Further to Monday’s letter from the Deputy Chief Constable, we’ve submitted the following Freedom Of Information request to Police Scotland.

———————————————————————-

To: FOI

15 July 2026

This week I received a letter from DCC Stuart Houston. It notes in part:

“During this time, Police Scotland utilised financial investigators, financial analysts and a forensic accountant to fully investigate the circumstances surrounding reported irregularities. Consideration was given to other crime types, such as, but not limited to, those listed in your letter. 

These matters were also fully investigated, and all of the circumstances were reported to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service for advice and guidance.”

As Police Scotland announced that Operation Branchform was closed on 26 May 2026 and is no longer a live investigation requiring confidentiality, and as the matter is of such great public interest – involving as it does the extremely grave matters of public confidence in the Scottish Government and the integrity and independence of Police Scotland and COPFS when investigating potential crimes committed by members of that government – the information I request is therefore as follows:

(1) What advice and guidance was received from the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service specifically regarding the initial complaint about the Scottish National Party’s suspected misappropriation of “ringfenced” fundraiser money (rather than the subsequent offence of embezzlement against the Party for which Peter Murrell was prosecuted and convicted)?

(2) On which date/s was this advice and guidance received?

(3) On which date (an approximate one, eg “August 2023” or “Spring 2022”, will suffice if a more precise one cannot be identified) did Police Scotland cease investigations into the original complaint of misappropriation of funds by the SNP (again as opposed to Peter Murrell’s subsequent embezzlement from the Party)?

(4) Did they do so on the grounds that (a) no crime was identified, or that (b) there had been a crime but the perpetrator/s could not be identified, or that (c) there had likely been a crime but evidence was insufficient for a prosecution, or for some other reason?

In the interests of transparency I can see no justifiable reason for these facts being withheld from the public.

The integrity of the government, police and prosecution service is not a matter of mere curiosity or prurience. It is vital to public faith in national institutions and I will pursue this matter with the Information Commissioner if necessary.

———————————————————————-

We’ll be sending a similar one to the Crown Office, and our solicitor will also be writing to Police Scotland separately. We’ll continue to keep you posted.

Mark Webber reflects on the key outcomes of last week’s NATO summit in Ankara.

Task proliferation is not a criticism one can any longer level at NATO. The alliance has spent the last two years stripping itself of responsibilities and political missions it once regarded as essential. The issues of climate change or Women, Peace and Security (WPS) still have their adherents within the NATO bureaucracy, but neither figured in the business of last week’s Ankara summit (or, indeed, at last year’s Hague summit). A shared interest among allies in out-of-area missions, meanwhile, evaporated with the frantic withdrawal from Afghanistan in the summer of 2021. NATO’s training mission in Iraq decamped from Baghdad to Naples in March. KFOR still helps keep the peace in Kosovo –but rumours abound that its American contingent will soon be pulled and the mission transferred to EU oversight (much like EUFOR in Bosnia). Even China, a NATO agenda item introduced by the first Trump administration and sustained under Joe Biden, is currently missing in action. It is absent from (the admittedly short) Ankara summit declaration and was mentioned only fleetingly by Secretary General Mark Rutte in his many summit remarks. A concern with ‘the persistent threat of terrorism’ remains, but only out of deference to Turkey, the summit host.

As the summit declaration makes clear, NATO is concentrating on the basics of collective defence – ‘counter[ing] the long-term threat [of] Russia’ and, by extension, offering ‘unwavering support for Ukraine.’ By demonstrating the Europeans (and Canada) can discharge those two tasks, NATO fulfils a third – keeping a sceptical United States constructively engaged in a complex process of NATO ‘Europeanisation.’ The leitmotif here is ‘a stronger Europe in a stronger NATO’ – a process whereby European allies assume more responsibility in the traditionally US-dominated NATO command structure while also shouldering a greater material burden of common defence.

Getting this right is a matter, first, of political art. At Ankara, President Donald Trump was mollified and indulged in equal measure. Allied leaders and the Secretary General took on the chin Trump’s opening press conference salvoes – that the NATO allies had not backed the United States over the war with Iran, that they were still deficient on defence spending and that Greenland should come under American control. On these matters, there was little public pushback, hence little argument. Trump, in the words of John Bew, was held in check by a ‘controlled explosion.’ Further, the American president was the subject of a collective encomium performed by allied prime ministers and presidents. Trump departed Ankara praising the love and unity he had witnessed.
As for the practicalities, here the hard work was carried out well before the summit. America’s preferred model of European security – a ‘NATO 3.0’ in which America’s ‘allies […] step up and assume primary responsibility for the conventional defence of Europe’ – had been flagged by Under Secretary of War for Policy, Elbridge Colby in February. This ‘rightsizing’ of America’s commitment was, on paper at least, completed in short order. NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR), General Alexis Grynkewich, declared in early July that the ‘European allies [had] largely filled the gaps left by U.S. reductions to the NATO Force Model.’

