Why Nicola Sturgeon and John Swinney should be demanding inquiry into Peter Murrell scandal – Brian Monteith
The SNP needs to realise that an inquiry into Peter Murrell’s crimes might actually be in its best interest
There are many big questions that remain unanswered over the SNP’s missing funds but it is clear that John Swinney does not want them asked in public or to establish the answers. He should, however, remember that the Scottish National Party is not just an institution that is required to keep proper financial records, it is a political vehicle that must operate with clear transparency if it is ever to demonstrate respect for those it asks to vote for it.
There are many victims of Peter Murrell’s embezzlement of over £400,000 from the SNP, some of them have been stolen from directly and others reputationally. They deserve redress.
The direct victims of the first order are those supporters of the party who donated their private funds for a referendum campaign they were told to expect by the SNP leadership. Those funds initially appeared in the SNP accounts as ring-fenced but then melted away.
It was the absence of those funds that led to questions being asked across social media. Subsequently, three members of the SNP’s finance and audit committee and then later the Treasurer, Douglas Chapman, resigned over lack of access to the financial records.
The embezzled £400,000 appears to be less than the missing ring-fenced donations – meaning that a full and proper accounting of the disappearance of the donations has still not been communicated, thwarting efforts to return that fund to its proper balance or alternatively to the donors. If the argument is that the funds did not have the protected status of being ring fenced (as the SNP previously claimed) then this also needs properly explained.
Taxpayers were victims
The second group directly impacted by Mr Murrell’s embezzlement was the SNP itself, for it has lost a huge sum of money over about ten years. We await to see what, if any, measures may be put in place to recover that sum, be it through the sale of individual items and repayment by the embezzler himself.
The third group directly impacted is the Scottish taxpayer who has had to fund a large police investigation taking over four years and costing more than £2 million. While Mr Murrell pled guilty, the length and expense of the investigation could have been significantly shorter had he decided to take that course earlier.
We then have those who have, or seek to claim they have, suffered reputational damage as a result of the embezzlement and the subsequent guilty plea by Mr Murrell. Chief among those who are now under significant scrutiny from real and rhetorical questioning is the former First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon.
That is because of two factors. The first is that she was the SNP leader, and therefore the most senior officer of the party during the time when the donations were made and the embezzlement happened. Secondly, although now estranged, she was, as Mrs Murrell, the wife of the embezzler and this has, not unusually, led to speculation about how much she knew of his crimes.
Ms Sturgeon flatly denies any knowledge of involvement and now claims through many statements, comments at public appearances and a BBC interview to be a victim of Mr Murrell’s thieving, both reputationally and emotionally.
Restoring public trust
Also impacted reputationally is John Swinney and those who stand with him in saying the matter has been settled and there is nothing new that could come out from having an inquiry. Given that those who donated to the SNP still do not know how the party’s governance protocols failed to prevent such large-scale embezzlement, there surely are reasons for having some form of inquiry – lessons might be learned and new regulations introduced.
The SNP might benefit, but so too might the public’s trust in the conduct of all political parties or political campaigns that seek to raise funds from ordinary folk.
For any financial or reputational victims, speaking at literary festivals and in conversation with Laura Kuenssberg is not the same as giving evidence under oath. It would surely have been better for Ms Sturgeon had she been able to swear her innocence in court proceedings, as it would have been for any other witnesses to what had happened.
The Kuenssberg interview was classic Sturgeon; intervening during the question so it was reframed by her, thus allowing her to answer her own question rather than that of her interrogator. The problem for Ms Sturgeon is, as it so often is with politicians, one of trust.
She is appealing for the public to trust her judgment as a wronged woman – when she has been so evasive in the past about defining a woman. Likewise we are asked to trust her judgment when she had put her faith in the man who was, according to the accepted plea, embezzling from the party since the year of their marriage.
One way to save her legacy
Sometimes less is more. By continuing to seek public sympathy, Ms Sturgeon is providing fresh examples of the contradictions between what she said in the past and what she says now.
Maybe there really is only one way for Ms Sturgeon to save her reputation and political legacy – she should demand a public inquiry into the conduct of the SNP’s finances and reveal her story under oath and cross-examination. Similarly, to clear his party’s name, Mr Swinney should demand a public inquiry too.
Without such an independent procedure, a pall will hang over both Sturgeon and Swinney – and their legacy, whatever it may be, will be open to ridicule.
Brian Monteith is a former member of the Scottish and European parliaments and editor of ThinkScotland.org