| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
10.38 pm
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Mr. Walker) on securing this debate, on highlighting the close relationship between Scone in his constituency and the Stone of Destiny and on the persuasive way in which he advanced his case. There are many Scottish Members present, but none from the Labour party or the Liberal Democrats. That will be noted.
The Stone of Destiny is the premier symbol of Scottish kingship and, consequently, an embodiment of our cultural and historical identity. It was associated with the enthronement of Scottish kings as far back as 840 AD, when--as my hon. Friend suggested--Kenneth MacAlpin, King of Scots, took it to Scone.
The stone's legendary origins, however, are much more ancient. It was mythologically identified with the biblical Jacob's pillow--as narrated in Genesis 28, 10-12--when he dreamed of a ladder to heaven,
Against that background, the Prime Minister's historic announcement to the House on 3 July 1996 could be regarded as a belated carrying out of the wishes of Edward III and of English obligations under the treaty of Northampton. In contemporary terms, it should be seen as a gesture of good will to the Scottish people and a confident assertion of their full and equal partnership in the Union.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stated:
Ms Roseanna Cunningham:
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton:
No; I must deal with the many points made in my hon. Friend's speech.
The Prime Minister announced that Scottish and Church opinion would be consulted. Accordingly, today we have issued a consultation paper, which has been circulated to all appropriate organisations and individuals, inviting the general public to contribute their views on the disposition of the stone. The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham), like all hon. Members, will be able to send her representations on behalf of her constituents.
Ms Cunningham:
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton:
No. This debate was initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside, and I must deal with the points that he made. The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross will have an opportunity in due course.
Since the measures that we have announced would be meaningless without public confidence in the stone's authenticity, about which rumours have abounded since its temporary removal from the abbey in 1950, we have today published the confidential files relating to the authentication tests carried out on the stone.
The newly published documentation consists of a set of six files relating to the removal of the Stone of Destiny in 1950 and its return in 1951. The file that is likely to command the greatest public interest is that dealing with authentication, Scottish Record Office file HH41/2099. The investigation that it records was triggered in response to claims advanced in 1972 that the "real" Stone of Destiny was lodged in St Columba's church, Lochee, in Dundee. Bailie Robert Gray, a monumental sculptor in Glasgow, had repaired the stolen stone, and the inquiry was concerned to establish that no last-minute substitution had taken place before its return.
The papers record the very firm conclusions of William Kerr, chief constable of Dunbartonshire--who had been the detective inspector in charge of the hunt for the stone in 1951--that the real stone was returned. They also include a report, in 1951, from the clerk of works at Westminster abbey, setting out his reasons for being certain that the stone that was returned was genuine.
In scientific terms, the papers include a report of July 1973 from the Home Office police scientific development branch of a radiographic examination of the stone, which confirms that it was broken and was repaired by insertion of three metal bolts. That confirms Chief Constable Kerr's report that the original stone had been repaired in that manner while it was in Bailie Gray's care. All that supports the testimony of Ian Hamilton, QC--one of my brother advocates, and one of the four who took the stone in 1950--that the returned stone was authentic.
On the consultation process and the criteria that should apply in determining where the stone should be housed, the consultation paper states:
As my hon. Friend pointed out, the Prime Minister, in his statement of 3 July, said:
I hope, however, that the whole House will join my hon. Friend and me in welcoming the decision that the stone should return to Scotland. The Stone of Destiny is the stuff of legend and history. It is dear to the hearts of the Scottish people. We all look forward to welcoming it home.
The decision to return the Stone of Destiny to Scotland was both historic and courageous. Inevitably, it has been attended by a degree of controversy. Much of that controversy, however, is based on misunderstanding. Let us be clear about the significance of this event.
Some commentators have seen this event as a precedent for repatriation of other historical objects. The Queen, advised by her Ministers, has every right to be consulted about the destination of her property within her realm. The transfer of the Stone of Destiny to Scotland in no way alienates it from the United Kingdom, within which it will still repose.
