Wings Over Scotland

So, having made a statement on Monday morning which asserted that she wouldn’t make any further statements, then making another statement on Monday afternoon, Nicola Sturgeon and her solicitor issued a third statement in 36 hours last night.

And while we acknowledge that this is a very high bar to clear, it contained one of the most troubling and blatant lies she’s ever told.

The above is a claim so jaw-droppingly obviously completely false that we had to read it several times to check it really said what we thought it said. Because for a whole raft of reasons it was ABSOLUTELY Nicola Sturgeon’s role to sign off the SNP’s accounts in 2020, when the money stolen by Murrell became indisputably noticeable, and for several years thereafter.

Section 42(2)(b) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (PPERA) requires a party’s accounts to be signed off “by the management committee of the party, if there is one, and otherwise by the registered leader of the party”.

In the SNP’s case that means by the “Party Officers”.

(Indeed, Sturgeon herself was the treasurer in the period in 2021 between Douglas Chapman resigning because he wasn’t allowed to see the books and the hapless obedient stooge Colin Beattie being reappointed to replace him.)

And the SNP’s financial filings throughout Sturgeon’s reign make clear that she, as one of those three party officers, did indeed approve the accounts personally, and that throughout the period in question they clearly show hundreds of thousands of pounds missing in the shape of the “ringfenced Independence Referendum Campaign Fund”, which should have stood at around £670,000.

Sturgeon is not only morally but legally responsible for those accounts. It was her job as party leader to notice that they only had £97,000 in the bank when they’d just raised nearly £700,000 that they weren’t allowed to have spent.

But as we know, she not only failed to do so but lied threateningly to both the Scottish public and her own National Executive Committee that there was no missing money and that the finances were the healthiest they’d ever been, even at the very moment the party’s treasurer and half of its Finance Committee publicly resigned in protest to draw attention to the problem.

There’s a big difference between not knowing something, and actively and stridently insisting to everyone in sight that the exact opposite thing is definitely true. And the statement from last night then says something even more extraordinary.

Hold on a moment. If you don’t know anything, how much of a “detailed written response” can you actually give? What would that look like?

“Dear The Police,

I know nothing. Not anything. No things. Zero things. None of the things. 0% of the things. Out of all the things, I don’t know any of them. The things are unknown to me. You know those things? Not me, I totally don’t. I categorically deny all knowledge of the things. Me? Know the things? No sir! I quite simply cannot emphasize strongly enough that I don’t know the things. I wasn’t aware the things existed. Do they even exist? It’d totally be news to me, Nicola Ferguson Sturgeon, former First Minister of Scotland, if they did. Because I don’t know any of them. What things are you even talking about? If I was to hold up a finger, of which I have eight plus two thumbs, for each of the things I knew, I’d be holding up no fingers. Or thumbs. At all.”

(Carries on for 17 more pages.)

We’re also fascinated by the use of the word “insisted”. Who was she insisting to? Were the police going “No, please don’t send us a detailed written response! We’re begging you!”, but she was all “No, I’m flipping well going to, whether you like it or not!”? Is that how we’re being asked to believe it went?

And if she was so insistent on answering their questions, why not just answer them in the seven hours she spent staring silently at a police station wall instead? It must have been an awfully boring day. Why wait until some unspecified later date and write them a letter? She was arrested by prior arrangement, five weeks after Murrell, so she had plenty of warning that she might be questioned and time to have the answers ready.

(We wonder what Sturgeon and Murrell discussed at dinner over those five weeks.)

There is of course a very easy way to prove that she sent that “detailed written response” – release it. There’s no possible reason not to. Murrell has already admitted his guilt and Sturgeon is no longer under investigation, so there’s no live case to prejudice. The full list of things Murrell bought with the stolen money (many of which she’s been personally pictured with) is already public, so there’s no danger of new embarrassment. And all it says is that she knows nothing anyway. What’s to fear?

She tells us she’s got nothing to hide. So show us. Show us how convincing your denials were. Show us just how fully you, as a responsible innocent citizen, member of Parliament, role model and key witness, co-operated with a police enquiry, beyond blanking all their questions for seven long hours.

The only reason we can think of is that every time Sturgeon opens her mouth about this case, she digs herself a deeper hole by telling more and more easily-provable lies. She lied about not being responsible for signing off the accounts. She lied about “co-operating fully” with the police. It looks like she lied about the campervan, the biggest single piece of Murrell’s booty.

Practically the only thing she’s told the truth about in the whole sordid business is that “Peter does most of the shopping in our family”.

Over the coming weeks and months Sturgeon is going to have to face some very awkward questions, particularly around the serious crime of reset.

So she may as well get ahead of the game and tell us now.

Or as the investigating officer might put it:

“And you say way too much
But still I need an answer, love
Still I need an answer, love

Kindly be kind, wipe all the dirt from my eyes
I need an answer
I need an answer.”