Angus Brendan MacNeil says he’s trying to be helpful to his former colleagues in the SNP when asking Scotland’s prosecuting authority not to issue any more details of the near three-year police investigation into the missing £600,000 from the party’s coffers.
If they did, he warned it could detonate a “political grenade” that derails the SNP’s general election campaign, following the Crown Office’s confirmation that Nicola Sturgeon, the former first minister and party leader, remains under investigation.
However, in this astonishing move of asking for a period of official silence during the election campaign, isn’t the Western Isles MP’s action provoking the very thing he says he’s trying to avoid – namely the politicisation of this high-profile case?
Mr MacNeil’s action was prompted after it had been revealed, on the second day of election campaigning, that a report had been handed by Police Scotland to the Crown Office in relation to Peter Murrell, Ms Sturgeon’s husband and the SNP’s former chief executive. He has been charged in connection with embezzling funds from the party.
Although no longer a member of the SNP – he was expelled last year after a row with a party whip – Mr MacNeil is a very experienced politician and should surely be aware of the effect of his warnings in seeking what he calls “clarity” about whether more charges might result from what’s called Operation Branchform.
There was the potential of what he termed “a ‘political hand grenade’ resulting from the possibility of more charges or investigations resulting from this investigation”, adding: “It has the huge potential to change the narrative of this campaign.”
But, then, speaking on behalf of SNP friends, he asked: “Will the Crown Office hold off until after July 4 as a result?”
Although the whole of Scotland wants to see the results of the Police Scotland investigation, Mr MacNeil says he is acting on behalf of former colleagues who are still SNP MPs and who are taking part in the election campaign but which might “get blown off course” if any more charges or prosecutions were brought before July 4.
Frankly, is he really saying that the wheels of justice should stop grinding just because there’s an election campaign? Or is he saying that if the proper authorities determine that they have enough evidence to bring charges against someone, that they should keep it secret because of political considerations?
I doubt if the people who matter – by that I mean the electorate – would appreciate it if they discovered that a public statement about the outcome of a hugely detailed and expensive case was being kept under wraps because they’d been asked to do so by a well-known politician?
In their response to this MP’s protestations, the Crown Office – referring to Ms Sturgeon and Colin Beattie, the party’s former treasurer – confirmed that investigations of two other individuals, a man aged 72 and a 53-year-old woman, remained ongoing.
And then for good measure, also said: “Decisions on how to proceed are taken by prosecutors acting independently, and are based upon available evidence, legal principles, and the merits of each case. They are not influenced by political events.”
Quite right. Like most people I’m very pleased about this response and just hope that the words mean what they say.
If they mean that they’ll “publish and be damned” whenever they have something to tell us about this case, no matter the political pressure, so much the better.
EMEA Tribune is not involved in this news article, it is taken from our partners and or from the News Agencies. Copyright and Credit go to the News Agencies, email news@emeatribune.com Follow our WhatsApp verified Channel
