I have been deceived, misled, lied to and betrayed
At a Welsh literary festival, former Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon offered a rare public reckoning with a decision that has come to define the unraveling of her political legacy — her choice, in 2014, to retain her then-husband Peter Murrell as chief executive of the SNP, a man who had already begun stealing from the party he led. Speaking with the measured candor of someone navigating the distance between personal loyalty and institutional responsibility, Sturgeon acknowledged the mistake while insisting that no leader can be held accountable for a spouse's secret crimes. The admission arrives as Scottish politics continues to process the collapse of a partnership — marital and political — that once seemed inseparable from the independence movement itself.
- Murrell embezzled over £400,000 from the SNP across more than a decade, a betrayal that has left the party financially and reputationally wounded.
- Sturgeon's decision to keep him in post after becoming leader in 2014 is now seen by critics as a critical missed opportunity — one adviser claims Salmond himself warned her the arrangement was untenable.
- She draws a firm line between her judgment call and his criminality, arguing that retaining a capable executive out of fairness cannot make her complicit in crimes she did not know were happening.
- An examination of facts is set for June 2, keeping the legal and political pressure alive even as Sturgeon insists the police investigation has already done its forensic work.
- Behind the political accounting lies a deeply personal wound — Sturgeon described the week of Murrell's guilty plea as the worst of her life, and admitted quietly that she is not OK.
Nicola Sturgeon appeared at the Hay Festival in Powys to promote her memoir, but it was a confession rather than a celebration that drew attention. She acknowledged, with visible reluctance, that she should not have kept Peter Murrell as SNP chief executive when she became party leader in 2014. "With the benefit of hindsight," she told the audience, "that was a decision I wish I had taken differently."
Murrell had been appointed to the role by Alex Salmond in 2000 and was, by Sturgeon's own account, deeply effective in it. When she succeeded Salmond following the 2014 independence referendum, she reasoned it would be unfair to remove him simply because her own role had changed. The chief executive, she noted, was accountable to the national executive committee, not to the party leader directly. It seemed to her a matter of basic fairness.
What she did not know — or says she did not know — was that Murrell had been embezzling party funds since 2010. He eventually stole more than £400,000. He resigned in March 2023 amid a separate controversy over membership figures, was arrested weeks later as part of Operation Branchform, and ultimately pleaded guilty. Sturgeon was also arrested in the same investigation but was released without charge.
At the festival, she was careful to separate her judgment from his guilt. Retaining him, she argued, does not make her responsible for crimes he chose to commit in secret. She also denied suppressing scrutiny of SNP finances, pointing out that professional auditors had reviewed the party's accounts throughout her tenure and that no embezzlement was suspected until 2023.
Not everyone accepted that framing. Campbell Gunn, an adviser to both Salmond and Sturgeon, told BBC Radio Scotland that Salmond had warned her Murrell's position was untenable — and that she had ignored the counsel. "A lot of the grief that has engulfed the party," Gunn said, "could have been avoided."
Sturgeon spoke openly about the personal cost. She called the week of Murrell's guilty plea the worst of her life, and her own arrest day the worst single day. She described feeling deceived, misled, and betrayed — and said, with quiet honesty, that she is not OK. An examination of facts in the case is scheduled for June 2, with the full weight of that history still unresolved.
Nicola Sturgeon stood before an audience at a Welsh book festival and acknowledged a decision that has haunted Scottish politics for over a decade. She should not have kept Peter Murrell—her husband, now estranged—as chief executive of the Scottish National Party when she took over as leader in 2014. The admission came quietly, almost reluctantly, as she promoted her memoir at the Hay Festival in Powys. "Definitely, with the benefit of hindsight, that was a decision I wish I had taken differently," she told the crowd in conversation with journalist Francine Stock.
Murrell had stolen more than £400,000 from the party he ran for over two decades. His embezzlement began in 2010, years before Sturgeon's ascent to the leadership, a fact she emphasized repeatedly. When she became party leader in November 2014, succeeding Alex Salmond after the Scottish independence referendum, Murrell was already entrenched in the role—appointed by Salmond back in 2000 and, by Sturgeon's own account, instrumental to the party's success under her predecessor. She framed her decision to retain him as a matter of fairness. The chief executive, she reasoned, was not directly managed by the party leader but by the national executive committee. It seemed wrong to her to strip him of his position simply because she had taken on a new one. "My judgement was that it was not fair for him to lose his job, that he had done well, because I was taking on a new job," she explained.
But the weight of that judgment has only grown heavier. Murrell resigned in March 2023 amid controversy over membership figures. Less than three weeks later, he was arrested as part of Operation Branchform, a Police Scotland investigation into SNP finances. He eventually pleaded guilty to the embezzlement charges. Sturgeon herself was arrested as part of the same investigation, though she was later released without charge and provided a detailed written response to police questions through her lawyer, Aamer Anwar.
At the festival, Sturgeon was careful to separate her responsibility for keeping Murrell in his post from responsibility for his crimes. "I still don't think that makes me responsible for somebody committing a crime," she said. She also pushed back against suggestions that she had suppressed questions about the party's accounts during her time as first minister, noting that no embezzlement was suspected until 2023 and that professional accountants had audited the SNP's books throughout her tenure. She disputed claims that money raised for an independence referendum campaign had been diverted to election spending.
Yet others saw the decision differently. Campbell Gunn, an adviser to both Salmond and Sturgeon, claimed that Salmond himself had warned her that Murrell's position was "untenable" while she served as party leader. Gunn told BBC Radio Scotland that Sturgeon chose to ignore that counsel. "A lot of the grief that has engulfed the party over the past six or seven years could have been avoided had that advice been taken," he said.
Sturgeon spoke openly about the personal toll. She described the week of Murrell's guilty plea as the worst of her life, and called the day of her own arrest the worst day. She acknowledged being deceived, misled, lied to, and betrayed—framing her experience as one shared by many women whose husbands have betrayed them. "I probably need to sit with a therapist," she said, adding quietly, "this is a long-winded way of saying I am not OK." She rejected calls for a further public inquiry, arguing that the five-year police investigation had been sufficiently forensic. An examination of facts in the case was scheduled for June 2, with the full weight of the party's recent history hanging over it.
Citas Notables
Definitely, with the benefit of hindsight, that was a decision I wish I had taken differently.— Nicola Sturgeon, on keeping Murrell as chief executive
A lot of the grief that has engulfed the party over the past six or seven years could have been avoided had that advice been taken.— Campbell Gunn, former adviser, on Salmond's warning about Murrell's position
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
When she says she didn't think it was fair to remove him, what was she actually protecting—his reputation, or something about the stability of the party itself?
Both, probably. Murrell had been there since 2000. He was woven into the party's identity. Removing him would have signaled instability at the moment she was trying to consolidate power. But there's also a human element—he'd been loyal, he'd been effective. It's hard to fire someone for that.
But Salmond apparently warned her it was untenable. Why would she ignore that?
Because Salmond was the predecessor, and new leaders often want to establish their own authority. Taking his advice too literally might have felt like admitting she couldn't make her own decisions. Or maybe she simply disagreed with his judgment at the time.
The embezzlement started in 2010, before she was leader. Does that actually absolve her of responsibility for keeping him on?
It complicates it. She didn't cause the crime. But she had the power to remove him and chose not to. Whether that's a failure of judgment or just an unlucky decision depends on what you think a leader owes the party.
She says she's been betrayed, deceived, lied to. Is she asking for sympathy?
She's naming something real. She was married to him. She trusted him. The embezzlement happened in secret. But she's also a former first minister speaking publicly about a decision that affected thousands of party members. The personal and the political are tangled here.
What happens next?
The examination of facts on June 2 will likely clarify the timeline and what was known when. But the damage to her reputation and the party's credibility is already done. The question now is whether the SNP can move forward, and whether Sturgeon's acknowledgment of the mistake is enough.