Why John Swinney can't dismiss the case for Holyrood inquiry into Peter Murrell case

According to John Swinney, there is no need for a Holyrood inquiry into how Peter Murrell was able to embezzle more than £400,000 from the SNP over a 12-year period while serving as the party's chief executive.

“There has been a police inquiry, what more do we need to look into?" the First Minister said. “There has been criminality involved here, and that criminality has been addressed in the courts. So I don’t think it’s appropriate for there to be a Holyrood inquiry, because what can a Holyrood inquiry do that a detailed police investigation [has not done]?”

This strikes us, at least, as a rather strange lack of curiosity on his part. Does he imagine there are no lessons to be learned for the SNP – and indeed other political parties – about how to ensure such a significant theft does not take place again?

READ MORE: Humza Yousaf: I hope Peter Murrell is given a hefty sentence

John Swinney has said there is no need to hold an inquiry into Peter Murrell's crimes (Picture: Jane Barlow/pool) | Getty Images

Disciplinary action?

Is he entirely confident that no one within the SNP made errors of judgment that allowed Murrell to get away with his crimes which might warrant disciplinary steps or other actions short of a criminal prosecution?

Swinney has stated it was "irrelevant" that he appointed Murrell as SNP chief executive in 2001 during his first spell as party leader. And this may well be true. Murrell has admitted embezzling money between 2010 and 2022, so there is a nine-year gap between his appointment and the beginning of his criminal spending spree.

But if Swinney can be certain about the extent of his own probity, can he be so sure that everyone else within the SNP in a position to realise something had gone wrong acted as they should have done?

READ MORE: Scottish public must be told why Peter Murrell's embezzlement hearing was held after election

Furthermore, Nicola Sturgeon's “no comment” replies to police questions about her husband's activities may have been based on legal advice, but they do not inspire confidence among the voting public. An inquiry would give her and others the chance to give a fuller account, to set the record straight, for all to see.

The SNP have long faced claims about their alleged cultivation of a 'culture of secrecy'. Given Swinney's reaction to this astonishing scandal, it is a suspicion that will only grow.