We have today sent the following email to the Crown Office.

——————————————————————–

3 August 2026

Thank you for your letter of 30 July. I offer one last chance to reconsider. I do so having, once again, taken advice from the Dean of the Faculty of Advocates.

On 1 July, you wrote to me saying inter alia:

“No one was reported to the procurator fiscal in relation to charges of fraud. However, as part of a full and thorough police investigation by Police Scotland and the procurator fiscal, full consideration was given to whether the crime of fraud could be established.  That investigation did not disclose sufficient evidence of fraud, or for any crime other than the crime of embezzlement. These conclusions were agreed by the procurator fiscal, by Crown Counsel who was a KC and by a reviewing KC.”

The following day, I responded as follows:

“I note that you have advised that “full consideration was given to whether the crime of fraud could be established.  That investigation did not disclose sufficient evidence of fraud, or for any crime other than the crime of embezzlement. These conclusions were agreed by the procurator fiscal, by Crown Counsel who was a KC and by a reviewing KC.”

I agree that the evidence to which I have pointed demonstrates the crime of embezzlement. Indeed, that is what I said to you in my previous correspondence. The point is, however, that there are two instances of embezzlement: that to which Mr Murrell pled guilty (ie his embezzlement from the SNP); and that which has not been the subject of investigation or prosecution, for reasons which remain unclear.

The evidence to which I have pointed admits of little doubt. In short:

1. Money was ingathered by the SNP on the basis of assurances that it would be “ringfenced” for defined purposes.
2. That money was thereafter subject to a trust under Scots law, in terms of which it could only be spent for those defined purposes.
3. The First Minister of Scotland has now confirmed that the money was spent on other matters.

It really is that simple. It defies belief to think that the PF and two KCs could look at that simple factual matrix and conclude that there was no evidence of a crime. That being so inherently unlikely, I can only assume that those involved were not considering that point, and were (as your last message suggests) considering rather whether or not it could be shown that fraud was involved in the solicitation of donations. I can quite understand that proving fraudulent intent at the time the donations were sought would be difficult.

But again (and at the risk of repetition) that is not the point. Assume that the donations were solicited in bona fide for the defined purposes: thus no fraud in ingathering the money. That does not answer the question which I am posing, which is on what possible basis could it be lawful for those donations then to be spent on anything other than the defined purposes for which they were solicited?”

You have now, by your email of 30 July, responded thus (in an email which used two different fonts, suggesting a cut-and-paste from earlier emails, as is clearly what has happened):

“We are not able to discuss the detail of the evidence. As we noted in out (sic) earlier response and in the information that we have published …  the Crown’s assessment of Operation Branchform included the allegation of fraud, and the embezzlement for which Peter Murrell was prosecuted. Full consideration was given to whether the crime of fraud could be established against any individual.  The evidence did not disclose sufficient evidence of fraud, or for any crime other than the crime of embezzlement.”

That just parrots the earlier, incomplete and unsatisfactory answer to my queries. It betrays either an unwillingness or an inability to grasp basic legal propositions.

I’m not sure I can make the point any simpler: but I will try.

1. I know you have considered, and discounted, the possibility of fraud. That is not my complaint.
2. I know you have evidence of embezzlement: that is the very point I am seeking to make.
3. The undisputed facts of this case show that there were two instances of embezzlement: Murrell (now convicted) embezzling from the SNP; and the SNP – as the First Minister himself has admitted publicly – embezzling from the ring-fenced referendum funds.
4. Every time I raise this with you, you say “we found no evidence of fraud”. I accept that. I am not asking you to reconsider that. Please do not address this again.
5. Rather, I am pointing out, and have gone to the significant trouble of obtaining an opinion from the actual Dean of the Faculty of Advocates showing, that there has been a second instance of embezzlement which has not only happened at the hands of the governing party in Scotland, but has been openly admitted by the First Minister of Scotland.
6. This is really very simple. It would be apparent to a first-year law student. If COPFS is not prepared to investigate that which is under their very noses, by way of apparent fact and clear admission, then there are only two possibilities: COPFS is institutionally inept, or COPFS is institutionally corrupt. Neither would be a good look.
7. For one final time, I thus offer this simple invitation: given the legal analysis of the Dean of Faculty on facts which are as clear as day, can you please explain why COPFS is turning a blind eye? I am not asking you to discuss the evidence. No such discussion is needed: the facts are clear and admitted. This turns entirely on legal analysis. If you have a coherent legal answer to the Dean’s analysis, I will be very happy to ask him why he has got things wrong. If you do not, certain conclusions follow, as night follows day. None of them would be good for the rule of law in Scotland.

Please do not make the mistake of thinking that I will eventually get bored and go away. I will not. The eyes of the world are on COPFS. The country, and COPFS itself, prides itself on Scotland being a place where justice will be done without fear or favour. Fiat justitia, ruat caelum, no? Or is that all to be sacrificed in the interests of political quietude?

For the avoidance of doubt, I have run this email past the Dean. He is, and has indicated that I may so confirm, comfortable that I send it to you. I hope, in earnest, that this will now be given proper and mature consideration. Anything less will devalue COPFS, and its supposed independence, irremediably.

I thus ask that this be placed before a Senior Depute for consideration, and that a proper response be provided. If there is a legal answer showing that the admitted facts do not demonstrate a crime, I am happy to hear it. If there is not, a “hear no evil, see no evil” approach is one that I would suggest needs to be looked at further.

