at least useful
information on the question of alleged ownership in England.
If any difficulties arose on the topic of legal ownership a
telephone call or fax to the Trust contact number would
bring swift legal clarification from the Scottish
perspective.
Yours sincerely,
Robbie the Pict
Authorised spokesman, Sketis Heritage Trust.
I swear the omission
of HRH was neither deliberate nor prophetic. I just thought
a much put-upon lady might like to help get her
mother-in-law done for resetting stolen property.
From: St James's
Palace
LONDON
23rd April, 1996
Dear Mr Pict
The Princess of Wales
has asked me to thank you for your letter of 10th April.
Her Royal Highness was
interested to read your letter but regrets she is unable to
become personally involved and I am sorry to send you this
disappointing reply. Nevertheless, The Princess of Wales has
asked me to send you her very best wishes.
Yours sincerely,
Maureen A. Stevens
The very best wishes
are much appreciated. Looks like I might need some the way
this lot are behaving.
PRESS RELEASE 5th MAY,
1996 SKETIS HERITAGE TRUST, ISLE OF SKYE
INCREASED PURCHASE OFFER for the STONE OF DESTINY
There having
apparently been no-one prepared to negotiate on behalf of
the People of England in order to secure the sum of £250,000
in exchange for the Stone of Destiny, this Trust approached
H.R.H. The Princess of Wales with an invitation to mediate,
but recently received a courteous declination although
transmitting her 'very best wishes'.
There having been no
response from the abbey at Westminster, where a significant
edition of the Stone is believed to be held on display, a
letter was sent to the Very Reverend Michael Mayne, Dean of
the abbey, asking 'Who do you consider to be the legal owner
of the Stone of Scone at present, and is that claim of
ownership under Scots or English Law?'. To date there has
been no reply but in fairness the Trust is aware of an
affirmation to a distinguished member of the Press corps
that the Dean has been very busy and a reply will be
forthcoming.
There having been no
respect accorded by the Crown-Miller Consortium to the
request by the Highland Council not to proceed with the
tourist season increments, and the return toll for a coach
visiting Skye having been increased from £51 to £75 on the
1st of May, the worst fears of this Trust regarding tourist
dissuasion are being realised.
In consideration of these matters, the
Trust feels obliged to make the following announcement;
WE HEREBY OFFER THE
SUM OF HALF A MILLION POUNDS STERLING TO THE PEOPLE OF
ENGLAND, TO DO WITH AS THEY CHOOSE, FOR THE RETURN OF THE
SCOTTISH CORONATION STONE OF SCONE, KNOWN AS THE STONE OF
DESTINY AND CURRENTLY LOCATED UNDER THE MONARCH OF ENGLAND'S
THRONE IN WESTMINSTER ABBEY, LONDON, ENGLAND.
THIS OFFER WILL BE IN
EFFECT FOR A PERIOD OF TEN DAYS ONLY, FROM NOON ON THE 7TH
DAY OF MAY 1996 UNTIL NOON ON THE 17TH DAY OF MAY 1996.
The Trust re-iterates
its proposal to tour the Stone around Scotland with a
viewing charge of not more than £1 sterling until such time
as any purchase price and operational costs have been met,
and then to return the Stone to the People of Scone in the
County of Perth.
The Trust confirms
that Robbie the Pict, founder of the Pictish Free State, the
legal pressure group which holds land on the Isle of Skye on
behalf of the People of Scotland, is authorised to speak and
negotiate on behalf of the Trust ad interim. He is in
possession of legal affirmations which guarantee the new sum
offered but, as was previously stated, has undertaken not to
reveal the identity of the trustees until a legitimate and
competent English agent is identified.
The Trust gives notice
of its intention to approach Glenn Hoddle Esq., coach-elect
of the English football team, to act as intermediary on
behalf of the People of England.
The Trust notes that
the Isle of Skye PFI (Protesters' Funding Initiative) has
set a first target of £100,000 and reserves the right to
make contributions.
From: SKETIS HERITAGE
TRUST, Isle of Skye
May 6th, 1996
Dear Mr Hoddle,
By way of
introduction, the SKETIS HERITAGE TRUST has been formed by
five Skye residents who, extremely concerned at the effect
on the vital Tourist Trade of toll charge of £37.50 each way
for a tour bus, wish to bring the Stone of Scone back to
Scotland, initially to the Isle of Skye, where it would
serve as a tourist attraction and hopefully compensate to
some degree for the extortionate toll regime. (The toll for
a car and caravan is £10.40 each way).
