Sturgeon Defends ‘No Comment’ Response During Police Interview Amid SNP Funds Probe

Sturgeon defends no comment police interview – Nicola Sturgeon’s legal team has asserted that her choice to remain silent during a recent police interrogation was in line with standard legal strategy, following her arrest as part of an ongoing investigation into the financial dealings of the Scottish National Party (SNP). The Scottish Sun revealed on Tuesday that the former first minister spent several hours in silence at Falkirk police station after being detained on 11 June 2023 under Operation Branchform. Sturgeon’s solicitor, Aamer Anwar, emphasized that her decision to offer no comment was not a sign of evasion but a calculated move based on professional advice.

The inquiry, which has been scrutinizing the SNP’s financial records, led to the conviction of Sturgeon’s estranged husband, Peter Murrell, for embezzlement this week. Murrell, who previously served as the SNP’s chief executive, admitted to siphoning over £400,000 from the party’s funds over a 12-year span. The money was used for a range of personal expenditures, including a motorhome, luxury vehicles, and various items such as jewelry. Some of these purchases were reportedly given to Sturgeon as gifts. Despite this, Anwar argued that Sturgeon’s silence did not impede the investigation, which ultimately resulted in Murrell’s guilty plea.

Sturgeon’s legal representative stated that her “no comment” stance was a routine recommendation from senior legal counsel. “The advice given to Ms. Sturgeon to respond with no comment was standard practice in our jurisdiction,” Anwar said in a statement to the Press Association. He further noted that the former first minister had later provided a comprehensive written reply to Police Scotland’s queries, ensuring her position was clearly articulated. This response, he claimed, demonstrated her commitment to transparency and cooperation with the investigation.

The arrest of Sturgeon followed Murrell’s initial detention on 5 April 2023, with the two events linked through the broader financial probe. Although Sturgeon was taken into custody for seven hours, no charges were filed against her. During the interview, she had been questioned by detectives but chose to withhold verbal responses, a tactic she explained was necessary to protect her legal interests. Anwar highlighted that this approach was not unusual, given the complexities of the case and the potential implications for her role as a political leader.

In the aftermath of Murrell’s arrest, Sturgeon had publicly committed to full cooperation with the police, stating that she would attend interviews if requested. However, her decision to answer “no comment” during the 2023 interrogation has sparked debate. Russell Findlay, leader of the Scottish Conservative Party, criticized her approach, suggesting it reflected a “tactic of organised crime.” “Nicola Sturgeon spent hours saying ‘no comment’ when questioned by police (that’s what organised criminals do),” Findlay wrote on X. He later expanded on this claim during a BBC Radio Scotland Breakfast segment, asserting that her silence contradicted her earlier assurances of cooperation.

“Nicola Sturgeon gave a ‘no comment’ answer to every single question put to her by Police Scotland. This is someone who told the public at the time she co-operated fully with police. I think that is at odds with that.”

Findlay’s remarks have been met with strong rebuttals from Sturgeon’s legal team. Anwar described the criticism as “deeply worrying,” arguing that the “no comment” strategy was a necessary legal safeguard rather than an attempt to obstruct justice. He pointed out that if there had been sufficient evidence to charge Sturgeon, the thorough investigation would have uncovered it, regardless of her verbal responses.

The SNP’s 2021 financial records, which were central to the probe, were officially signed off by three party officers: Sturgeon, Murrell, and Colin Beattie, the former party treasurer. The accounts, according to the documents, confirmed that all expenditures were approved by the relevant authorities. Sturgeon has consistently maintained her innocence, stating that she had no awareness of or suspicion regarding the misuse of funds for personal items. This stance aligns with her claim that the responsibility for approving accounts rested with the party treasurer, not the first minister.

The investigation concluded in March 2025, when both Sturgeon and Beattie were formally notified that they were no longer under scrutiny. Murrell, meanwhile, appeared in court that same month and was charged with embezzlement. During a hearing in Edinburgh on Monday, he pleaded guilty to the allegations, marking a significant development in the case. He was remanded in custody and is set to receive his sentence next month, solidifying his role in the financial misconduct scandal.

Sturgeon’s “no comment” response has been framed as a strategic choice to avoid premature assumptions about her involvement. Anwar defended the decision, stating that the former first minister’s silence did not hinder the inquiry. “The idea that a highly resourced investigation was hampered by a no comment interview is nonsensical,” he argued. “Had there been any evidence whatsoever of criminality against Ms. Sturgeon, this gold-plated investigation would have led to her being charged and prosecuted.” This statement underscores the legal team’s belief that the case against Sturgeon was not as robust as the allegations suggested.

While the probe has focused on Murrell’s actions, the scrutiny of Sturgeon’s conduct has raised questions about the accountability of party leadership. Critics argue that her silence during the 2023 interview could have been interpreted as an attempt to shield herself from scrutiny. However, supporters of Sturgeon maintain that her position was clear and consistent, with the written response providing further evidence of her innocence. The case has highlighted the importance of legal advice in high-profile investigations, where the line between cooperation and strategic silence can be easily blurred.

As the SNP continues to navigate the aftermath of the financial probe, the role of its leaders in the process remains under examination. Sturgeon’s defense of her actions, coupled with the conviction of Murrell, has positioned her as a key figure in the ongoing debate about transparency and accountability within the party. The case also serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in investigating political finances, where personal and institutional responsibilities can intersect in intricate ways.

With the investigation now closed, the focus shifts to the broader implications of the case. For Sturgeon, the “no comment” response has become a defining moment, illustrating the balance between legal prudence and public accountability. As the SNP moves forward, the incident will likely remain a point of discussion, reflecting the challenges of maintaining integrity in a politically charged environment.