Meeting of the Parliament 10 June 2026 [Draft]
I say gently to Mr Greer that that is a shocking case that relates to individual behaviour, but today we are talking about a systematic culture of cover-up and secrecy, and the embezzlement of £400,000 of the SNP’s own supporters’ money. Mr Greer wants to act as a human shield for John Swinney and the SNP—it is for him to answer those questions—but this scandal has implications and lessons for the Scottish Government, for ministers, for Police Scotland, for the Lord Advocate, for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, for the Electoral Commission, for the Scottish Legal Aid Board, for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and for those who administer Short money on behalf of taxpayers.
There are questions for the Lord Advocate—yes, she might have recused herself, but the controversy that was caused by her sharing information with the SNP leadership about charges against Murrell nearly a year before they were made public deserves answers. There are already questions about the Lord Advocate’s dual role.
There are questions for the Crown Office. Why did it take so long to bring charges against Murrell? After years of investigation, why was the case conveniently not disposed of until merely weeks after the Scottish election? What were the terms and details of any plea deal and why?
There are questions for the chief constable on how operation branchform was conducted—the staffing, the cost, the length, the timescale and the force’s dealings with the Crown. As we have seen from repeated leaks and briefings to the media, issues and disputes arose between the force and the Crown Office. What were those issues and why?
There are questions for the Electoral Commission about its powers, roles, responsibilities and sanctioning powers.
There are questions for the Scottish Legal Aid Board. Why was a man who earned a very large salary, owned his own home, owned property in Portugal, clearly has personal resources and now claims that he can immediately pay back the full amount that he embezzled, able to receive legal aid paid for by taxpayers when so many others in this country are denied it?
Those are questions about a culture of secrecy and cover-up that too often spills over into how senior people in Government—and the Government itself—operate. We all know what happened: there was bullying and intimidation; a treasurer was forced to resign for trying to do the right thing; and three members of the SNP’s finance and audit committee quit due to obstruction. Those are all valid questions that must be answered.
There are also questions for those who administer public money: HMRC and those who are responsible for Short money. Last week, John Swinney confirmed to the Parliament that VAT was illegally reclaimed from HMRC using the false receipts. What was the extent of the VAT fraud? How was that money used? Was illegal money spent on election campaigns? Was Short money claimed and used in an illegal way?
What about the ring-fenced £600,000 of donations from SNP members for the supposed purpose of a referendum campaign? We now know that that money was spent by the SNP on other things. Why have there been lies and misinformation? What are the implications and the lessons?
There are undoubtedly questions for Nicola Sturgeon and John Swinney, but there are also questions for those who held other positions of responsibility and have been rewarded for their loyalty with ministerial office. Let me give just two examples. Kirsten Oswald, who has been accused of blocking scrutiny of SNP finances and clamping down on whistleblowers, is now a minister; and Shirley-Anne Somerville, a former deputy chief executive to Peter Murrell, is now a cabinet secretary. Why are they being shielded from scrutiny? Again, I say that, if there is nothing to hide, there is nothing to fear, so the SNP should back an inquiry.