To this end the Trust
had offered the People of England, with whom you now have a
direct relationship, the sum of £250,000 in exchange for the
return of the Stone of Destiny to Scotland, but as the first
period of offer closed on April 5th no communication had
been forthcoming on behalf of the People of England and the
Trust wondered if perhaps there was some difficulty in
establishing a negotiating agent who might handle the
English end of things.
The Trust would wish
to re-iterate its deep faith in the integrity and decency of
the actual People of England. The Trust believes that if the
English People become properly aware that the Stone was
originally stolen by King Edward 1 in 1296 and that
provision was made in the Treaty of Northampton 1329/9 to
return 'the stone on which the Kings of Scots were wont to
sit', then they would have no difficulty with the idea of
the Stone being returned to Scotland. The difficulty the
Trust is experiencing, however, is in finding a prominent
figure absolutely identified with, and who enjoys the trust
and respect of, the People of England.
To this end the Trust
would be honoured if you would accept the role of agent and
negotiator on behalf of the People of England.
In practical terms the
proposed office need not be very time consuming. The Stone
is in Westminster Abbey and the Very Reverend Michael Mayne,
Dean of Westminster must be in possession of at least useful
information on the question of alleged ownership in England.
If any difficulties arose on the topic of legal ownership a
telephone call or fax to the Trust contact number would
bring swift legal clarification from the Scottish
perspective.
You should be aware
that the sum offered for the return of the Stone has been
increased to half a million pounds sterling, and that the
offer is open until noon on May 17th, 1996.
Many thanks for your
time and considerations and for keeping John Spencer sharp
in case we need him for June 15th.
Yours sincerely,
Robbie the Pict
To: The Very Reverend
Michael Mayne
Dean of Westminster
Westminster Abbey
LONDON
England.
12th May, 1996
Dear Reverend Mayne,
May I convey my best
wishes.
I wrote to you on
behalf of this Trust on the 10th of April, just over one
month ago, concerning the question of who might be held to
legally own the Stone of Scone, but as yet have received no
reply.
We do understand that
contemporary matters can give the illusion of being more
pressing but must convey to you that in the opinion of this
Trust the present in Scotland cannot be satisfactorily
resolved into the future until the past has released its
karmic tethers.
The Trust would also
wish to advise you that it has increased the offer-price for
the Stone to £500,000 sterling and that this offer is valid
until noon this Friday, the 17th of May. Perhaps some of the
unfortunates who were kept homeless by the practices of
Westminster Council might appreciate a share of half a
million pounds rather than being unwitting holders of three
hundred-weights of the County of Perth's calcerous freestone
which is of no significance in their lives.
Justicia de moribus.
Yours sincerely,
Robbie the Pict
From: The Dean of
Westminster
The Very Reverend Michael Mayne
Westminster Abbey
LONDON
14 May 1996
Dear Robbie the Pict,
Thank you for your
further letter of 12 May. I am puzzled that you say you have
received no reply as I wrote immediately and I enclose a
copy of my letter dated 24 April. As the Abbey does not own
the Stone of Scone, but simply holds it in trust for the
nation, your offer of half-a-million pounds for it is
irrelevant.
Yours sincerely,
Michael Mayne
His Very Reverendship
does indeed enclose a copy of the missing letter.
From: The Dean of
Westminster
24 April 1996
Thank you for your
letter about the Stone of Scone. It only reached me
yesterday as I have been away from London for ten days.
The answer to your
question is that as the Stone of Scone is owned by the
Crown, I would have thought the Crown's claim to ownership
is under English law, but that you would have to ask them
direct. I guess the best approach might be via the Home
Office. The Stone is certainly not owned by the Abbey, any
more than the Coronation Chair or any of the other Royal
artefacts. We simply provide a home for them.
I am interested to
see, in Nigel Tranter's foreword to Ian Hamilton's A Touch
of Treason, that he writes:
'As for the Stone of
Destiny, Ian admits that the stone may indeed not be the
real one and although he went to so much trouble to abstract
it from Westminster Abbey in 1950, I however, have no doubts
that this one is a 700-year old fake, with which Edward I,
Hammer of the Scots, was palmed off in 1296, the true Lia
Faill being described by the ancient chroniclers as very
different - perhaps ornately carved, of chair-height -
indeed Scotland's Marble Chair.'
(A paragraph is
blanked out at this point. Perhaps he had wished me good
luck in my quest and then felt embarrassed about it since in
the interim the Press had been on to him about the increased
offer).
