The SNP wants to move on: Scotland should not

WILL THERE BE a public inquiry into the financial affairs of the SNP during the period when Peter Murrell was its chief executive?

That is now the burning question the SNP is doing everything in its power to deflect from and distract attention away from.

John Swinney has said there’s no need for any inquiry; that all the questions have been dealt with and that he should be able to move on to running the country.

Well, he would say that, wouldn’t he?

Since John Swinney first said there was nothing more to be learned, he – like Nicola Sturgeon – has been forced to give further reassurances that there are no other financial problems lurking under the stairs or hidden beneath flying carpets.

Unfortunately for the current First Minister, as with his friend and previous First Minister Sturgeon, his reassurances are undermined by previous comments and reassurances that proved to be worthless. Why then should we believe John Swinney (or Nicola Sturgeon for that matter) again? First bitten…

John Swinney has had to say the SNP is now speaking to HMRC about possible VAT fraud committed by the SNP through the presentation of false VAT inputs and outputs arising from false invoices drawn up by Peter Murrell, when just a week ago there was nothing new worth investigating.

John Swinney has had to say there has been no theft of public funds by Peter Murrell. There are two types of public funds. Electoral Commission funds generally support policy development, while House of Commons Short Money is separate and funds day-to-day parliamentary activities and travel costs of opposition parties.

John Swinney’s self-interested reassurances carry less value than a Weimar Republic Paper Mark

Given the complexity of Peter Murrell’s embezzlement, it is only right that forensic accountants are asked to consider whether any use of public funds over the course of at least twelve years of embezzlement occurred.

John Swinney is not a forensic accountant. Period. His self-interested reassurances carry less value than a Weimar Republic Paper Mark.

There is also the separate question of the “ring-fenced” donations for a referendum campaign. Only last week the SNP line was to fall back on original official statements that the fundraising appeals were for a ring-fenced fund to provide for a future campaign. It was not advertised as a call for general support for all the party does in working towards Scottish independence.

This week John Swinney came clean and said the funds had been used for general party activities. He had to because the amount of money Peter Murrell stole was lower than the amount of the “ring-fenced” funds that had disappeared. And yet that too is problematic, as Swinney has previously argued, as a minister, local council ring fencing existed for good reason.

So John Swinney has changed his story again – he is tying himself in knots and the public has the right to know who the real John Swinney is.

And then we have the other question – the constitutional question – of what can be done to ensure that never again will a husband and wife hold the highest elected and highest official political positions in the land. Having a husband and wife – or even just life partners – as First Minister of the Scottish Government and Chief Executive of the ruling party was a temptation not just for embezzlement but for cover-up and corruption.

The extent to which discussion about the dire state of the SNP’s finances was shut down by Nicola Sturgeon on the SNP National Executive – and who else was involved – must be investigated. The bullying was not a crime, but it does not sit easy with the call by elected representatives within the SNP to establish what was happening to the party’s funds – a call for explanations that, in turn, could have identified the embezzlement sooner.

the First Minister is highly conflicted by the self-interest of defending his party’s conduct

We already do not allow MPs or councillors to be MSPs at the same time, demonstrating that rules can be put in place to avoid conflicts of interest. Why then do we allow partners of members of the Cabinet to hold senior roles concurrently within the same parties, creating potential conflicts between private interests and the public interest?

We are being asked to accept assurances from the current First Minister, who is highly conflicted by the self-interest of defending his party’s conduct; who has shown that his past assurances are worthless; and who, in his own conduct – such as deleting texts from his mobile phone regarding discussions during Covid – may be less than candid. And we have a former First Minister who emotionally blackmailed colleagues into not discussing the party finances that her husband managed – including him signing-off his own expenses.

That is not good enough. The public interest demands further investigation. We need a public inquiry and we need one fast.