I look forward to hearing from you.

——————————————————————–

Doubtless we’ll receive the same reply as before, but in three different fonts, in around a month’s time, so make a note in your diaries, readers.

Gigantic inflatables of Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin puckering up drew attention during a Pride parade in the Netherlands this weekend.

Video shared online showed revelers dancing to electronic music aboard a boat taking part in Amsterdam’s WorldPride 2026 Canal Parade as the towering figures were inflated.

At first, the pair appeared to face off, each holding flowers behind their backs.

They were then moved together to create the illusion that they were kissing.

Those behind the installation, which was titled “The Kissing Couple,” said they did not want “to provoke, but to pause power for a moment and highlight something human.”

Trump has repeatedly praised Putin, who has overseen sweeping anti-LGBTQ+ laws in Russia. The duo has previously been depicted kissing, most notably in a street mural that appeared ahead of the 2016 election.

©Alamy.Cheese Scientist

Any discussion with Dame Prue Leith moves at a breathless pace. Over the course of our sit-down conversation, we travel from apartheid-era South Africa to the Sorbonne in the early 1960s, and on to her current campaign for the right to a dignified death in later life.

It feels that Leith has crammed the contents of several lifetimes into one. Born in South Africa, Leith tells us that her upbringing was in many respects one of privilege. However, she adds that history teaches us that privilege can sometimes be an enabler for driving change rather than an obstacle to it.

“It’s interesting how often female heroes come from the educated middle classes or upper classes,” she tells us. “Because they’re the people who had the time and the leisure and the education to realise how they could change things.”

She points to the example provided by her own mother, South African actor Margaret Inglis. Leith has clear memories of her, along with other middle-class women, actively protesting against the inequities of the apartheid state.

“I remember my mother coming home one day and she was wearing a black coat,” she remembers. “It was winter, and it was covered in egg yolk because she’d been on the town hall steps and pro-apartheid morons have been throwing eggs at them.”

For any interviewer, getting Leith to open up is not difficult. She clearly relishes recounting elements of what is, by any standards, a remarkable life.

“First of all, I’m a complete blabbermouth,” she laughs. “I’ll tell anybody anything. I think I embarrass my family sometimes. I remember when I wrote my most recent book, and I gave a copy to my son. He said, ‘ Oh my God, mum, not more revelations, please’.”

It is that openness, and Leith’s ability to connect with different audiences, that has led to her becoming one of the best-known broadcasters in the UK. You get the sense that for Leith, speaking out is itself an act of liberation. That was not always the case. During her childhood in South Africa, she remembers that there were many conversational topics that were firmly off limits.

“When I was young, there were things you didn’t talk about at dinner. You didn’t talk about politics. You didn’t talk about sex. You didn’t talk about money. You didn’t talk about food,” she says. “God knows what you did talk about. Those are the interesting things. There’s nothing left.”

Leith’s willingness to step into areas where conversations may previously have been off-limits is a quality that has encouraged the broadcaster to speak out in recent years in support of assisted dying. She is a patron of Dignity in Dying, an organisation campaigning to allow everyone the right to a good death. It is a cause that she became passionate about after watching her brother, David, suffering with terminal bone cancer on a hospital ward.  

“Sometimes he would be begging, crying, screaming,” she recalls. “I remember once him absolutely yelping. It’s very unpleasant for everybody else in the ward. And it’s horrible for the nurses, and they’re powerless to do anything about it.”

That experience led to Leith joining other voices in pressing for a change to the law to allow terminally ill people more choice at the end of their lives.

Leith is now 86. I ask her whether her own death is something she contemplates more as she gets older.

“Oh, of course,” she says. “Everybody does. I don’t fear death. I certainly don’t welcome it. You know, I don’t want to die, but I do want to be able to die if I find life intolerable.”

That option is currently not available to Leith or indeed to anyone else seeking choice at the end of their lives. Recent legislation to allow assisted dying failed to clear the House of Lords after some peers used procedural devices to slow its progression. Leith tells us that she is angry at the way that happened, describing the behaviour of some peers as “disgraceful.”

“It actually brings the House of Lords into disrepute,” she says. “The reason that a bill goes to the Lords is that they’re supposed to scrutinise it and improve it. They are not meant to bury it under over a thousand amendments. They let the side down. But it’s coming back, and I think it might get through. It’s time.”

Leith remains optimistic that the weight of public support behind a change to the law means that it will eventually happen. She tells us that such a change is desperately needed, despite the efforts of the bill’s opponents, who include her own son, Reform MP Danny Kruger.

“He really leads the anti-assisted dying crowd, which is a bit ironic,” she tells us. “But I have got him to admit that if it’s legal, he will hold my hand when my time comes. He said, if it’s illegal, and I still do it, he’ll have to look the other way.”

That exchange typifies Leith. She is a woman who has spent a lifetime refusing to avoid difficult conversations. Whether campaigning for better school food or for greater choice at the end of life, her instinct is always to confront difficult subjects honestly and openly.

“Nearly everything that I’ve got involved with has been because of personal experience,” she says. “Just feeling, ‘This is wrong, somebody should do something about it.’ And because I’m a bossy woman, it tends to occur to me that I could do something about it.”