THE Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Scotland, and a Buckingham Palace spokeswoman have stated that the Stone of Destiny is the property of the Queen. This is certainly an improvement on an earlier English judicial assertion that the stone was the property of the Dean and Chapter of Westminster.

However, the reality is that the stone is the property of the Community of the Realm of Scotland, in whom our temporal sovereignty is vested.

The present-day Dean of Westminster has asked that the religious associations of the stone should be respected. Such concern contrasts un-favourably with the failure of successive abbots and deans of Westminster, as guardians of stolen property for some 700 years, to respect the pre-1296 religious associations of the stone in Scotland, as from the enthronement of Aidan, sixth King of the Scots of Dalriada, by Columba at Dunadd in circa 574 - probably the first-ever Christian ``coronation'' in the British Isles, with Westminster Abbey not being consecrated until 1065.

Indeed, the return of the enthronement stone to Scotland may provide an opportunity to consider arrangements for the inauguration of future kings and queens of Scots.

In terms of dynastic continuity, we are the senior nation in Christendom, with our own national Church and our honours (crown, sceptre, and sword of state).

Accordingly, we should not be beholden for the enthronement of our kings and queens to the national Church of another nation, using its own regalia and Coronation Chair and with its own Coronation Stone at Kingston-on-Thames.

Mr John Maxton, Labour MP for Glasgow Cathcart, has stated that the stone is a symbol of feudal tyranny.

Whatever Mr Maxton was taught at Lord William's Grammar School at Thame in Oxfordshire and at the University of Oxford, he obviously does not know that the feudal system did not reach Lowland Scotland until the twelfth and thirteenth centuries and that, as is abundantly clear from the text of the 1320 Declaration of Arbroath, the kings of Scotland were never ``feudal tyrants''.

Indeed, the very title King or Queen of Scots (rather than of Scotland) indicates an interdependent relationship rather than a feudal arrangement.

There also appears to be some confusion as to the political associations of those involved in the temporary repatriation of the stone in 1950-51.

The original Scottish National Party split in 1942 into an anti-war, anti-conscription, anti-coalition faction - the origin of the present-day SNP - and those patriots such as John MacCormick, who found the cross-party Scottish Convention (1942-1950) and the Scottish Covenant Association (1950-1962).

Although Ian Hamilton and apparently Kay Matheson are now members of the SNP, there is no evidence that any of those actively involved in 1950-51 were then members of the schismatic SNP. Bertie Gray was a Progessive (Tory) councillor in Glasgow, John MacCormick had joined the Scottish Liberal Party (then Federation) by 1945, and Bill Craig was always a Liberal.

Finally, whatever the political motives for returning the stone to Scotland at this time, I would assert that the deed is good.

Alexander S Waugh,

27 Wilson Road,

Banchory.