Murrell’s Tartan Special Brew is more than Bad Manners

THE ADMISSION of embezzlement by the leader of House Murrell compounds a resignation across Scotland that the SNP has some serious issues with integrity. It was not so long ago a certain Natalie McGarry ended up southside of a judgement against her handling of money raised for, of all things, independence.

Sipping a pint of Salopian Oracle on the banks of the Severn in Shrewsbury this week I heard an old favourite on the wireless, that classic piece by Bad Manners, “Special Brew”.

This certainly bad manners to trouser almost half a million from the SNP’s own funds. For it is clear that husband and wife ran the governing party in a very bad mannered way, a very special brew that broke every rule of separation of powers. Scotland’s republic in waiting has been treated more like an absolute monarchy by this pair.

The controversy surrounding the SNP’s internal governance and finances—often discussed in connection with the Police Scotland investigation known as Operation Branchform—has raised sustained questions about oversight, accountability, and internal controls during the leadership period of Nicola Sturgeon and the tenure of former chief executive Peter Murrell. It is important to note that investigations are ongoing, but the political scrutiny has already been significant.

At the heart of the debate is whether the SNP’s internal governance was sufficiently robust for a party operating at the scale and prominence it achieved. I wrote about this five years ago, there’s been time enough for the SNP to reflect internally. Critics argue that financial decision-making and oversight have been too centralised within a tight leadership circle, leaving limited room for independent challenge or scrutiny.

Weaknesses in internal audit and governance culture allowed decisions to pass with insufficient transparency or external verification. One wonders how the rest of government has been “managing” Supporters of the party, by contrast, maintain that it operated within the norms of UK political organisations, and that complex funding and campaigning demands can create administrative pressures without implying wrongdoing. One of the most widely cited flashpoints in public discussion has been the purchase of a luxury motorhome reportedly intended for campaigning use. Valued at around £100,000, the vehicle quickly became a symbol in media coverage of perceived misjudgement.

Rather than its intended function, it became associated with questions about necessity, storage, and decision-making processes. For critics, the motorhome encapsulated concerns that financial choices were not always subjected to adequate internal challenge or strategic clarity. Another recurring detail in reporting has been the mention of relatively small but symbolically charged expenditure items, including luxury Montblanc pens. While minor in financial terms, such purchases amplify political debate because they speak to perceptions of judgement and organisational culture.

In contentious political environments, seemingly trivial expenses can take on outsized significance when they are interpreted as indicators of broader governance standards. Defenders counter that political parties are inherently fast-moving organisations that make imperfect decisions under pressure, particularly during sustained electoral cycles. They caution against interpreting individual expenditures as evidence of systemic failure, especially while formal investigations are still underway.

As the inquiry continues, the case has become less about isolated items or anecdotes and more about how political organisations are governed at the highest level—how trust is maintained, how scrutiny is handled, and how transparency is enforced when power is concentrated within a small leadership core. And with that, let’s enjoy those lyrics one more time…until the next time!