Turbulence on the path to a more sustainable form of nationalism

Editorial: The departure of Peter Murrell as Scottish National Party chief executive was overdue

Mr Murrell made the right decision to resign (Andy Buchanan/PA)

That the Scottish National Party seemed to be run as an extension of the household of Nicola Sturgeon and Peter Murrell, her husband, was never a good idea. It was wrong that the party should have been run as the personal fiefdom of the leader.

Mr Murrell made the right decision to resign but he really should have stepped down long ago. It is alarming that the party’s internal democracy should have asserted itself only now that Ms Sturgeon is on the way out. If she had not already announced her departure, would the national executive committee have threatened a vote of no confidence in her husband?

The immediate cause of his resignation, which pre-empted any vote by the NEC, was the supply of misleading information about the party’s membership numbers to Murray Foote, the head of media who resigned on Friday. Mr Foote felt he had misled journalists because he had been given incorrect information by the party HQ that concealed the decline in membership.

But Mr Murrell should never have held the post of chief executive after his marriage to Ms Sturgeon in 2010 or, given that he did continue to hold it, he should have resigned by now. He should have resigned when it was discovered that he had lent the party £100,000 to help it with a “cash flow” problem after the 2021 Scottish parliament election. That was taking the household analogy with party finances too far.

And he should have resigned when no clear answers were forthcoming about what happened to the £600,000 that was raised from supporters in 2017 for the explicit purposes of a future referendum campaign.

Still, he has done the right thing now. Although he claimed to have no role in the leadership election to replace his wife, two of the candidates, Kate Forbes and Ash Regan, may now have more confidence in the integrity of the ballot. That Mr Murrell is identified with the third candidate, Humza Yousaf, regarded by his opponents as the Sturgeon continuity candidate, was another reason that he should have resigned earlier.

The collapse of the Sturgeon-Murrell hegemony has been dizzying in its suddenness. A party that prided itself on discipline and unity has thrown itself into the joys of pluralism and democratic debate with unexpected enthusiasm. This is all to the good, and should strengthen the party and its cause in the long run; although there will be a short-term cost.

Two of the candidates to replace Ms Sturgeon, Mr Yousaf and Ms Forbes, represent a sharp, significant and welcome change of strategy. Rather than Ms Sturgeon’s attempt to dash for a second referendum when support for breaking up the UK is oscillating around 50 per cent in opinion polls, they argue that the SNP needs to demonstrate that independence is the sustained and settled will of the Scottish people.

The SNP needs a leader with the courage to tell its members what many of them do not want to hear, which is that independence is a long haul, and that it depends on persuading many more of their fellow citizens of the wisdom of that route.

And it needs a chief executive who does not live in the same house.