WHY HAS Nicola Sturgeon resigned? In the midst of the SNP leadership election we still do not know the answer. The saying goes ‘all political careers end in failure’, but it is usually easier to ascertain why resignations occur. Yet in the curious case of Nicola Sturgeon things are not so straight forward.
The conventional wisdom among the chattering classes is Nicola Sturgeon called it a day after the trans rapist row. But calling it quits in the eye of a predictable self-identification row is stupid and the outgoing First Minister is far from stupid. Nicola Sturgeon has always been a masterful media manager and any PR gurus worth their salt would advise to ride out the storm. She had, after all, quickly reversed her Justice Minister’s defence of the double rapist being placed in Cornton Vale Women’s prison.
So, we return to the question, why resign now?
“She is a human being” a friend and pundit tells me. Ms Sturgeon was simply worn down by the media furore surrounding her Gender Recognition Reform self-identification provisions. It’s just a story of a tired political leader finally succumbing to exhaustion after a prolonged ensconcement in power. Simply put, she went now due to the trans rapist row and fatigue.
But the problem with conventional wisdom is that it’s not wisdom at all. Conventional wisdom is taking somebody else’s word for the way things are. And relying on assumption is always a poor substitute for critical thinking.
For one thing, savvy media manager and masterful communicator Nicola Sturgeon surely has not just thrown in the towel because a few journalists are writing negative stories about her policy. Just a week ago she was insisting there was “plenty left in the tank”. Nobody will convince me that Ms Sturgeon in a fit of pique called it quits. She is a famously cautious politician who thinks the only jury of opinion that ever matters are her own little grey braincells.
So, what’s really going on here? To echo deepthroat’s famous catchphrase from All the President’s Men, “follow the money”.
There are two particular investigations of fraud ongoing in Scotland that make uncomfortable reading for the outgoing First Minister or the party she leads.
Operation Branchform
For those unaware, Operation Branchform is the Police Scotland investigation into allegations of a possible fundraising fraud by the Scottish National Party. The investigation was launched after seven official complaints were registered in July 2021. The issue is whether or not approximately £666,953 raised for a Scottish independence campaign was in part improperly spent by the SNP on other activities. Although the SNP continues to deny all allegations, questions continue to remain unanswered and new revelations about a large loan to the SNP has since come to light.
According to sources close to the fraud investigation, the allegations “may have substance”. This comes amid reports that some officers involved believe criminality may have occurred and wish to question people under caution. Yet it seems the Scottish prosecution service, the Crown Office, are echoing views held by senior SNP figures. The Times reports that Crown Office officials “are believed to share the view of senior SNP figures who argue all spending by the party ultimately supports its overall aim of independence.”
Taking that argument into account I would not ordinarily raise my eyebrows, but when one also takes note that the Times reported the Crown Office had attempted to change the wording around the investigation into the SNP’s finances it makes the case more interesting. The reporting outlined allegations by a source that the prosecution service had lobbied for a change in the wording to be closer to a “fact-finding” exercise rather than a formal investigation.
I for one remain fascinated as to why the Scottish prosecution service has seemed more concerned about sparing the ruling SNP poor media optics than ensuring there can be no whiff of undue interference in the investigation process by the Crown.
But the curious case of the Crown Office’s antics as Operation Branchform has unfolded is only compounded by the fact we are not allowed to get clarity on the matter. The discussions between Scotland’s prosecution service and police force around the ongoing investigation must remain secret. You are not permitted to know as that would not be in the public interest apparently.
More recently, the fraud probe now confirms they have also been asked to look at a loan of £107,620 made in June 2021 by Peter Murrell, the SNP’s chief executive and husband to Nicola Sturgeon. Scottish Tory sources have expressed their bemusement to me following the “extraordinary coincidence” about Mr Murrell’s loan being made the day after the referendum appeal was discussed. And they have a point, especially given the loan in question was reported late to the Electoral Commission.
But thus far answers there are none – at least not publicly – from either Ms Sturgeon or her husband Peter Murrell. When the BBC’s Glenn Campbell probed the outgoing First Minister she refused to comment about whether or not she expects to or has already been interviewed by the Police:
Glenn Campbell: “Just one factual point. Have you been, or do you expect, to be interviewed by the police who are looking into your party’s finances?”
Nicola Sturgeon: “I’m not going to discuss an ongoing police investigation. I wouldn’t do that on any issue and I’m not going to do it now.”
This disinclination to comment on whether or not the Police have already interviewed her isn’t the only area where Ms Sturgeon demonstrates a lawyerly caution. When The Herald’s Tom Gordon pressed her on the loan issue directly, Ms Sturgeon claimed not to recall when she first learned of the loan. She also added a curious line about “what he does with his resources is a matter for him”. This is quite the line being offered given we’re talking about a £107,000 loan given by her husband (and party chief executive) to the political outfit she has been leading for eight years.
Eventually the retiring First Minister will have to answer questions with greater specificity, if not to journalists, then certainly to the Police investigators. What she knew and when she knew it in relation to the Murrell loan to the SNP should surely become part of ‘Operation Branchform’ fraud investigation.
I understand that officers involved in Branchform were seeking direction from the Crown Office for some time concerning whether to interview senior SNP figures as suspects or as witnesses. The Crown Office has, however, insisted on taking its time. It seems the prosecutors have been determined they need to take more time to consider how to proceed. This is despite the investigation already running for 18 months for allegations which first emerged more than three years prior. Now the First Minister is resigning, perhaps the prosecution service will reach decisions with greater rapidity?
This fraud squad probe continues to be ongoing, despite curious Crown Office delay and Nicola Sturgeon’s determination to avoid addressing journalist questions on the police fraud probe. With sources close to investigation saying the fundraising fraud allegations “may have substance” despite Crown Office slow-walking decisions, Branchform isn’t something we should lightly ignore. Ms Sturgeon has previously said her resignation was not a result of “short-term pressures” such as the gender recognition row or which jail to house a trans rapist in. So that raises the prospect of a driving factor being other – longer term and possibly more serious – pressures. Should we consider the Police fundraising fraud probe ‘Operation Branchform’ as a possible pressure?
Sandstone Press investigation
Although you may have missed it, the second fraud probe of significance involves allegations of fraud concerning £295,000 of taxpayer’s money concerning a Scottish book publishing company and a public body. Officers of the financial crimes unit are probing allegations that Sandstone Press – who published a book of Nicola Sturgeon’s speeches – benefited from a breach of the rules governing grant awards from Scottish Government public body Highlands and Islands Enterprise (HIE).
Sandstone Press is run by ardent nationalist and committed SNP supporter Robert Davidson; and received £120,000 in the 12 months leading up to the publication of Women Hold Up Half the Sky: Selected Speeches of Nicola Sturgeon. A book which contains an introduction by the retiring First Minister’s friend, Val McDermid.
One of the first aspects raising my eyebrows concerns that 12-month timing. Not least as it means the firm was promoting a book of the now outgoing First Minister’s speeches using resources apparently entirely derived from HIE and Creative Scotland (CS) in the run-up to the Scottish Parliamentary elections.
Keith Charters, managing director of book firm Strident Publishing, has highlighted this represents a potential breach of the ministerial code by HIE, Creative Scotland and even Scottish Government Minister Fiona Hyslop.
“We consider this a clear breach by HIE of the Civil Service Code. Given Cabinet Secretary Fiona Hyslop’s knowledge of the circumstances in which Sandstone has been funded by CS and HIE, we believe this also constitutes a breach of the Scottish Ministerial Code.”
The relevant guideline would seem to be the obligation to ‘Ensure that public resources are not used for party political purposes’.
Normally I would not be particularly concerned if Sandstone Press were promoting and publishing a book of Nicola Sturgeon’s speeches if they were using their own resources and just happened to also receive taxpayer funding. Claims have been raised, however, that Sandstone Press was financially non-viable with the firm’s balance sheet recording c£0.5m cumulative trading losses at the time period in question. Were that to be the case the allegation can be (and has been) raised that Sandstone was using taxpayer cash given predominantly by HIE to promote a highly political book in the run up to a Scottish election.
