Peter Murrell the political activist, collector, and Scottish vaudeville supporting act has been sent to prison for five years for stealing money from the separatist SNP, and spending it on miscellaneous items in an extended and eccentric shopping spree with no detectable heterosexual pattern to it.
Sentencing Mr Murrell at the High Court in Edinburgh, Judge Lord Young said that his crime was “calculated and dishonest”, both of which properties, to be fair, seem to be the least you can expect of any theft worthy of the name.
The sentence seems harsh, but at the same time historically resonant. Readers of a certain age will recall that five years is also the sentence handed down to the lovable burglar Norman Stanley Fletcher in the 1970s BBC series Porridge.
But burglary is a very serious crime, one which wrecks the lives of its victims who feel that they have been violated in a very personal way which leaves them unable to sleep.
In the case of Murrell it’s not clear that his really rather fabulous retail crime spree was targeted at a similarly vulnerable demographic; his victims being members of the activist Scottish political classes, each one of whom almost certainly will be cheering on every team playing against England in the football World Cup.
Was Fletcher treated too leniently or has Murrell been treated too harshly? Hard to say.
Fletcher had charm, sharpness of wit, and a certain clarity of thought. It is not self-evident that Murrell is blessed with all or any of these personal qualities, although it’s possible that he had them once and that they became eroded over time, owing to the well-documented control-freakery of his former husband.
That aside, Fletcher and Murrell have one thing in common: they are both subversives in their own way.
It’s always tempting to dwell on the negative side of theft. But we should pause for a moment and take in just how very creative and yes, patriotic, Murrell’s actions have been, when looked at in a certain way.
It is not always easy to separate Scotsman and wallet. There are horrific rumours which continue to circulate about the late actor and SNP hobbyist Sean Connery, for example. So we can conclude that the separatist Scot is even more “careful” than his politically neutral compatriot.
So this was Murrell’s accomplishment: to extract money from a provably miserly Scottish political demographic – funds intended to be used to undermine the Union let’s not forget – and to redirect it away from everyday party expenses, in the direction of Amazon-sourced hairdryers, pens and curiously pricey umbrellas.
Is this really embezzlement? Or is it instead counter-revolutionary tradecraft? Is Murrell a secret hero? A willing Thames House patsy?
We don’t have sufficient evidence to confidently draw this stronger conclusion. But at the very least we should acknowledge the ingenuity of Murrell’s scheme, pay tribute to his diligence in its slow-motion execution, and, frankly, thank him for the laughs.
And also for his effectiveness in defunding the separatist project. True, the English taxpayer will continue to be shafted. But we always are, in any case.
If you happen to be reading this on a prison-pocket Nokia while lying on your mattress in your improbably well-bedecked cell, a bit like Grouty, then please take comfort in the knowledge that some of us are grateful.
Sean Walsh is Associate Editor of Country Squire Magazine. You can follow him on Substack.
If you enjoy The New Conservative and would like to support our work, please consider buying us a coffee – it would really help to keep us going. Thank you!
(Photograph: Scottish Government, CC BY 2.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0>, via Wikimedia Commons)
Not even genius comedy writers could make Peter Murrell remotely funny…
It would stretch the acumen of three centuries of satirists to do so…
But he’s unmatched in his solo act of appearing to be beyond ridicule…
The harshness (if it is) of the sentence may be because he took money intended to break up the UK and lessened the chances of this happening? Where do the funds for such parties come from anyway, surely not their unemployed supporters?
“The sentence seems harsh…”
Er, nope. Not remotely harsh. 15 years maybe, but 5 (out in two and a half) – you have got to be kidding. Most of my fellow Scots, if not quite all (there’s always one) think “locking the door and throwing away the key” would have been more appropriate.
But then, the author, despite his Irish sounding name, is actually an Englishman (according to his penultimate paragraph), so that explains his indulgent coverage of the Peter Murrell Collection (of stolen goods) not to be confused with the famous Burrell Collection (of art) in Glasgow. Indeed, it’s a wonder the police didn’t find some of those gems from the Burrell Collection during Branchform – including stained glass (imagine those in the Uddingston home windows!) And some of the significant works of Chinese and medieval art – plus much more. While the author praises his “really rather fabulous retail crime spree” it seems to me that Murrell was not ambitious enough. How did he miss Burrell? Murrell and Burrell – it’s so obvious, is it no? (Tr. “isn’t it?”)
Not only has Peter Murrell received a disgracefully light sentence – by any reasonable standard – he’s serving that joke of a sentence in a lightweight section of a prison in Dumfries, south of Scotland, near the border. There, certain prisoners who may be a risk from the general prison population – police officers, whistle-blowers, celebrities, SNP politicians (!) – are kept separately from the rest. We don’t want the likes of Peter Murrell mixing with the low life members of society, after all, do we? Like, for example, anybody in there who has never voted SNP. or who DID vote SNP and now demands to know why the now disappeared £660,000 supposedly ring-fenced to use for a second referendum – er, why it was not kept for that purpose, but is now spent?
A very kind coverage of The Murrell Affair from a typical English gentleman. Thank you for your charity!
Harsh = compared to sentences for violent crimes. In cases like this I’d sentence imprisonment with useful unpaid labour (maintenance works) until the fraud receipts have been fully paid off plus an extra % fine if this happened too soon – biting my tongue that monies would be returned to the anti-British SNP.
There again, I’m not a Judge plus guidelines probably result in leniency (unless punishment for scapegoats or the far-right naturally).