SNP and Green MSPs have blocked a Holyrood inquiry into Peter Murrell. But the party still faces questions over how its former chief executive was able to steal so much money.
Was public money involved?
Tens of millions of pounds in donations and other contributions flowed through the SNP’s accounts during the time of Murrell’s offending, including at least £8m of public money – known as Short money – which is given to all political parties with representation at Westminster. Over £2m was also given to the SNP in policy development grants from the Electoral Commission.
John Swinney has previously downplayed the idea of Murrell having spent public funding and insisted the Electoral Commission had found no issue with the accounts provided to it by the SNP.
The Scottish Affairs Committee at Westminster has since written to both the Commission and Commons authorities demanding clarification on the matter.
How was the £600,000 of donations spent?
The SNP has yet to give a detailed answer on how it spent £667,000-worth of donations it raised during two online fundraisers from 2017 onwards. The first, called ScotRef, raised almost £500,000 of a £1m target before it was shut down in June 2017 after the party’s underwhelming general election result.
The second website, Yes.scot, was launched after Boris Johnson’s general election victory in 2019 and took the fund to almost £667,000. The party insisted in June 2017 that the money was “ring-fenced” for a referendum campaign. In June 2021, Sturgeon denied that the money had “gone missing”, insisting “every penny” would be used on a referendum campaign.
Then SNP treasurer Colin Beattie later admitted the money had been used for other purposes, but insisted “amounts equivalent to the sums raised will be spent for the intended purpose”.
Why were whistleblowers ignored?
It’s now a matter of public record that several SNP members had serious concerns about the party’s finances from 2020 onwards, stemming from the apparent disappearance of the £600,000 raised for referendum campaigning. This led to several long-serving Nationalists to launch a campaign to be elected to office bearer roles, in an attempt to scrutinise the books. MP Douglas Chapman ousted Colin Beattie as SNP treasurer in 2020 – only to quit in May the following year, claiming he “had not received the support or financial information required to carry out the fiduciary duties of National Treasurer.”
Despite this, Nicola Sturgeon gave repeated private and public assurances about the SNP’s financial health. In a video leaked to the Sunday Mail, and filmed in March 2021, she told members of the party’s ruling body: “There are no reasons for people to be concerned about the party’s finances”, before warning members against suggesting otherwise. In a TV interview a few months later, she insisted that “money hasn’t gone missing”.
Why did Nicola Sturgeon refuse to answer questions at her police interview?
Anyone interviewed by police under caution is under no obligation to answer questions – the famous “right to remain silent”. But the revelation the former first minister had replied “no comment” to questions put to her by detectives following her arrest in 2023 was seized on by Scottish Conservatives leader Russell Findlay, who described it as a “tactic of organised crime”.
In a response issued by solicitor Aamer Anwar on behalf of Sturgeon, he said the answer was standard legal advice. “In relation to the advice tendered to Ms Sturgeon to make no comment, this was by her solicitor, formerly a very senior crown counsel at Crown Office,” Anwar said.
Sturgeon has previously insisted she cooperated fully with the Operation Branchform investigation. Her name was on a file of evidence prepared by police upon the conclusion of their investigations and passed to the Crown Office. It was prosecutors who ultimately decided she should face no further action.
Why was Peter Murrell’s hearing pushed back until after the election?
This is a question less for the SNP and more for the Crown Office and Murrell’s defence team. The former SNP CEO was originally due in court on February 20. But prosecutors announced at 5pm on February 13 his court date had been pushed back until May 25 – three weeks after the Holyrood election.
The request to delay was made by Murrell’s lawyers to Lord Young, the judge presiding over the case, who argued they needed more time to prepare. Prosecutors have since said it is stand procedure for the Crown to agree to a delay if one is requested by the defence.
But the choice of date for the new hearing – weeks after the conclusion of the Scottish Parliament election campaign – raised eyebrows, to put it mildly. Or as now former Tory MSP Douglas Ross put it: “this absolutely stinks”.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login