Yours sincerely
Michael Mayne
From: CHELSEA FOOTBALL
CLUB
Stamford Bridge
London SW6 1HS
16 May 1996.
Dear Robbie the Pict
Thank you for your
recent letter addressed to Glenn Hoddle.
As I am sure you will
appreciate, we have been inundated with requests and letters
for Glenn. Even though is contract does not expire until the
end of this month, we do not anticipate him coming into the
office during the next few weeks. Therefore we can only
suggest that you try and contact him via the Football
Association.
I am sorry we are
unable to be of more assistance to you.
Yours sincerely,
PP. Jane Wilkins
Football Administration
Can't say I was
holding my breath for Glenn baby.
To; Michael Howard M.P.,
Home Secretary
Home Office, Lunar House
CROYDON
England
21 May 1996
Dear Sir,
I write at the
suggestion of the Very Reverend Michael Mayne, Dean of
Westminster, to whom I had made enquiries regarding the
ownership of the Stone of Scone, also known as the Stone of
Destiny.
As you can see from
the copies (enclosed) of his replies, he believes that the
Crown owns the Stone and the Abbey holds it in trust for the
nation.
Since the Scottish
Crown was suspended as a constitutional dynamic on 1 May,
1707, must we take 'The Crown' to mean the English Crown and
should we accept that this view is reinforced by the comment
of the Dean that he would have thought that the Crown's
claim to ownership would be under English Law.
You will understand
that since Scotland preserves a distinct legal system, the
question of just which Crown is claiming ownership is
significant, and while there is no distinction in design
between the English crown and the crown of the United
Kingdom, if such a crown exists, it is important to
establish whether or not we are dealing with the English
Crown under English Law when it comes to the question of a
Crown owning anything.
It would also be
helpful if you agree that the Stone is held by the Abbey on
behalf of the nation, if you would clarify which nation you
understood that to be.
If perchance you do
not recognise England or Scotland as nations and adhere to
the concept of the united kingdoms being a nation, might you
consider the Stone of Scone touring its country of origin so
that the Scots are not obliged to spend huge sums on travel
and accommodation, plus an admission charge of £4 to see
what a significant number of them believe to be their
Coronation Stone.
Many thanks for your
time and consideration.
Yours faithfully,
Robbie the Pict
Apparently the Home
Office still thinks that not replying is a legitimate
option.
To: Michael Howard M.P.,
Home Secretary
Home Office
Lunar House
CROYDON
England
11th June, 1996
Dear Sir,
I wrote to you on 21st
May asking for clarification of your perspective on whether
you agree with the Very Reverend Michael Mayne, Dean of
Westminster, when he opines that the Stone of Scone is owned
by the Crown under English Law. I asked if you were able to
clarify whether the Crown in question was the English Crown,
if it was pretending to own something under English Law. I
asked for which nation you thought the Stone was being held
in trust. Finally I asked if you would consider releasing
the Stone of Scone so that it might at least tour throughout
the Kingdom of Scotland and be more reasonably accessible to
the people who have a recognisable historical connection
with it.
Having received no
reply to those four questions to date, and after more than
two years of patient enquiry being unable to identify any
persona south of the border with a legally competent claim
to ownership, and aware that the Crown of England and the
Nation of England were annulled on 1st May, 1707, I must
assert that any claim to ownership of the Stone of Scone by
either the Crown of England or the Nation of England is a
constitutional absurdity.
I must further assert
that any pretended claim by the notionally united kingdoms
is equally absurd since that concept did not manifest in its
first form, Great Britain, until 411 years after the Stone
was forcibly and illegally removed from Scotland. The
present constitutional arrangement, the United Kingdom
(inexplicably in the singular) enjoys an even less than
absurd claim, it not having come into being until 504 years
after the theft of the Stone from Scone.
In these circumstances
the sovereign People of the Kingdom of Scotland are
perfectly within their legal and constitutional rights to
demand the immediate return of their Coronation Stone.
IF THIS IS NOT DONE
AND THE TREATY OF NORTHAMPTON 1328/9 IS THUS NOT HONOURED BY
NOON THIS FRIDAY, THE 14TH OF JUNE 1996, A STANDING REWARD
OF £250,000 STERLING WILL COME INTO EFFECT AND WILL BE
PAYABLE TO ANYONE WHO RETURNS THE SCOTTISH CORONATION STONE
OF SCONE SAFELY TO THE ISLE OF SKYE.
