I NOTICE some readers are concerned about the Stone of Destiny being returned to London for the new King’s coronation. Can I just reassure your readers that the “Stone of Destiny” will not be going to London any time soon? Unless it is there already! One of your readers referred to it as the “Stone of Scone”, and that’s what it is. But it’s not the Stone of Destiny.

There is a tradition that when Edward I was marching towards Scone Abbey, where the Stone was kept, the monks of the Abbey removed it and hid it. They replaced it with a slab of stone cut from a local quarry. It has been scientifically proven that the stone that lay under the throne in Westminster Abbey for almost 750 years is a piece of sandstone that matches the quarries near Scone. Tests were carried out shortly before its return to Scotland and it was pronounced “dubious”.

READ MORE: Alba want 100 Scots to guard Stone of Destiny on journey to London for Charles's coronation

It’s perhaps significant that it was only after its return to Scotland had been agreed and arranged that these tests were carried out. While it was retained in Westminster’s possession it was the “Stone of Destiny”. It was only upon its imminent return to Scotland that it was pronounced a fake.

Legend tells us that the “Scots” originated somewhere in the Middle East, possibly around the Jordan or Egypt area. They had in their possession a “sacred stone” and they carried it with them in their travels through north Africa, western Europe (Portugal, Basque country, Brittany etc), eventually arriving in Dalriada via Wales and Ireland. This was the true Stone of Destiny. Some say it was actually “Jacob’s pillow” from the Bible story. Nobody really knows. Allowing that it did actually travel with them for all that time, then it certainly was not a piece of sandstone cut from a quarry in Perthshire!

READ MORE: Kevin McKenna: The UK has regressed into an 18th century parody of itself

There was an article in The Scots Magazine on this subject away back in the late 1960s to early 1970s. It told of an archaeological expedition by Dundee University at Macbeth’s castle at Dunsinane during the 19th century. In the course of that expedition they came upon an underground chamber in which they found a large black slab of stone, possibly of volcanic or meteoric origin, covered in hieroglyphs. Black glass is how they described it. There was no apparent reason for it to be there and the suggestion was made that this might be the stone hidden by the monks of Scone.

It was therefore decided to send it to the Science Museum in London for tests. It certainly left on its journey, but apparently it never arrived at its destination – or so we are told. Did someone realise its potential value and decide to stow it away somewhere? Did it actually arrive, and the museum hushed up both its arrival and the results of their investigations? Was it the real Stone of Destiny? And is it still in London’s possession? All questions to which we are unlikely to ever know the answers – but intriguing nevertheless.

But it does mean that King Charles III will be crowned sitting above a lump of stone cut from a Perthshire quarry and nothing more significant than that.

Charlie Kerr

HAMISH Morrison’s article (BBC slammed over John Knox ‘cleared Catholics out of Scotland’ comment, Sep 13) on Tuesday, highlighted the flippancy of BBC reporters regarding their inaccurate and unresearched interpretation of the Reformation in Scotland. This, along with numerous opinions on the public’s attitude to the monarchy based on the crowd numbers at this unique event and speculation on the private feelings of the late Queen and new King on Scottish independence, appear to be symptomatic of the media in general.

Are the high standards of diligence, accuracy and behaviour required for impartial reporting always conscientiously observed when reporting on Scottish matters?

John Jamieson
South Queensferry

GERRY Hassan and your contributor Thomas Muir (Website comments, Sep 14) can be forgiven for continuing to use the “Britain” word. They do need to know, though, that “Britain” never was, and is not now, an island or a country.

“Great Britain” is the name given to the island. It contains three clearly identifiable countries, England, Scotland and Wales, and as such, the only nationalities available are English, Scottish and Welsh.

This island was known to the Greeks as “Insula Albionum”, the “island of the Albions”. So, originally, the island we now call “Great Britain” was called “Albion” by the Romans, who invaded it in 55BC, but later this name changed.

READ MORE: Gerry Hassan: A new Britain cannot be built on hereditary entitlement

The term “Britain” comes from “Britannia”. The term “Brittania” applied to England and Wales alone; Scotland was known as Caledonia. However, after the Romans left the term “Britannia” (or Britain) was not used for a very long time .

It was revived in the age of the Empire, when it had more significance, and so Scots have had 300 years of indoctrination, now pressed even further home by another Johnson lie, with his “British” passport.

We really do need to shrug off this last vestige of colonialism.

Christopher Bruce