ON Wednesday morning an email dropped into journalists’ inboxes across Scotland. “Police Scotland: Investigation into Scottish National Party funding and finances – man arrested,” its subject line read.
That would be enough to catch anyone’s eye. But it was the note at the email’s end that contained the true bombshell. The 58-year-old man arrested was Peter Murrell, the former SNP chief executive.
Murrell had served at the top of the party since 1999, and had only stepped down a matter of weeks earlier, ostensibly for a different matter. As such, his arrest came as a surprise to just about everyone.
READ MORE: Contempt of Court: Why the media has to be careful as police probe SNP HQ
The SNP headquarters would soon be subjected to an intense police search, as would Murrell’s house in Uddingston, which he shares with his wife the former SNP first minister Nicola Sturgeon.
One source suggested there may have been knowledge of the investigation’s progress among the most senior figures in the SNP, hinting that it may have played a role in Sturgeon’s shock decision to resign in February.
“I consider it highly likely that [Sturgeon] knew this was going to occur,” they said.
The idea that foreknowledge of Murrell’s arrest had been the “real reason” behind Sturgeon resignation was dismissed by First Minister Humza Yousaf (above), who said her record and legacy will stand on their own.
But whether Sturgeon’s legacy can survive intact is yet to be seen, especially with the party’s grassroots members said to be feeling “so shocked and so dismayed” at the arrest.
“It is the army of SNP supporters out in the wind and rain trying to get the SNP elected … How let down they must be feeling. That kind of sentiment must be expressed,” one source told The National.
There were also suggestions that the “shock, dismay, anger” among the SNP grassroots would be more widely felt, and could damage the independence cause in the polls. But this was not a universal feeling among party figures.
“The Union didn’t end when Jeffrey Archer was arrested, or when Tony Blair was questioned under caution by the police,” one source said.
No one is really sure what the findings of the probe – or its ultimate impact – will be.
As one SNP figure told The National: “We await to see what exactly this is all about.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article