But things become even murkier when we examine further allegations concerning how the taxpayer cash funding was given to the publisher. Mr Charters has also raised the allegation that £70,000 from the Pivotal Enterprise Resilience Fund (PERF) was dished out to Sandstone by HIE using a highly convenient assessment of the company.
HIE’s PERF criteria for assessing Sandstone. The set criteria and the substituted criteria
Judging by what we can plainly see in the image above, there would seem to be a prima facie case to be made suggesting HIE was dolling out taxpayer cash to Sandstone on the basis of an incorrect assessment of the company. Put simply, the physical geographical location of a company is a matter of objective fact, yet it would appear that HIE awarded the Sandstone’s application four times the appropriate points for Geographic Location (green panel replacing the red panel). It also appears on the face of it that HIE was engaged in a game of pretend, recording Sandstone’s business wrongly as opposed to its actual location. In an email Mr Charters sent to the Cabinet Secretariat in 25 February 2021, he makes the point bluntly about his concerns over how Sandstone Press could receive the taxpayer funds, writing:
“Where a company’s business is located is a matter of fact. It seems HIE pretended that the company’s IV2 postcode – the postcode of HIE’s own HQ in Inverness – was not in Inverness but on an island or more than 30 minutes’ drive from Inverness. Those points (4 where 1 was the only possible award) were the difference between the company’s application being approved versus being automatically rejected.”
We should note that HIE did eventually admit that it awarded 3 points for Geographic Location (v 4) instead of the 1 point to which Sandstone was eligible. So, we know that the PERF scoring was wrong, thus allegations could be said to take on a firmer aspect. We can also establish that outgoing First Minister Nicola Sturgeon was also made aware of the allegations set out in brief above. The Daily Record revealed in a November 2021 article that Keith Charters wrote to Sturgeon warning of concerns over Sandstone.
This means Nicola Sturgeon was in the loop.
I have read the letter sent by Strident Publishing Limited to Nicola Sturgeon dated 12th September which sets out the ministerial code breach in detail against the requirements of the Code. It also references an earlier letter. Despite this, Mr Charters explains to me the outgoing First Minister “has not responded in any way to either”
We can again say that on the face of matters, the First Minister was alerted prior to the book’s publication but felt disinclined to act or instruct action on the allegations at the time, and further, has also felt disinterested enough to not even reply to Mr Charter’s letters. Subsequently the Police received an official complaint from Mr Charters and that is how the whole affair has become the subject of an active ongoing investigation.
The Serious & Organised Crime Financial Investigations group is currently exploring these serious allegations of wrongdoing directed at both the publisher and HIE – in particular, the £120,000 of grants given in 2020 to Sandstone and £175,000 of loans agreed with the company in 2019.
If we bring into the picture the HIE and Creative Scotland funding, Sturgeon’s publisher managed to secure more than £500,000 of public money over the last 15 years. That’s a lot of taxpayer money going to a company run by an ardent nationalist and passionate SNP supporter. A situation all the more concerning given the allegations of adjusted company assessments by HIE alongside potential breaches of the ministerial code.
The allegations and circumstances raised by Mr Charters clearly represents enough of a case that requires the Police to be actively probing matters.
A Curious resignation
To conclude, I am simply not convinced Ms Sturgeon went from insisting there was “plenty left in the tank” to exiting the top job in the space of a week after being asked if a trans rapist is a man or woman. Ms Sturgeon has toughed-out harder moments than that. She has even insisted publicly that such short-term issues weren’t a driver behind her curiously sudden resignation. I therefore humbly suggest we follow the money. This is not to suggest Nicola Sturgeon has benefited from any dubious movements of money – but were anything to require police interviews or show a connection to her it would obviously prove embarrassing The twin fraud probes detailed above therefore represent potential long-term pressures. Ones which raise serious questions and instant denials of wrong doing. A cautious politician famed for lawyerly caution might choose it would be better to bow out before long-running investigations came to a head and before police started interviewing current and ex-SNP figures.
Time will tell if my suspicions as to the reasons for the First Minister’s sudden desire to exit stage-left are near the truth.
If you appreciated this article please share and follow us on Twitter here – and like and comment on facebook here. Help support ThinkScotland publishing these articles by making a donation here.
