THE Stone of Destiny liberators were identified by moles placed in the nationalist movement by the British state, newly released government files have suggested.
The National Archive at Kew files, which have been kept under wraps for almost 75 years, revealed details regarding the hunt to identify Ian Hamilton, Kay Matheson, Gavin Vernon and Alan Stewart.
The four Scottish students reportedly left King George VI “deeply distressed” after liberating the Stone of Scone from Westminster Abbey on Christmas Day in 1950.
READ MORE: FM wants unit to respond to misleading independence claims to be ready by autumn
The newly declassified documents reveal that struggling Special Branch detectives used Scottish-based informants to figure out who was behind the heist.
Correspondence from the Metropolitan Police in March 1951 showed that after three months of investigating, they were tipped off that Matheson, then a 22-year-old domestic science student teacher based in Glasgow, was involved.
“On the 24th January, 1951, she was seen at her lodgings in Cleveden Drive, Glasgow, by Detective Inspector Kerr, Special Branch,” the files state.
“She made a complete denial of having anything at all to do with the theft of the stone and said that on Christmas Day she was at home at Firemore, Inverasdale, Ross-shire.”
Matheson’s strong denial and alibi left investigators at a dead end once again.
However, the files also revealed that the Met made a breakthrough after making “certain inquiries” through “certain informants” based north of the border.
According to the files, the information the moles were able to provide brought officers to the “irresistible conclusion that [Matheson] had been one of the party concerned in the theft of the stone”.
READ MORE: ‘People pick up on flip-flopping from Labour’, says Katy Loudon
“Information has also now been obtained as to her possible companions,” the document adds.
Officers went to the homes of Vernon, Stewart and Hamilton shortly afterwards.
The trio were students at the University of Glasgow and members of the Scottish Covenant Association, which called for the re-convention of the Scottish Parliament in Edinburgh.
Hamilton (below), who became the final member of the group to pass away in October last year aged 97, was reportedly entirely unperturbed by the prospect of being interrogated.
“Hamilton denied all knowledge of being concerned in the theft of the coronation stone and flatly refused to make any statement at all,” one senior officer wrote.
“Although he made no complaint to me about being interviewed — in fact he seemed to enjoy the opportunity to explain to me whom he considered the lawful custodian of the stone should be — he strongly resented me having interviewed his friend Miss Matheson.
“All the other persons whom I had cause to see in connection with this inquiry in Scotland were either extremely helpful or politely uncooperative.”
The files also show that the presence of English detectives on Scottish soil did not go down well with senior members of the judiciary.
READ MORE: SNP's policy convener calls for 'transparency' from MSPs in opposition to Greens deal
John Wheatley, the lord advocate at the time and most senior law officer, raised his concerns with Scotland Yard in the spring of 1951.
He wrote: “The lord justice general [the most senior judge in Scotland] has written to me regarding the recent inquiries by Scotland Yard detectives in Scotland in relation to the theft of the Stone of Destiny,”
“He represented that there was strong feeling that English detectives should come up here to pursue their inquiries and that the method adopted in conducting the actual inquiries was giving rise to a great deal of public dissatisfaction and criticism.
“The lord justice general [Lord Cooper, former unionist MP] expressed the grave concern of the judges and of other people connected with the law regarding the manner in which these interviews have taken place.
“We must be able to resist any suggestions that undesirable methods are being resorted to.
“If it should transpire that the procedure followed in this case justified critical comment, then steps ought to be taken to ensure that the procedure is rectified in future.”
After a hasty journey from Westminster Abbey to Scotland, where the Stone split in two, and avoiding roadblocks, the gang had authorities on the edge for months.
Eventually, they left the stone, wrapped in a saltire, at Arbroath Abbey in April 1951.
READ MORE: Tony Blair Institute continues to receive money from Saudi Arabia
Sir Hartley Shawcross reportedly persuaded then Labour prime minister Clement Atlee that taking the students to court would backfire.
He argued that they would be regarded as “martyrs if they were convicted, or heroes if they were acquitted”.
Wheatley came to a similar conclusion, writing: “The prevailing view in Scotland is that those who removed the stone were foolish rather than criminal . . . and that it would do no good, and might do considerable harm, to proceed against them.”
The four students admitted their involvement after being assured that no action would be taken against them.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel