Swinney must stop hiding from the Murrell scandal - Murdo Fraser

This is the First Minister who enjoyed his weekend trip to the US to watch Scotland’s victory over Haiti in the first match, but of course he is not the only SNP MSP who has made the journey.

In total, four SNP MSPs will be across the Atlantic for the World Cup. Yet this is the same First Minister who back in 2022 accused my then Scottish Conservative MSP colleague Dean Lockhart and me of “skiving off Parliamentary duties” when we went to watch Rangers play in the Europa League final in Seville. There is nothing more consistent than SNP double standards, with one rule for them and a different one for other Parties.

Back home, there is no sign of public interest in the Murrell case dissipating. Nearly every day brings more twists and shock revelations, the latest being the extraordinary episode where Murrell paid £4000 to buy back a £290 pair of Kurt Geiger stilettos previously worn by Nicola Sturgeon which she had donated to an SNP fundraiser. It remains a mystery why Sturgeon herself did not find it curious why her husband was spending such a vast sum on a pair of her old shoes.

Now that the SNP and Greens at Holyrood have blocked a Scottish Parliament inquiry into the matter, all eyes turn to the Scottish Affairs Committee at Westminster to see whether they will pursue one. There is certainly no shortage of material that they should be investigating.

Any inquiry could start looking further into the police investigation and prosecution of Peter Murrell. We still do not know why it was that Murrell was the only person prosecuted as a consequence of the Operation Branchform investigation. We do know that the police sought direction from the Crown Office prior to making charges, and it would be very useful to understand from them what view they and the National Crime Agency took on the decision not to prosecute Sturgeon herself.

Nor do we know what the detailed terms were of Murrell’s plea deal that saw the removal of some £60,000-worth of personal items, at least some of which would have been used by Sturgeon herself.

The timing of Murrell’s court appearance also raises concerns. Had his guilty plea been made public the month before the Scottish Parliament election in May, rather than a few weeks after, who can tell what impact this might have had on the final result. It certainly seems unlikely that the SNP would have performed so well had criminality on the part of their Chief Executive been so widely known. What was the reason for this significant, and consequential, delay?

And why was Murrell, who clearly had significant personal resources at his disposal, granted legal aid. We know that he was the part-owner of a villa in Portugal, which surely would have made him ineligible for legal aid assistance, so why was this given to him?

These are simply the questions around the processes, which remain unanswered.

There are a whole range of additional questions for the SNP themselves. Where was the internal governance that allowed the best part of half a million pounds to disappear from the accounts, without anyone supposedly noticing? Why did senior figures on the party’s National Executive try to close down any questioning of the accounts from members?

How could Sturgeon herself claim in a private meeting, the video of which was subsequently released, that there was “nothing to see here” when challenged over the state of the party finances. She was either entirely unaware of the true situation, which suggests gross negligence on the part of a party leader, or she was involved in a deliberate cover up.

For Sturgeon herself, we need to know what she intends to do with all the items presented to her which were purchased with stolen money. These are proceeds of crime, and surely she cannot reasonably expect to be allowed to retain these.

Her defence to all this is simply to spit out accusations of misogyny against anyone raising questions. But it is not because she is female that she is being quizzed about her involvement, but because she was Murrell’s immediate superior, and SNP leader, and therefore had ultimate responsibility for stewardship of the party finances. In that role, she manifestly failed, and needs to be held accountable for her actions.

The advantage of any Parliamentary inquiry is that it will be held in public, it will have the right to compel witnesses to attend, and it can also ensure that those giving evidence do so on oath. It may not be able to get to the answers to all the questions listed above, and many more, but at least it would shine light on what has been the biggest scandal in the history of Scottish devolution.

Exactly how much damage all this has done to the SNP might become apparent later this week, when we have two Westminster by-elections, one in Aberdeen South, and one in Arbroath and Broughty Ferry. But it certainly has not been comfortable for the SNP to be in the news for all the wrong reasons, and, worse still, to become the butt of jokes not just in Scotland but right across the world.

This story is not, however, just one about the SNP. The whole of Scottish politics is tarnished by this episode which is why the transparency that would be provided by a Parliamentary inquiry is now essential. Rather than trying to cover matters up and move along, John Swinney should recognise that it is in the interests both of his own Party, and of Scottish politics as a whole, that matters are properly investigated and everything brought out into the open.