Editorial: ​Nicola Sturgeon wasn’t the details person of her boasts given her lack of curiosity over husband's financial affairs

​There is so much cynicism around politicians that news of fraud involving a major political figure might not at first seem a big event.

Even so, it was astonishing yesterday to get confirmation that Peter Murrell, former chief executive of the Scottish National Party (SNP), had embezzled the party out of £400,000. Mr Murrell, the ex husband of Scotland’s former first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, admitted the crime in a court in Edinburgh.

For all the turbulence in British politics over recent years, the UK still has one of the least overtly corrupt governing cultures in the world. This was not corruption so much as outright theft, carried out in a calculating manner over at least 12 years. When seen over that timespan, it is perhaps plausible that such funds could be illegally diverted without being easily noticed – an average £35,000 stolen each year.

Yet it raises serious questions about competency for both the SNP and for Ms Sturgeon, who insists she knew nothing about it.

If the party is to reflect on its internal thinking, it might wonder whether the Murrell-Sturgeon pairing was seen as SNP royalty given that he was CEO and she was the leader (as well as leader of Scotland as a whole). After all, the SNP – like the other nationalist parties – is not reticent about proclaiming or implying its own moral goodness. Like Welsh and particularly Irish nationalists, Scottish separatists depict London as a place of bad politics and mean government, in contrast to the virtue that is supposedly found in Scotland.

Ms Sturgeon was particularly preachy and scolding. We assume she had no knowledge of the fraud – the investigation into her was dropped. Many people are naive about their spouse’s financial dealings but if she had no curiosity as to how her husband was buying luxuries including a six-figure motorhome, then her self-praise as a details person looks risible.