Bold opening: When politics collides with the court, the rule of law itself becomes the battleground. And this is where the controversy thickens in Scotland.
It has been an extraordinary week for politics and law in Scotland. MSPs have debated a live criminal case at Holyrood, questions have surfaced about a judge’s decision to postpone a hearing, and the lord advocate has faced serious corruption accusations. In response, she and other senior legal figures warned MPs that such disputes risk eroding the rule of law.
Where did the clear boundary between the justice system and politicians go astray—the separation of powers between lawmakers and enforcers? How did we arrive at this point, and has the boundary begun to blur a bit too much?
Perhaps it’s natural for a politically charged case to pull the legal system into a muddy political arena. Peter Murrell—the former chief executive of the SNP for 22 years, married to party leader and first minister Nicola Sturgeon—now faces embezzlement charges linked to the party’s funds. He has not yet entered a plea. As details about the charge became public, lawmakers were inevitably curious and keen to weigh in.
Murrell was slated for a preliminary court hearing on Friday, accused of embezzling nearly £460,000 from the SNP. The hearing was postponed to 25 May, with some politicians noting it would occur after the election. Former Conservative leader Douglas Ross asked Holyrood whether there had been any government–court discussions about the delay. The government’s answer was a firm “no,” yet Ross declared the situation “stinky.” The court said the delay was a joint request from both sides, granted by Judge Lord Young. It’s not unusual for either side to request more time, and there is a 17-month deadline before Murrell must appear in court again. Counting from his first appearance in March 2025, the next appearance could slip into August, so a pre-election hearing wasn’t guaranteed.
Because Lord Young made the call and because politicians rarely level accusations at a judge, Ross’s remarks read as hints of government meddling rather than a straightforward charge. They created headlines rather than a clear charge of interference. But the events on Wednesday were much more direct and serious.
PA Media
It emerged that the lord advocate, Dorothy Bain—the head of the prosecution service, a government minister, and legal adviser—had written a memo to John Swinney in January. The memo warned ministers that Murrell had been served with an indictment and that the case was active, advising them not to comment publicly. Yet the memo also disclosed two extra details: the exact figure under investigation and a rough timetable for how long cases typically take to reach court. This raised eyebrows among the opposition. Why did Swinney receive information that wouldn’t be public for more than a month?
What followed in Holyrood was striking. The lord advocate was summoned to answer an urgent question. Normally, law officers are treated with a certain deference, given they are not elected politicians and are not regularly subjected to such heated scrutiny. This time, there was little restraint. Labour’s Michael Marra pressed Bain on whether Swinney had benefited from insider information, asking, “on what planet is it not political interference?” The tension escalated when Tory leader Russell Findlay accused the move of smelling like corruption and urged Bain to consider her position. Bain defended herself, saying revealing such information is a standard measure to keep the government informed about developments in a major case, intended to protect the integrity of the process, not influence it. Bain, with a long record in high-stakes prosecutions and appearances before the Supreme Court and European Court of Human Rights, was visibly unsettled but articulate. The legal community lined up in her defense. Roddy Dunlop KC, Dean of the Faculty of Advocates, described the corruption allegations as “very serious, and on the evidence available, entirely baseless,” and urged MSPs not to undermine the rule of law. Swinney later affirmed his confidence in Bain, calling the accusations “contemptible rubbish.”
So, was there a real political advantage at play? The opposition contends Swinney’s access to the alleged figure and timescale details allowed him to craft a timely response while others remained uninformed. The government rejects that interpretation. It’s plausible that the SNP could already have an approximate idea of the sum involved, given the funds in question were within their own coffers, and the scheduling realities of court cases are notoriously lengthy.
Where there might be genuine consensus is over the broader question of the lord advocate’s dual role. Beyond Bain herself, the issue is whether appointing the head of the prosecution to a cabinet role creates conflicts of interest when cases become politically charged. Some propose separating the roles to ensure a clear separation of powers and to avoid the need for the lord advocate to recuse herself or weigh in on ministerial discussions. A 2024 government-commissioned report explored this, and as of now it remains under “active ministerial consideration.” Implementing such a change would be complex, given the historic ties of this office to Scotland’s devolution framework; it would likely require involvement from Westminster and potential amendments to the Scotland Act. Any reform would demand broad cross-party collaboration, which feels unlikely amid current tensions.
With an election looming, politicking dominates every angle. Swinney labeled the opposition’s tactics as “desperation.” The First Minister voiced genuine anger at Findlay’s stance, and the lord advocate’s letter to Anas Sarwar warning that his accusations risked undermining the rule of law underscored the stakes. This moment poses a risk not just to Scottish institutions but to public trust at large. Trust is already frayed, and many people feel that systems must be refreshed, if not overhauled. MSPs, for their part, contribute to the fever by trading accusations rather than seeking common ground.
The central questions endure: Are politicians compromising the neutrality of the judiciary, or are they simply defending the rule of law by scrutinizing those who uphold it? And what should the public believe when trust in political leaders—and even in the head of the prosecution service—feels precarious?
In a political climate that rewards polarization, it’s easy to misread moves as partisan sabotage. But this is more than a Scotland-only affair; it echoes a wider global pattern where institutions are tested and public confidence wavers. Politics has always involved a rough mix of public service and self-interest. Yet when trust collapses, everyone pays the price. The takeaway for the public is clear: be vigilant, demand transparency, and hold all sides accountable. And for the politicians, a reminder to tread carefully when sowing distrust, because the harvest inevitably lands back on everyone—and especially on the institutions people rely on every day.
