Scottish minister refuses to say if Branchform officers known to Government
The Police Scotland operation was set up to investigate the SNP’s use of funding.
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Scotland’s Justice Secretary has refused to say if the Government knows the identities of police officers investigating the SNP’s finances.
Police Scotland launched Operation Branchform to examine the party’s use of funding and has charged former chief executive – and the husband of Nicola Sturgeon – Peter Murrell in connection with alleged embezzlement.
Ms Sturgeon and former party treasurer Colin Beattie were both arrested last year but released without charge, pending further investigation.
The former first minister told the PA news agency in December she knows “nothing more” about the investigation.
Scottish Conservative MSP Craig Hoy raised the investigation in the Holyrood chamber on Wednesday, quizzing Justice Secretary Angela Constance on whether the Government knows the identity of the 11 officers who are part of the investigation.
A freedom of information request asking if and when the Government had been made aware, along with how it had been given the details, Mr Hoy said, had been rejected because it would “substantially prejudice” the probe.
“Which strongly suggests the Government may well be aware of those facts,” he said.
“So can the minister explain why revealing the specific date when officers’ identities could have become known would risk prejudicing the police probe, and if the Government has nothing to hide, why would it not confirm how they may have secured the identities of the investigating officers, if indeed it is in receipt of them?”
Following a warning from Deputy Presiding Officer Anabelle Ewing that the case is live and subject to contempt of court legislation, Ms Constance replied: “Presiding Officer, with respect to both yourself and the chamber, as the member is well aware, as Justice Secretary, I do not comment and I am not involved in live cases and I have nothing further to add.”