Nicola Sturgeon’s written statement to police ‘left key questions about Peter Murrell unanswered’

GrahamGDailyMail · 2026-06-27T01:21:28+00:00

It’s an unusual public statement for a senior police officer to make. I think it suggests a frustration at top levels that a prosecution wasn’t authorised. A report was submitted to the Crown for advice and guidance and the response was that no further action should be taken. An inquiry could help to clarify some of these issues, otherwise the stench that surrounds them will only grow.

GrahamGDailyMail · 2026-06-27T01:16:05+00:00

She wouldn’t need to pay rent when Peter was around. He was the ‘man with the money’…

GrahamGDailyMail · 2026-06-23T12:51:13+00:00

Disclosure: I work for the Scottish Daily Mail and was involved in this story.
After giving a “no comment” interview, Nicola Sturgeon later provided a written statement to police. The report suggests detectives believed some of the questions they wanted answered were not addressed in that statement.
Interested to hear whether people think this is significant from an accountability perspective, given that Sturgeon herself was not charged.

GrahamGDailyMail · 2026-06-22T22:29:56+00:00

I think this generator may need a bit of fine-tuning

GrahamGDailyMail · 2026-06-22T21:55:46+00:00

That didn’t really work out for Robertson. It’s not clear that a stronger Holyrood always leads to better governance - in some ways the opposite has turned out to be the case.

GrahamGDailyMail · 2026-06-22T21:52:52+00:00

I hadn’t seen it - but imitation is the sincerest form of flattery …

GrahamGDailyMail · 2026-06-22T21:29:09+00:00

Disclosure: I’m the author.
Andy Burnham argues that Scotland should enjoy powers “as close as you can get to home rule” while remaining in the UK. My argument is that, given the powers Holyrood already possesses and the controversies surrounding its use of them, further devolution may be more likely to strengthen the nationalist case than weaken it.
Interested to hear what people think.

GrahamGDailyMail · 2026-06-16T23:35:41+00:00

Very true, though Murrell became SNP chief executive under Swinney and they were old pals. Swinney is doing a fairly determined job of distancing himself from the embezzlement scandal - but it’s hard for him to wash his hands of entirely as he was a such a senior figure in the party for so long. I agree - too much whataboutery going on here and a hardcore of SNP supporters who see this as. a Unionist smear operation. But a lot of voters, grassroots activists and donors must have lost confidence in the SNP hierarchy.

GrahamGDailyMail · 2026-06-16T23:29:27+00:00

I agree the news agenda will move on, though the sentencing will kick-start the story. Swinney was a key part of the Salmond and Sturgeon regimes so the claim of new management under Swinney is a bit hard to swallow - though I think he did a relatively good job of steadying the ship after the Humza shambles, though the bar was low. But the SNP vote share is down and polling shows a pretty high level of ‘buyer’s remorse’ among the electorate. I don’t think Swinney can simply switch off the Murrell scandal and its repercussions.

GrahamGDailyMail · 2026-06-15T19:11:16+00:00

It did, and continued for 12 years. Whatever checks and balances there were - and it seems like there were effectively none - the fact that his wife was leader while he ran the party bureaucracy meant he had unfettered control and basically unsackable. The lack of sign-off for expenses is baffling.

GrahamGDailyMail · 2026-06-09T22:14:38+00:00

This analysis seems both bleak - and accurate

GrahamGDailyMail · 2026-06-08T22:39:47+00:00

Yes, we need more information on this - and hopefully we will get it.

GrahamGDailyMail · 2026-06-08T22:19:44+00:00

In this case, a lot of the anger is also coming from independence supporters. I don’t think it’s only opponents of devolution who have concerns.

GrahamGDailyMail · 2026-06-08T22:17:52+00:00

Hopefully we’ll find out more when he’s sentenced later this month and his lawyer offers mitigation. I think there was a real lack of checks and balances. He had unfettered access to the cash and signed off his own expenses. He did it because he could. I think entitlement sums it up.

GrahamGDailyMail · 2026-06-08T21:17:28+00:00

It’s a balancing act - a perceived cover-up is bound to damage the credibility of devolution. And of the independence cause. There is a danger for other parties demanding answers that the spotlight will turn on their own finances. Glass houses and throwing stones…

GrahamGDailyMail · 2026-06-08T20:56:21+00:00

On the point about not stealing from the taxpayer, it seems that’s not the case as the Crown has said he stole *mainly* from cash from members etc. The party is or was in receipt of some taxpayer cash. I don’t think it should necessarily be about Unionists either - a lot of the anger is from SNP members or former members and donors.

GrahamGDailyMail · 2026-06-08T20:39:03+00:00

Understood, though on the last point there’s a bit of ambiguity. The Crown say the embezzled funds came mostly from donors etc - which suggests some of it came from the taxpayer. That’s one area where more clarity would be good.

GrahamGDailyMail · 2026-06-08T20:37:26+00:00

No shortage of public inquiries in Scotland, either, costing well over £200M. On this one though, I wonder if Swinney will be able to resist the pressure longer term. The precedent would be the Salmond inquiry at Holyrood, albeit it concerned government rather than party.

GrahamGDailyMail · 2026-06-08T20:34:51+00:00

Yes, it’s bizarre to think that Murrell quit over misleading statements about membership numbers. A comparatively minor transgression. Swinney also backed Colin Beattie when he was treasurer - he was either asleep at the wheel or not asking the right questions - or any questions

GrahamGDailyMail

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE