A SNP expert has claimed an earlier guilty plea by disgraced Peter Murrell would have had a “major impact” on the Holyrood election result.
Professor James Mitchell said an April confession would “certainly” have risked the SNP and Green pro-independence majority.
Labour figures now want any parliamentary inquiry into Murrell’s embezzlement of SNP funds to look at the timing of his post-election plea.
Murrell, the estranged husband of Nicola Sturgeon, is facing a stiff jail sentence after thieving over £400,000 of SNP cash as party chief executive.
He pled guilty on May 25th – days after an election that saw the SNP secure a historic fifth term.
The police probe that led to the conviction lasted five years and Murrell told his lawyers in March to explore a guilty plea.
OPINION
Negotiations between Murrell’s team and the Crown Office meant the corrupt Nat’s crimes was only revealed after the election was over.
Mitchell, a Professor of Public Policy at Edinburgh University, said an April plea would have derailed Swinney’s campaign.
“It’s likely to have had a major impact,” he told the Record.
“The amount of coverage and more questions raised would have dominated the campaign for at least some time. This would have been a gift to opposition allowing the focus to be on financial competence, trust and secrecy. It’s impossible to say how much impact but difficult to see it having no adverse impact on SNP support.”
The SNP and Greens secured a pro-indy majority on May 7th, but Mitchell said an earlier plea would “certainly” have put this in jeopardy:
“It would likely have hit the SNP hard in constituencies in a number of seats won though it would have lost votes in both constituencies and on lists. Turnout would likely be affected as even some of the SNP’s core vote would have stayed home.
“John Swinney’s demeanour in responding to valid questions would not have gone down well. Every SNP candidate would face questions at every hustings and in many doorsteps.
“Who knows how some of the candidates, fearful of losing seats, might have reacted but likely frustrations would have spilled over and some publicly being critical of and distancing themselves from the leadership.”
Mitchell, who wrote a book on the rise of the SNP, added: “The context of during and post-election would be very different. This applies not only to candidates but the electorate too. A section of the electorate who may pay less attention to politics outside elections would have followed developments closely.”
A senior Labour source said he was “hugely frustrated” voters did not know about Murrell’s crimes when they cast their ballot.
A Westminster probe into aspects of the scandal may focus on the factors behind the May plea.
Scottish Labour Deputy Leader Jackie Baillie said “The delays to Peter Murrell’s guilty plea kept key details of this scandal under wraps until after the election and there are questions to answer about why that happened.
“We need a Parliamentary Inquiry into this entire sordid affair so we can get Scots the answers they deserve and rebuild trust in politics.”
Scottish Conservative deputy leader Rachael Hamilton said: “Everyone can see that the SNP had a vested interest in Peter Murrell’s guilty plea being delayed until after the election, because this case has exposed the culture of secrecy and incompetence at the top of the party.
Article continues below
“‘Honest’ John Swinney is knee deep in the failings that allowed Murrell to steal with impunity and that’s why he’s desperately trying to block an investigation into this scandal.”
Get Daily Record Premium for just £1 per month in exclusive offer to celebrate the world cup. Click HERE.