I trust that your
government will see the political folly of inviting
accusations of both dishonour and criminality.
May I take this
opportunity of wishing your country the best of luck in Euro
'96.
Yours sincerely,
Robbie the Pict
From: HOME OFFICE
Constitutional and Community Policy Directorate
Constitutional Unit
Queen Anne's Gate
LONDON
12 June 1996
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your
letter of 21 May to the Home Secretary about the ownership
of the Stone of Destiny.
This has been passed
to the Scottish Home and Health Department for reply.
Yours faithfully,
Ms S H CLARKE
To: The Home Office
Constitutional and Community Policy Directorate
Queen Anne's Gate
LONDON
SW1H 9AT
1 July 1996
Dear Ms Clarke,
I must apologise for
not being able to address you by your proper title but it
has been omitted from your communication, for which I thank
you.
There has been as yet
no response from the Scottish Home and Health Department and
I fail to understand in what way they might be able to shed
light on the problem. That was certainly their position when
they were asked about the same matter over 2 years ago. In
fact the inability of the entire Crown presence in Scotland
to produce any meaningful answer was what led to enquiries
being made south of the border, in particular to the Queen
of England and the Dean of Westminster who in turn referred
me to you.
The questions which
specifically concern English Constitutional Law, and are
therefore unlikely to be answered by civil servants in
Scotland without training in this field, are as follows;
1. Do you consider
that English Law was annulled as such on 1 May 1707 in
favour of the Law of Great Britain?
2. Acceptance of the
suggestion that the 'Crown' owns the Stone of Scone
obviously gives the said Crown the force of legal
personality in that it has deed and title to something. Is
the 'Crown' in question the English Crown?
3. If the Crown in
question is not the English Crown, but the Scottish Crown,
the British Crown or the United Kingdom Crown, the only
three relevant possibilities, can you explain the
constitutional and legal distinction between any of the
three and the English Crown?
4. If the Crown in
question is indeed the English Crown, and in your estimation
owns the Stone of Scone, is that claim to ownership under
the tenets of English Law or United Kingdom Law, they being
the only two relevant possibilities?
5. If you agree that
the Stone is being 'held by the Abbey on behalf of the
nation' are you able to identify the name of the nation?
6. If the Home Office
position is not to recognise either England or Scotland as
nations but to see the united kingdoms as one nation, what
is the capital city of that nation?
7. If the answer to
question 6 is given as 'London', is Edinburgh not a nation's
capital?
8. Finally, if it is
the Home Office position that the united kingdoms are to be
held to be one nation, designated as 'the United Kingdom', I
must repeat my appeal on behalf of those without the will or
the financial wherewithall to travel to Southern England.
Might the Home Secretary authorise the circulation around
Scotland of what a significant number of Scots deem to be
their ancient Coronation Stone?
These eight questions
are directly and legally relevant to only your office and it
is clearly an evasion of responsibility to attempt to divert
them elsewhere, especially to places they have essentially
been wrongly directed more than two years ago.
I look forward to
receiving your clear and comprehensive replies as soon as
possible, as per the terms of the various Citizens Charters
relevant in England.
Many thanks for your
time and considerations.
The Scottish Office
Home Department
St Andrew's House
Edinburgh
5 July 1996
Dear Sir
Thank you for your
letter of 21 May to the Home Secretary which has been passed
to The Scottish Office for reply.
The Stone is owned by
the Crown, being monarch and Government for the time being
of Great Britain. As far as any queries in relation to Crown
property are concerned, the courts (sic) in Scotland would
apply Scottish law (sic) and the courts in England and Wales
would apply English law.
As you have probably
heard Her Majesty has now decided that the Stone should be
returned to Scotland and consultations are to be held on the
appropriate location for it.
Yours faithfully
Huw Williams.
Gordon Stephen Esq.
Personal Banking Manager
Bank of Scotland
High Street
DINGWALL
County of Ross
IV15 9HL
5 March, 1996
Dear Mr Stephen,
STONE OF DESTINY -
CONFIDENTIAL PROPOSAL
By way of historical
background, summer this year marks the 7th centenary of the
theft of the Scottish Coronation Stone from the Abbey at
Scone. The return of the stone was assured by the Treaty of
Northampton in 1328 but the treaty was not honoured. You
should be aware that Edward's men might have been palmed off
with the Abbey's cess tank lid but, as cess tank lids go, it
has nonetheless become a bit special.
