16:50
The next item of business is an urgent question in relation to Peter Murrell. As Mr Murrell has still not been sentenced—the hearing is scheduled for 23 June—the case remains active for contempt of court purposes and the sub judice rule is engaged. However, given that Mr Murrell has pled guilty, there will be no jury trial evidence, and sentencing will be overseen by a judge. The risk of prejudice to the proceedings and contempt of court as a result of commentary in Parliament is significantly reduced. Therefore, given public interest in the matter and the low risk of contempt, I exercise my discretion to allow the question and permit discussion in the chamber. Reputationally, in order to respect the role of the courts, the principle of comity and the separation of powers, I expect members not to comment on Mr Murrell’s sentencing—that is, how long he should be sentenced for et cetera.
Members who wish to speak should press their buttons now and, if chosen, should ask short, succinct questions, with answers to match.
Public Confidence in Political Institutions
To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made of the impact on public confidence in political institutions in Scotland following the guilty plea entered by former Scottish National Party chief executive Peter Murrell in recent court proceedings.
Peter Murrell’s guilty plea yesterday confirmed that the Scottish National Party—the ordinary members of my party—was embezzled out of hundreds of thousands of pounds of funds. His admission reveals a terrible breach of trust and an overwhelming betrayal.
As Assistant Chief Constable Stuart Houston of Police Scotland said yesterday,
“This was a lengthy and extremely complex case due to the scale of criminality over a 12-year period and the lengths Peter Murrell went to try and cover his tracks.”
There has been an extensive police investigation into the matter over several years, during which every relevant aspect has been pored over by the authorities. That has led to a guilty plea from the person responsible. I hope that the fact that Peter Murrell is now facing the consequences of his actions can provide the public with some confidence that, no matter who you are, the police and Scotland’s courts will act with integrity and impartiality in all cases.
Let us spell out what happened. In 2021, Nicola Sturgeon denied that there was anything untoward in the SNP’s finances; months later, Police Scotland opened a formal investigation; and, in April 2023, a tent was erected by Police Scotland at Nicola Sturgeon’s family home and Peter Murrell was arrested. The SNP’s former chief executive appeared in court in March 2025, charged with embezzlement, and Nicola Sturgeon was let off without charge. Yesterday, Peter Murrell pled guilty to embezzling £400,000.
Given that the First Minister himself appointed Peter Murrell, will he tell the public whether he believes that his judgment was lacking?
This is an incredibly difficult and painful case. The actions that were addressed in court yesterday are the actions of one individual: Peter Murrell. He has broken the law; he has acted in a criminal fashion; and he has embezzled hundreds of thousands of pounds from my party’s funds. That is the consequence of the actions of Peter Murrell.
My decision to appoint Peter Murrell, as part of an interview process 25 years ago, before any of this behaviour started, is somewhat irrelevant. What has happened is a complete and utter betrayal of trust by a trusted individual, and that should never have happened. That is the responsibility of Peter Murrell and Peter Murrell alone.
John Swinney is desperately trying to sweep this scandal under the carpet and deny that there was any problem in 2021—that is on record.
Peter Murrell will rightly face the full force of the law, but the public will question why the former First Minister did not face investigation. Nicola Sturgeon denies any knowledge of her husband’s crimes, despite using a 700-quid pen while checking the time on her five-grand watch and sipping coffee from a three-grand coffee machine. That is unbelievable. Normal married couples would question where that money came from. The Lord Advocate is responsible for all criminal prosecutions in Scotland, and she sits in the SNP Cabinet. Can the First Minister tell the Parliament whether the Lord Advocate will publish the reasons why the Crown Office did not pursue charges against Nicola Sturgeon?
We are getting into incredibly inappropriate territory with Rachael Hamilton’s question. The first point that I want to make is about the idea that I am sweeping this under the carpet. Rachael Hamilton appears to have missed the fact that I held a press conference yesterday afternoon and, for 50 minutes, answered the questions that were put to me by the media. Jackie Baillie demanded that I do such a thing, and I put that in place. Secondly, as Rachael Hamilton might have noticed, I am on my feet in the Scottish Parliament answering an urgent question. I think it is worthy of some respect that the issues are being addressed here by the First Minister.
In some of Rachael Hamilton’s comments, she is essentially questioning the independent decisions of the prosecution system in Scotland. I have placed it on the record that the public should take confidence from the fact that, no matter who you are, the police and Scotland’s courts will act with integrity and impartiality in all cases. That is an absolute foundation of our judicial system and the application of the rule of law.
When I went to the court last Wednesday to take my oath in front of Lord Pentland, he reminded me and the country that there are three pillars of authority in this state: the judiciary, Parliament and the Government, and they are all independent. However, Lord Pentland also said that, for the rule of law to prevail, each must respect the other. What Rachael Hamilton has put on the record today in that question is disrespectful to the judicial system in this country. It is an insult to the rule of law, and it should not be tolerated in this Parliament.