This process of substitution still has a long way to run. The gaps filled, currently sit in a force-generation spreadsheet – and some of these commitments represent pledges of future effort not an ability to deliver in the present. Even with ramped up defence spending, industry on both sides of the Atlantic is struggling to keep up with demand. The summit’s Defence Industry Forum – a carefully-staged PR event of announcements and contract-signings – provided, nonetheless, evidence of the scale of ambition. The development of deep-strike capabilities, integrated air and missile defences, air-to-air refuelling, satellite and aerial surveillance, and the safeguarding of critical materials are all intended, in the words of the summit’s Strategy for Industry-NATO Cooperation,  ‘to ensure that the capabilities required for NATOʼs deterrence and defence can be effectively generated, scaled and sustained.’

The timelines for these projects run years into the future. Delivery depends on maintaining high defence budgets (still a test for fiscally challenged governments in France, Italy and the UK). And integrating these new capabilities within NATO’s force and command structures and defence planning process – already complex enough – will have to be done in accordance with an unprecedented premise: the replacement of ‘the US “backbone’” in European deterrence.’

Out of necessity, NATO is gravitating toward a ‘high minimum’ – garnering the forces necessary to achieve its most basic of tasks and ignoring those which are secondary.  For all its seeming simplicity, this will entail something other than moving NATO back, in Colby’s imagining, to version 1.0 of the Cold War.  That NATO was sustained by persistent American leadership (now in doubt), British fortitude and reliability (also in doubt) and German quiescence (a thing of the past). The NATO of the near future will accommodate Germany as the coming European power, partner with Ukraine as Europe’s most formidable fighting force and defence innovator, and cooperate with the European Union as an agent of defence procurement and defence industry integration.

Following the Cold War, it was often argued that NATO required new tasks and new responsibilities to keep it relevant. That argument is rarely heard today.  NATO has been forced back to basics by Russian belligerence and fear of American abandonment. That course is now set for the foreseeable future. It seems unlikely there will be a NATO summit in 2027. With no new political deliverables, one may not be needed.

By Mark Webber, Professor of International Politics, University of Birmingham.

(David Crausby / Alamy)

4 min read38 min

What marks out this research is that, alongside analysing the data, we listened to children and young people describe their experience of growing up in today’s education system. We heard parents talk about the hopes they have for their children, and listened to teachers, school leaders, employers and community organisations trying to make a difference in exceptionally challenging circumstances.

For much of the past three decades, education policy has rightly focused on narrowing gaps in attainment and expanding opportunity. We should recognise how much progress has been made. Outcomes have improved for many groups of children. More young people now leave education with opportunities that simply did not exist a generation ago.

But one uncomfortable truth remains. White working class children continue to experience some of the weakest educational outcomes in England. This isn’t a new problem, nor one that has been ignored. Schools, governments and charities have all tried to improve outcomes for disadvantaged children. Yet despite these efforts, progress for this particular group has remained frustratingly limited.

The temptation is to search for a single explanation. Some argue aspirations are too low, others point to poverty, while others blame schools or families. Our Inquiry suggests the reality is considerably more complicated. We found parents who cared deeply about their children’s education and wanted them to succeed. We found teachers working tirelessly on behalf of their pupils. We found children who wanted successful futures.

What we also found, though, was a growing disconnect between many white working class communities and the education system. Again and again, we heard families questioning whether education still offered the certainty of opportunity it once had. Many parents spoke about struggling to see how success at school connected to the lives their children were likely to lead. Many young people told us they found it difficult to understand why what they were learning mattered to their future.

This should concern us all. Not because any one political party or government is responsible, but because confidence in education is essential if families are to believe it can still improve their children’s lives.

That is why I hope our report is read as an invitation to think differently. This isn’t about ranking disadvantage or suggesting one group matters more than another. Poverty remains the greatest predictor of poor educational outcomes across every ethnic group. But good policymaking means paying attention to where disadvantage persists, understanding why, and responding accordingly.

Neither is this simply about exam results. Throughout the Inquiry we heard about belonging, confidence, relationships, transitions, careers guidance, local opportunity and helping young people see a future worth striving for. Educational success is about much more than qualifications alone.

Nor is this a criticism of schools. One of the most hopeful aspects of our work was visiting schools and colleges already achieving strong outcomes for white working class pupils. Their success reminds us that poor outcomes are not inevitable.

The recommendations we have published deliberately form a long-term agenda rather than a short-term programme. Some could be implemented relatively quickly, while others will require investment, structural reform and sustained commitment over many years. That is inevitable. Problems that have developed over generations cannot be solved overnight.

But if there is one lesson I hope politicians of every party take from this Inquiry, it is that improving outcomes for white working class children should not be a partisan cause. It should be a national one. Every child deserves to believe that education is for them, that their efforts matter, and that success is achievable regardless of where they grow up. That is an ambition surely worth uniting around.

Baroness Morris is a Labour peer and co-chair of the Independent Inquiry into White Working Class Educational Outcomes

10 min read12 min

Every night at 7pm on the dot, Lord Nash follows his own self-imposed technology ban. The Conservative peer switches off his phone, puts it in a different room “and that’s it”.

Some may see this as an impressive display of self-control but the former education minister thinks it’s a no-brainer: “Well, it’s obvious, isn’t it? It’s just distracting. All the evidence is quite clear if you’re looking at the blue light late, you won’t sleep as well as you would. The best thing you can do in an evening is go out with some friends, have a few drinks.”

“I don’t advertise that,” he adds, quickly offering alternative pastimes for youngsters now denied TikTok, “or read a book, watch some telly, wind down rather than get hyped up looking at the flashing screen.”

Nash not only limits his screen time; he does not have social media and does not use WhatsApp. The peer is credited by many for forcing the government’s hand on banning social media access for under-16s.

Outgoing Prime Minister Keir Starmer may claim the ban as part of his legacy but the 77-year-old Tory was pivotal in forcing the change. It was his cross-party amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill in January that showed the depth of parliamentary support for a ban. In the face of growing support from Labour MPs, Starmer – initially resistant – announced a consultation, before later fully backing the measure.

Its genesis might be a textbook example of an effective Lords, but the peer presents his success as the culmination of a collaborative effort just at the moment the time had finally come for the cause.

“One of the big triggers was my amendment, yes, but one of them,” he stresses, “and I’ve arrived on this scene later than a lot of other people that had been working away at this for many years. But it came together.”

He adds: “As one of my hereditary colleagues said, ‘John, you seem to have caught the wind’, and it went from there.”

But Nash thinks the tide was already moving in that direction. After co-founding the charity Future with his wife Caroline Nash, in 2008 it was appointed by the Labour government to sponsor Future Academies, a multi-academy trust with 11 schools across London and Hertfordshire.

Like many in Parliament, Nash engaged with Jonathan Haidt’s work on the subject, first attending a talk by the social psychologist. “I bought his book, and then I bought another thousand copies of his book, and gave them to all the staff in my multi-academy trust.”

Thanks to his involvement with schools, Nash says it was obvious to him just how distracting devices can be.

“They’re arriving at school tired, some of them not even turning up, and there’s been a lot of cyberbullying on social media.”

The government’s proposals for a social media ban include restrictions on specific platforms for under-16s, including Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook and X, but also restrictions on gaming services, live-streaming platforms and stranger communication.

Nash is also confident that likely PM-in-waiting Andy Burnham – one of the first prominent Labour politicians to voice support for a ban – will take this seriously.

Is there anywhere Nash would like to see Burnham go further? The peer is keen that the government ensures any approach is a “level-playing field”, so that tech companies “don’t try and run rings around Ofcom”. Ultimately, Nash would like to see a curfew on the ability of older teenagers to ‘infinite scroll’ at night.

Does the peer see tech companies attempting to ‘run rings’ around government? He thinks these giants can see the direction of travel, pointing to a new Ofcom chair who has indicated a bolder approach, and the hypothetical possibility of advertisers pulling out of the platforms.

What about government’s presence on these platforms? Would he like to see departments taking a stronger line on this?

“People generally, and politicians, spend far too much time in the immediate world of being on Twitter or X. Politics has become too immediate and too playing to the audience, minute by minute, and getting ahead of the story.”

Nash believes this reality has been exacerbated by social media. But does he think politics can function without it?

“Well, there’s politics, and there’s running the country,” Nash observes, “and they’re two totally different things.”

“You can’t run the country if you’re spending your time ‘Twittering’,” he adds.

While Nash’s social media campaign is a good example of the role of the Lords in policymaking, Burnham has radical reform of the Chamber in his sights. The former Manchester mayor told PoliticsHome last month that he would support early change to the House of Lords, including downsizing it.

“Maybe it could be smaller,” Nash says, before reminiscing on the views of his younger self. “I wrote my university entrance paper on reform of the House of Lords, more than 50 years ago.”

He cannot remember his exact argument but thinks it was along the lines of: “It’s absolutely scandalous we have an appointed second Chamber and we should have an elected second Chamber.”

But now Nash thinks that would be a “big mistake”.

