Former First Minister Nicola Sturgeon is no longer under investigation by Police Scotland as part of the probe into the Scottish National Party’s (SNP) funding and finances. This development raises questions about potential legal action against those who have accused her of wrongdoing without evidence.
The long-running investigation, known as Operation Branchform, began in July 2021 and focused on the spending of approximately £600,000 raised by SNP supporters for independence campaigning. Sturgeon, along with former SNP treasurer Colin Beattie, was arrested and subsequently released without charge. Police Scotland has now confirmed that criminal inquiries into the two individuals have concluded and that they are no longer under investigation.
Meanwhile, Peter Murrell, Sturgeon’s estranged husband and the former SNP chief executive, has appeared in court charged with embezzlement. Murrell, who had held his position since 1999, resigned in March 2023 following a dispute over SNP membership numbers. He was arrested in April of that year and charged nearly a year later with allegedly misappropriating party funds. Murrell has made no plea and has been granted bail, with further court proceedings pending.
The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) has warned that the case against Murrell is still active under the Contempt of Court Act 1981, cautioning against public commentary on the evidence, witnesses, or the accused.
In light of these developments, questions are being raised about whether Sturgeon will take legal action against those who publicly accused her of criminal activity. Given that she has been cleared, the former First Minister could potentially pursue defamation claims against individuals or media outlets that spread unfounded allegations against her.
Sturgeon, who announced her separation from Murrell in January, has yet to comment on any potential legal action. However, as the political fallout from the SNP funding investigation continues, the issue of accountability for defamatory claims remains a pertinent one. If she chooses to pursue legal recourse, it could set a precedent for how public figures respond to allegations that ultimately prove baseless.
