The embezzlement case involving Peter Murrell has cast a long shadow over the Scottish National Party since police opened their investigation five years ago. SNP strategists say the controversy damaged public trust and cost the party significant support; while the party has returned to government, its popularity is much reduced from the last election.
Few political scandals in Scotland have produced such striking images as the sight of a police forensics tent outside the house Murrell shared with Nicola Sturgeon. The visual drama — which some inside the SNP regarded as heavy-handed policing — was a constant reminder of the probe. Murrell’s admission of guilt may remove some of the debate over police tactics, but it leaves other, deeper questions unresolved.
Murrell’s long tenure as SNP chief executive and his marriage to Sturgeon mean the case raises questions about proximity, timing and accountability. Police action at the property came just weeks after Sturgeon announced her resignation as first minister and shortly after she left office. At the time she declined to comment on an ongoing inquiry and has since repeatedly said the investigation did not prompt her decision to step down.
Sturgeon was arrested and questioned during the inquiry known as Operation Branchform but was released without charge, as was the party’s former treasurer Colin Beattie. When police later charged Murrell with embezzlement they stated no further action would be taken against Sturgeon or Beattie. Sturgeon has maintained she had no knowledge or suspicion that party funds were being misused and said she felt misled.
That assertion prompts another issue: how was Sturgeon able to give public reassurances about the SNP’s finances? In March 2021 she told the party’s ruling body there was no cause for concern and later told television audiences that “money hasn’t gone missing.” Public reporting has not made clear what checks she carried out as leader to satisfy herself that accounts were in order, or how much she relied on information provided by Murrell and others.
More broadly, the episode highlights how power was structured in Scottish politics between late 2014 and early 2023. For much of that period, political authority was concentrated within a single household: Murrell ran the party apparatus while Sturgeon led the SNP and the Scottish government. That arrangement was questioned privately by some within and around the party; Alex Salmond has said he warned Murrell about the setup, and others have expressed unease, though those concerns were largely set aside while the couple remained prominent figures.
John Swinney’s view of the period is not publicly known; he did not hold a party role through those years but was Sturgeon’s close colleague in government. He was the leader who initially appointed Murrell as SNP chief executive in the early 2000s, a decision whose prudence is likely to be re-examined in light of recent events. As party leader now, Swinney has described the SNP as a victim of wrongdoing and says internal controls have been tightened; the party may also try to recover funds taken from it.
The inquiry began after concerns that money raised for independence campaigning — more than £600,000 according to complaints — was not reflected in party accounts, with less than £100,000 reportedly in the bank. Some donors pressed for explanations and a small number have obtained refunds; others may yet seek redress. The SNP maintains it will spend an amount equivalent to what was raised for independence campaigning on that purpose.
Next, a judge must decide Murrell’s sentence. Scotland has become accustomed in recent years to high-profile political figures appearing in criminal courts; Murrell’s conviction adds his name to that list. For supporters and critics alike the case is painful: it concerns a long-serving party official accused of stealing from the organisation and cause to which he devoted much of his life, and it leaves unresolved questions about oversight, leadership and how political parties guard public trust.