We have warned consistently about the rotten culture of secrecy and cover-up at the heart of the SNP Government. We have seen that during the Salmond inquiry, with the legal challenge to the Scottish Information Commissioner and, at its most extreme, with the embezzlement of SNP supporters’ money.
In March 2021, a complaint was made to the police about the SNP’s finances. In May that year, John Swinney appeared on “The Sunday Show” and said that he had no idea why the party’s treasurer resigned. In June, Nicola Sturgeon said that money had not gone missing and that there was nothing to see here. I am not sure whether any of that reflects the truth. How can the public trust John Swinney when he is the man who is the architect of this culture of secrecy?
We really are in the depths of it all today with Jackie Baillie’s question. Let me walk through some of the points that Jackie Baillie has raised. The first point that I want to make is that, on the first day of debate in this session, Jackie Baillie has questioned my integrity and truthfulness.
Jackie Baillie spent the best part of five years in the last session of Parliament questioning my integrity and my truthfulness. I invite her to look at the election results and see how far the behaviour of the Labour Party got it. If anybody epitomised that whole smearing of people’s characters in the last session of Parliament, Jackie Baillie is at the front of the queue, and I would have thought that she might have learned her lessons before she came in and started doing it on this occasion.
In addition to that point, the issue that is at the heart of this case is about deception and criminality. That is the responsibility of Peter Murrell. That is what this case is about—deception and criminality. That was highlighted in the statement that I have already made, when I quoted Police Scotland, but let me give members another extract from the Police Scotland statement. It talks about how there was an attempt between 2010 and 2022 to
“carefully … hide his criminality with false receipts and accounting.”
That is what the deception is about, and that is what my party and many individuals are victims of as a consequence of the actions of Peter Murrell.
We have taken action as a party to address these issues and we have good and strong governance in place under my leadership. That is what my party has a right to expect. I think that there is also an entitlement to expect some decent respect for the integrity of individuals in this Parliament, which was sadly lacking in Jackie Baillie’s contribution today.
Nicola Sturgeon stated yesterday that she knew nothing of the £125,000 camper van parked in her mother-in-law’s drive until the police informed her of it, yet an SNP source quoted in the Daily Record the week that the camper van was seized passed it off as a legitimate SNP resource for a Covid election, describing it as a “mobile campaign room”. I hope that Police Scotland has unravelled the inconsistency of those two positions.
If we are to believe the narrative account of the former First Minister that this was not a criminal conspiracy, it follows that it was, in fact, a catastrophic failure of financial oversight. Therefore, I ask the First Minister, if his party leadership cannot steward the accounts of the Scottish National Party, why on earth should our constituents trust it with the finances of our nation?
I do not think that it is the place of Parliament to be carrying out investigations that the police have carried out. If I were to suggest any of that from this place, I would be breaching my commitments in the ministerial code. If that obligation and burden is on me, I do not see why it is not on Mr Cole-Hamilton and Parliament.
The issues that are at the heart of this case—I made this point in my answer to Jackie Baillie—are about criminality; they are about the rules being flouted; they are about the rules being bypassed. That is what the police explanation was about yesterday—that the rules had been bypassed. To quote Assistant Chief Constable Houston, this was an
“extremely complex case”
where Peter Murrell went to extraordinary lengths
“to try and cover his tracks”.
So, the explanation is very straightforward. There were rules in place and they were flouted due to criminality. That is what the police investigation has found and that is what was addressed in the courts yesterday. It is incredibly painful for my party to be experiencing all of this and the impact of it all, but we are the victims of criminality. As I have made clear to Parliament, that is the root of the issue.
One of the most damning aspects of all this—and the First Minister should be aware of this—is that Nicola Sturgeon, it is now said, claimed to be co-operating with the police investigation but her reply to every question was, “No comment”. Does the First Minister have any self-awareness about how this all looks to the people of Scotland? One of the things that sticks in the throats of a lot of people is that the trial was supposed to take place before the election but was mysteriously postponed to a date after the election. There was undoubtedly a political advantage to the SNP because of that postponement. Why was the hearing postponed and who authorised the date change of the proceedings?
Before the First Minister responds, I remind members that the judiciary in Scotland is independent.
Presiding Officer, I do not know if Mr Kerr misspoke, but he said that the trial was supposed to take place before the election, and that is not a truthful or accurate statement. The trial was never scheduled for before the election. There was a preliminary hearing in February at which a judge—a member of the Court of Session—agreed to the preliminary hearing taking place on the day that it took place, which was yesterday.
If we, as a Parliament—I go back to what I said about what Lord Pentland said to the court when I took my oath last Wednesday—start second-guessing and pointing the finger, as Mr Kerr has just done, at judges who are exercising their judicial independence, we are not respecting the independence of the judiciary.
I want to make one thing clear to the Parliament: I will, to my last breath, defend the independence of the judiciary to decide on these issues, because that is the protection for everyone in the face of the rule of law. It is a foundation of our society, and we dabble with it—in the fashion that Mr Kerr has dabbled with it today—at our peril.