Over a period of 26
months, I have politely corresponded with any party who
might have had a significant role to play in the return of
the stone. From the local police at Scone to the Queen
herself, all have served to thwart any attempt to return the
stolen property and I now believe that I have to change
tactics.
To this end, I would
like to be in a position to offer the People of England a
sum of between £1-19-7d and £250,000. (The lower sum because
that was what it cost to adjust the English throne to
receive the stone and the larger sum because it is an
attention grabbing figure, being the lowest significant
fraction of the magic 'million' word). I would initially
announce an offer of the larger sum but as publicity
opportunities grew, as I believe they surely would, I would
be taking every opportunity to emphasise that the People of
Scotland should not really need to purchase property stolen
from us, especially when its return is supposed to be a
matter of honour under treaty.
To be able to offer
such a sum, its existence would need to be subject to
confirmation by a financial institution like your good
selves, and, in the unlikely event that the Crown agreed to
sell, the sum might have to be paid over, but maybe in
instalments. To make that event even more unlikely, I would
announce it as a condition of the offer that the sum was
available for a period of only 10 days, initially 27 March
to 5 April, 1996. (6 April reflects Scottish Independence
Day, 1320). After which the money will be removed from my
account and returned from whence it came. The supplier of
the offered funds would presumably wish to remain strictly
anonymous, a condition which I undertake to respect totally.
Depending on the media and popular reaction, it might be
interesting to double the sum on offer during a second
period (8 May to 17 May, just prior to Dunnichen Day, 20
May) and again on a third and last offer period (29 May to 7
June) but the profile of the issue may well be sufficiently
high long before then.
From the bank's
perspective, I would be very surprised if the stake money
was lost or if I could not organise a recovery fund, via
rock music concerts etc., in the event that it had to be
paid out. The bank may even consider it part of the P.R.
budget and the revenue lost in interest from not having the
sum available to lend for ten days, maybe only a notional
loss, is less than a full page ad in the Scotsman. On the
plus side, the publicity would be world wide when I
announced that I have authorised the Bank of Scotland to
confirm that one of my accounts contains in excess of
£250,000 but I have notified the bank that this sum will be
returned to its owner at close of business on 5 April unless
it is committed to payment to the 'Dean and Chapter of
Westminster'. (I would propose that the Dean held the sum in
trust until such time as the People of England decided where
to apply the offered sum). Nobody need know that the Bank of
Scotland is also the anonymous lender, and from the
perspective of risk, the money cannot be more safe - with
the obvious exception. (I would of course forego the
interest accruing in my deposit account over ten days in
exchange for the Bank of Scotland foregoing its interest
charges to me!)
I thank you and your
colleagues for the time and consideration you might give to
this proposal. If you feel that it has any prospects in
principle, I would be perfectly happy to discuss any
adjustments thought to be politically or commercially wiser.
Please read this again before deciding to be my friend for
life!
From: The Scottish
Office
EDINBURGH
5 July 1996
Dear Sir
Thank you for your
letter of 21 May to the Home Secretary which has been passed
to The Scottish Office for reply.
The Stone is owned by
the Crown, being monarch and Government for the time being
of Great Britain. As far as any queries in relation to Crown
property are concerned, the courts (sic) in Scotland would
apply Scottish law (sic) and the courts in England and Wales
would apply English law.
As you have probably
heard Her Majesty has now decided that the Stone should be
returned to Scotland and consultations are to be held on the
appropriate location for it.
Yours faithfully
Huw Williams.
Students of the
practices of Homo Sovieticus would recognise the 'change of
personnel-now what's your problem?' technique but this looks
more like the arrival of an innocent abroad. Not up to speed
on the topic but at least he still thinks in terms of there
being Welsh Law. The poor soul is more of a romantic than I
am! Unfortunately for him his has come onto the pitch for
the penalty shoot-out so I had better remind him just on
whose behalf he is answering questions.
To: The Scottish
Office
9th July, 1996
Dear Mr Williams,
I must apologise for
not being able to address you by your proper title but it
has been omitted from your communication of 5th July, for
which I thank you.
I have been advised by
a Ms Clarke of the Home Office Constitutional Unit that you
have asked that she sends my letter of 1st July, directed to
the Constitutional Unit in London, to yourself. Since you
are apparently volunteering to reply on behalf of the Home
Secretary please consider all eight questions as requiring a
reply, although it is appreciated that you may have to
consult with the Home Secretary before you consent to the
possibility of the Stone initially touring Scotland.
Your immediate reply
of 5th July itself raises some new questions.
You state that the
Stone is owned by 'the Crown' and my enquiries regarding
that personality in law are covered by questions 2, 3 and 4,
however you describe that entity in two forms, Monarch and
Government of Great Britain.
I am obliged to draw
your attention to the fact that there has been no such
constitutional entity as Great Britain since the imposition
of the Ireland Act of 1800 which changed the name of the
constitutional arrangement to the United Kingdom,
inexplicably in single form. The treaties of Rome, Helsinki
and Maastricht for example are signed 'The United Kingdom'.
Do you accept this?
I must also draw to
your attention the fact that there was a civil war in
England in the 17th century which resulted ultimately in the
1689 Bill of Rights, a constitutional re-arrangement which
left the Monarch of England only what they called a
'constitutional monarch', devoid of all executive power and
left with only a symbolic courtesy in the form of a
technical right to veto. Under this arrangement executive
power passed to the parliament at Westminster, giving birth
to the English principle of 'parliamentary supremacy'. This
constitutional revolution did not happen in Scotland where
the principle of 'popular sovereignty' prevails. Generally
speaking, the distinction is neither understood or respected
in England and Wales but when it comes to conveying property
it becomes important to be aware of the discrete nature of
the systems. Is the Home Office aware of the difference?
One of the truths of
the notional 'treaty' of union, a concept based on only the
Acts of Union of 1706 and 1707, is that there was no
provision for protecting the survival of the cannon of
English law beyond 1st May, 1707. Provision was made for the
continuance of only the Scottish cannon of law. In
constitutional terms English Law died with the Kingdom of
England in 1707.
You would seem however to have faith in
something which you call English law but is perhaps United
Kingdom law as it applies south of the border. The weakness
with this position would seem to be that United Kingdom law
only came into being with the annexation of Ireland and thus
is 504 years too late to have any relevance to this
question. Can you advise me of the creation of a document
purporting to affirm ownership of the Stone by the Crown in
Parliament since 1800?
You state that 'Her
Majesty has now decided that the Stone should be returned to
Scotland'. I am not at all aware that the United Kingdom's
queen has decided anything regarding the Stone. As I have
explained above she is but a 'constitutional monarch' and
subject to 'advice from her ministers', a description she
herself employs. I was also not aware that the intended
meaning of the announcement by Mr Major was that the Stone
should be returned to Scotland. Since it was stolen from
Scotland that would indeed be proper, and as soon as
possible, but I understood Mr Major to claim that the Stone
remained the property of 'the Crown' and was only on loan to
Scotland. Since you are writing on behalf of the Home
Secretary, Mr Michael Howard QC, the minister directly
responsible for administering the return in whatever form,
can the people of Scotland now take it from you that their
Coronation Stone is actually being returned to its owners on
a permanent basis?
This takes me to my
final question arising from your letter. Under the tenets of
Scots Law it is prudent practice in a deed of conveyance,
whether gifting or loaning, to identify the object, the
donor and the recipient. The object we know is the Scottish
coronation palladium known as the Stone of Scone, the
recipient is the Sovereign People of Scotland whose property
it obviously is and then we have a small difficulty in that
it is not at all clear who the donor might be. Writing on
behalf of the Home Secretary, you state that the donor is
the United Kingdom's queen but as a 'constitutional monarch'
she neither stoops to own or give. The legal identity of the
donor must be properly established before the recipient
could consider taking any form of possession of the item
offered. The recipient would have to be sure that the person
demonstrating sufficient proprietorial attitude to offer in
law had the proper authority to so do, either in his/her own
capacity or in that of lawful and competent agent. So who is
held to own the Stone at present and by what law?
In summation I have
been obliged to ask an additional five questions, making a
total of thirteen. You will appreciate that this being an
affair of state it should be conducted properly by both
sides and perhaps we can avoid planting another 700 years
worth of bitter resentment.
Yours sincerely
Robbie the Pict
From: The
Scottish Office
Home Department
15 July 1996
Dear Robbie the Pict
Thank you for your
letter of 9 July. I am looking into the points you have
raised and will reply in due course.
Yours sincerely
Huw Williams.
We wait with boyish
anticipation.
(The wait ended on
15 November 1996, four months after receiving the above
letter, when the Stone of Destiny was delivered to Edinburgh
Castle, Scotland, at the behest of the monarch, Queen
Elizabeth, and the Prime Minister, John Major).