“I took five Acts of Parliament through the Lords as a minister, and I saw at close range how forensically they analyse legislation line by line to check that it will actually work, which the Commons don’t do anymore, because they’re all busy sort of Twittering, and it works. It really does.”

Nash also has thoughts on Burnham’s recently announced No 10 North. 

The peer believes “bringing more industry and jobs to the regions” is long overdue, but argues that the model of government needs to be redesigned “very fundamentally”. Ultimately, he feels a No 10 North cannot merely be moving civil servants up North or hiring a load of new civil servants in the region.

Whatever proposals Burnham brings to the table, he will be inheriting a Labour government that is floundering in the polls less than three years out from a general election and just two years after winning a massive majority.

“If we get a situation where the Tories and Reform have a majority between them, then we’d be daft not to work together”

The last two years have not been kind to the Conservatives either. The party faced an angry electorate in July 2024, and has struggled to regain popularity since.

However, a renewed optimism in recent months – despite a bruising at the local elections in May – has spoken of a Tory revival.

Nash is one of those more optimistic individuals: “There is a revival happening and Kemi is doing a great job. She’s thoughtful, she has a guiding star, clearly she’s principled, and that’s very important in politics.”

He adds: “You’ve had far too many prime ministers who want to be prime minister because they want to be prime minister, not because they have a great policy agenda they want to deliver for the country.”

The House asks if there is anyone in particular Nash has in mind with that latter statement. “Quite a few,” the peer laughs, “but I won’t name any.”

While Badenoch initially had a tough gig, Nash says, she has managed to “completely change the party and she’s taken time to develop policies thoroughly”.

The peer also has his own ideas about how the running of the state can be transformed. Earlier this year, he announced the Centre for Government Reform alongside Lord Agnew. The organisation will aim to recruit experience from outside politics and prepare them “to reform and run the British state properly”.

Nash describes the work Reform UK has done in reforming the machinery of the state as “good stuff”, noting this is something the Tories are also working on. Does Nash think the Tories are becoming more confident as Reform fails to build on the momentum it enjoyed last year?

“I think so,” Nash begins, before adding: “I mean, I like Farage, and I like a lot of what he’s achieved.” He claims that Tory and Reform policies are “pretty similar”, differing only on a few aspects.

“But whoever’s going to run the country in three years’ time has got to have a good, in my view, bench of people from outside the Whitehall bubble, to help them deliver the change.”

Nash did not take the traditional route to becoming a minister. He has never been an MP and was brought into his ministerial role in 2013 through the House of Lords. He started his working life as a barrister before moving into finance and co-founding a private equity firm.

As schools minister, Nash says he dealt with a lot of MPs, but he was surprised by their experience, or as he sees it, lack thereof.

It is something he also experienced first-hand: “When I became a minister, you’re just chucked in the deep end. It’s like first day at school – sink or swim, see how he does – which is terribly amateur.” He adds that the Centre for Government Reform would be willing to work with any party that wants help.

Nash is clearly not averse to Reform UK. Was he ever tempted to defect?

“N-,” he pauses. “Umm, no. I mean, I’m not saying it would never happen, but at the moment I’m…” 

He changes tack: “My politics are slightly sort of eclectic. On education, I’d say I was a bit of a socialist, actually, but I’m very happy to help Reform.

“I’m not on any dark agenda, as a sort of Tory Trojan horse. I like a lot of their policies, and I like the fact that they are clearly prepared to be very radical, which is what we need, and I believe the Tories are too, so – as I did with social media – I’m happy to work with all parties to get stuff done.

“I’m not really a politician. I’m a businessman who got asked, because I was involved in academies, to be a schools minister.”

That’s not a firm ‘no’ to ever joining Reform then. What does Nash think about the idea of a Tory-Reform coalition?

“I can understand why at this stage, three years out, they’re going to say no. But when the dog sees the rabbit, let’s see,” he says.

“Certainly, if we get a situation where the Tories and Reform have a majority between them, then we’d be daft not to work together. 

“If we have a situation where it becomes crashingly obvious from the voting a while out that some kind of arrangement a year out from the election or whatever… is going to make sure that we have a government, what people call right-wing, what I would call in many cases just common sense, then it’s definitely something that should be considered.”

Nash does not believe this is something that can be done “last minute” as that would see numerous prospective candidates being shafted.

“In certain circumstances, it would be daft to not come together if the alternative is to let in the opposition.”

Nash is speaking to The House the week after an unprecedented heatwave, and a week before another bout of hot weather, when conversations about maximum temperatures in workplaces – including schools – are bound to occur once again.

Does he think schools should have maximum temperatures? “Not really, no… We’ve become a little too risk-averse and protective. A bit of hardship is not a bad thing, and toughens people up a bit.”