Does the First Minister agree with those who suggest that it is inappropriate for serving Government ministers to sit on the SNP’s national executive committee while serious questions hang over its handling of concerns around SNP finances?
No, because the constitution of my party requires, for example, that I am a member of my party’s national executive committee. The Parliament has chosen me to be the First Minister of Scotland, and I cannot see how I can lead my party if I am not a member of its national executive committee.
The internal governance of my party is a matter for my party. I might also say that my party’s internal governance is in a very strong position, as we have just demonstrated by the way in which we prepared for and took forward an election campaign that resulted in the fifth successive term of an SNP Government and the election of 58 members of the Scottish Parliament with over 38 per cent of the vote. In my view, that is a party in good shape.
I agree with the First Minister that we should not second-guess the courts. However, does he agree that the way in which such decisions on a trial are made matters to the public and affects how they view all Government institutions and the decisions that those institutions make, and that such decisions should, therefore, not only be fair but must be seen to be so?
The legal process may be at its end, but does the First Minister agree that accountability for what happened in the first place cannot be ended, not just for the sake of party or parliamentary politics, but for the sake of all those whistleblowers and people who challenge institutions in the first place where that is a very hard thing to do?
Pauline McNeill knows the justice system well, because she was a long-serving member of the Criminal Justice Committee of the Parliament; indeed, she and I served on that committee together for 12 months, from 2023 to 2024. She will know, therefore, that the timetabling of individual cases and the possibility of delay are very regular items in court scheduling and court processes.
I made the point to Mr Kerr, who was completely wrong in what he said, that the decision to defer the hearing from February to May was not some exceptional incident. That happens on a very regular basis; indeed, I might even go so far as to say that it is very much the case—it might be stretching it to say that it is invariably the case—that hearings are delayed.
When it comes to accountability, it is about the fact that an individual has perpetrated criminality at the expense of my party members the length and breadth of the country who contributed their hard-earned donations. Pauline McNeill and I both work in political parties with volunteers and we know that members work hard to raise money and make their contributions. I am profoundly grateful to every one of them, and I am horrified by what has happened in this case. However, the accountability for that lies with Peter Murrell, who has betrayed the trust of the members of my party.
Scrutiny is important in this place and in political parties, but scrutiny of the SNP’s finances was shut down. People were basically told to button it, and Nicola Sturgeon said that there was nothing to see. Does the First Minister now regret that that approach was taken?
I do not want to sully the atmosphere tonight, but I do not think that Reform UK is in the strongest position to challenge me about financial transparency, when Nigel Farage is dodging accountability in relation to a £5 million contribution that was made to him personally, for which he has not made proper accountability. I hope that members will forgive me on this occasion for being a little sceptical about people who run into the greenhouse throwing stones around.
I am the leader of the Scottish National Party, and I assure Mr Simpson—this will be vouched for by my colleagues who are here with me today and by party members around the country—that I lead an open and transparent culture in the SNP. Last Saturday, our party’s national executive committee met, and the members of that executive had in front of them full transparency about the management accounts of my party to 30 April 2026. The accounts highlighted the amount of money that we were raising to fund our election campaign, which was contributed by decent party members around the country. The accounts showed what we were spending our money on to ensure that we could have so many SNP MSPs elected to this Parliament—more than any other party in this chamber. The party’s national executive committee had a full, open and transparent account of the way in which the party is run under my leadership, and I am glad that we were able to confidently look back on a successful election that had been well funded by our party members around the country.
I thank the officers involved in operation Branchform for their integrity and commitment that led to Peter Murrell’s admission of guilt early on in the process. Maybe we can all agree that this is a shameful episode in the history of Scottish politics.
What internal mechanisms has the Scottish Government put in place—or what does it plan to put in place—to ensure that this never happens again?
I associate myself with the point that Amanda Bland made about the police officers. They have conducted an investigation that, in collaboration with the Crown, has resulted in a compelling evidence base being made available in this case, which has resulted in a guilty plea at the earliest and first possible opportunity.
I am not quite sure who Amanda Bland is targeting her question at, but I will answer in relation to the two organisations that I have the privilege to lead. The Scottish National Party has very stringent financial controls in place and, as I have just recounted to Graham Simpson, the transparency to match. The Scottish Government has a comprehensive range of financial measures in place to guarantee accountability to Parliament and the public. The Government is audited by Audit Scotland. All the issues are discussed and aired openly by the Parliament’s finance committee, of which the Presiding Officer was a distinguished convener in the previous parliamentary session, and are open to scrutiny by members of all political parties. I am not sure what the composition of this parliamentary session’s finance committee will be, but there is every opportunity for members to scrutinise the public finances of Scotland.
That gives me the opportunity to make it absolutely crystal clear—in case anybody was in any doubt—that the issues that affected the court process yesterday affected only the funding of the Scottish National Party and not public funding in relation to the Scottish Government. Amanda Bland’s question gives me the opportunity to state that clearly.
Thank you, First Minister. I apologise to members who were not called to speak in relation to the urgent question, but it is time to move on to the next item of business.
Previous
Independence Referendum