The stone will be returned for the coronation ceremonies of all future sovereigns of the United Kingdom. On those solemn occasions, the reuniting of the stone with the coronation chair will potently symbolise the Union of Scotland and England under the Crown of the United Kingdom. A century before there was a Union of the Parliaments, Scotland and England were joined by the Union of the Crowns, in 1603. At that time, the King of Scots peacefully inherited the throne of England, thus achieving, in peace and good will, what Edward I and Edward II had been frustrated from accomplishing by force 300 years earlier.
I warmly welcome the return of the Stone of Destiny to Scotland. It is fitting that, during the periods between coronations when it is not required to fulfil its solemn
function, it should repose in its historic homeland. But that homeland is also part of the United Kingdom, of which the Stone of Destiny is now a significant symbol.
My hon. Friend struck a strong chord with me when he said that he was proud to be a Scot. So am I and, like him, I am equally proud to be British. I hope that I shall never have to choose between the two. So, in a way, it is with the Stone of Destiny. It is part of the common heritage of Scotland and Britain. The recognition of its Scottish identity complements its vital role in cementing the combined sovereignty of the United Kingdom.
"And he took of the stones of that place, and put them for his pillows, and lay down in that place to sleep."
Exactly 700 years ago, in 1296, King Edward I of England invaded Scotland and removed the stone from Scone abbey, a building that has since been completely demolished. King Edward's claim to the stone was by right of conquest, but that fiercely contested and short-lived claim lapsed in 1328, when, as an ancillary arrangement attached to the treaty of Northampton, King Edward III ordered the stone's return to Scotland. A writ to that effect was issued on 1 July 1328 under the Privy Seal. The King's writ was defied by the stone's then custodian, and Queen Isabella, the Queen Mother, who was to have taken it north, departed without it.
"After 700 years, it is right to recognise the importance of the stone to the Scottish nation."--[Official Report, 3 July 1996; Vol. 280, c. 974.]
That importance is evidenced by the vigorous debate taking place across Scotland, as an ever-growing number of venues and communities, such as that represented by my hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside and his constituents, press their rival claims to house the Stone of Destiny. Further testimony is provided by the volume of correspondence in the Scottish and British press.
"The place where the Stone is housed should clearly have strong links with the historic past and the surroundings should support and enhance the solemn and historic significance of the Stone itself and should be devoid of incongruous features which might conflict with that. The physical arrangements and ambient conditions for housing and displaying the Stone should be fitting and dignified; both these and the general location should meet the most stringent security requirements.
16 Jul 1996 : Column 1056
We are inviting comments in response to the consultation paper from the public at large and from experts and those with a special interest. I hope that there will be a full and thoughtful response, so that a decision can be reached next month and arrangements made to bring the stone north and install it in its new Scottish home with suitable solemnity.
Accessibility is clearly important. The Stone is presently housed in Westminster Abbey which is open to the public throughout the year and is visited by very large numbers of people. The Stone's new Scottish home should similarly be readily accessible, open all year round and capable of accommodating a continuing high level of visitors without strain. It should also be capable of offering interpretative material of high quality which helps visitors to understand the Stone's historic and ceremonial significance.
Clearly, the Stone should be kept in a place of solemn character. It is currently housed on consecrated ground and there is obviously a case for considering whether its Scottish home should be in a building set aside for religious purposes. Views are invited on this point."
"The stone might be displayed in Edinburgh castle alongside the Honours of Scotland, Europe's oldest crown jewels. Alternatively, it might be appropriate to place it in St. Margaret's chapel inside the castle or in St. Giles' cathedral. There may be other options."--[Official Report, 3 July 1996; Vol. 280, c. 973.]
My hon. Friend made an eloquent case, on behalf of his constituents, for bringing the stone to Scone. We shall certainly take that into account along with all the other representations that we receive. I am sure that he will understand that I cannot be drawn further tonight on where the final choice might lie.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |