House of Commons Hansard Debates for 16 Jul 1996 (pt 34)

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That was a waste of time, because the hon. Gentleman knows full well that that is not a point of order for me.

Mr. Walker: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That sort of action does two things: it destroys the credibility of the case and it demeans those involved.

I believe that we should welcome even those who were less than enthusiastic about the decision to return the stone to Scotland. I shall say more about the Perthshire petition later, because it is important. As everyone knows, the reason given for returning the stone to Scotland was that it is the 700th anniversary of its theft from Scone abbey.

The logic behind that calls for the stone to be returned to the place whence it was stolen. I know that Scone abbey no longer exists, so there will be pressure to place the stone in a suitably consecrated building. We cannot rebuild the abbey, although I can see the merit in building a suitable place of worship in the difficult and dangerous world in which we live. Sadly, Scotland already has too many empty or half-empty places of worship, so rebuilding the abbey is not a realistic or viable option.

So what am I proposing? On Friday 5 July, the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Scotland and many of Scotland's Members of Parliament paid a visit to a special building in Dumfries that houses the remains of Scotland's bard, Robert Burns. My proposal is that the Burns example can be a guide to what we should do with the stone.

A suitable building should be built on the site of the abbey. It would not need to be large--just big enough to house the stone, with sufficient space for the many visitors who would be expected. It would need to be a secure building and, as it would be on the old abbey site, it could be a properly consecrated building.

Sir Michael Neubert (Romford): Does my hon. Friend know that one of the misgivings that some of us have had about the decision is that insufficient attention has been given to the stone's religious connotations? Does he therefore accept the fact that his support for the principle that it be held on consecrated ground is greatly to be welcomed?

Mr. Walker: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I shall say more about consecrated ground later. The building must also be open to the public throughout the year.

I shall now talk about the history of the stone, because I believe that other parts of Scotland will claim that the stone should be brought to them. Legend has it that the stone's history goes back to the time when Jacob used it as a pillow when, as is described in the Bible, he rested his head in Bethel. There is also the somewhat romantic view that the stone arrived in Scotland via Egypt, Spain and Ireland.

It is also claimed by some that Irish kings sat on the sandstone slab when they were crowned, and it is further claimed that the stone groaned if the sitter was royal but

16 Jul 1996 : Column 1052

stayed ominously silent if he was a pretender. I have no knowledge of the stone groaning during the past 700 years, or before that when it was located in Scone.

I understand that the stone was brought to Scone during the ninth century. In 838 AD, Kenneth MacAlpin, King of Scots, brought the stone to Scone. For almost 500 years, it was at Scone. In accordance with custom, the King of Scots was not crowned at the beginning of his reign but was "set upon the stone". Scone was the legendary crowning seat of the kings of Scotland, and 48 kings of Scotland were crowned there, including Macbeth and Robert the Bruce.

In 1296, King Edward I of England--known in history as the "Hammer of the Scots"--removed the stone from Scone abbey. Some claim that the stone stolen may not have been Stone of Scone, and that the abbott and his monks switched stones. Be that as it may--what cannot be disputed is that Edward I removed what he believed to be the Stone of Scone, or the Stone of Destiny. The stone removed to Westminster abbey was used in the coronation of English and then British monarchs after James VI of Scotland became James I of Britain. The stone was certainly believed to be genuine and was used for those purposes.

What also is not in dispute is that on Christmas day 1950, a group of Scottish nationalists believed the stone at Westminster was the Stone of Scone, because they removed the stone from Westminster abbey and returned it to Scotland. I understand that the papers about this and other matters concerning the stone have been released today. I also understand that the papers confirm that the stone in the abbey at Westminster is the stone that was removed by the nationalists in 1950.

The 1970 files have been examined, and I understand that the national library of Scotland has been convinced by the X-rays that show the position of the bolt used in the repair to the damage caused during the removal from Westminster abbey on Christmas day 1950. I also understand that a clerk of works at Westminster abbey, William Bishop, examined the returned stone and declared it to be the stone that he had earlier examined in detail while it had been in the abbey before Christmas day 1950.

In 1984, the late and sadly missed Donald Stewart moved a motion in the House calling for the stone at Westminster to be returned to Scotland. The motion said:

"Its retention in England all this time is outrageous and unjustified."

So Donald Stewart and his nationalist colleagues believed the stone at Westminster to be genuine at that time--otherwise he would not have moved the motion.

Then there was the promise, or pledge, given to return the stone to Scotland. The 14th-century treaty of Northampton decreed that the stone should