It follows the arrest and subsequent release of her husband, ex-SNP chief executive Peter Murrell, in April. A spokeswoman for Ms Sturgeon confirmed she had attended a police interview by arrangement on Sunday.
The former SNP leader, who stood down in March, was then arrested and questioned by officers who have been investigating for the past two years what happened to more than £600,000 of donations given to the party by independence activists.
A spokesman for the SNP said the party would not comment on Ms Sturgeon’s arrest, adding: “These issues are subject to a live police investigation.”
Police Scotland launched their Operation Branchform investigation two years ago after complaints were made about what happened to £666,954 that was donated to the SNP by activists for a future independence referendum campaign
The party’s accounts later accounts showed it had just under £97,000 in the bank at the end of 2019, and total net assets of about £272,000.
Last year it emerged Mr Murrell gave a loan of more than £100,000 to the SNP to help it out with a “cash flow” issue after the last election.
The SNP had repaid about half of the loan by October of that year, but still owes money to Mr Murrell - although it has not said how much.
Police have confirmed Nicola Sturgeon has been released.
A statement read: "A 52-year-old woman who was arrested earlier today as a suspect in connection with the ongoing investigation into the funding and finances of the Scottish National Party, has been released without charge pending further investigation. The woman was questioned by Police Scotland detectives after she was arrested at 10.09am. She was released from custody at 17:42. A report will be sent to the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service.
“The matter remains active for the purposes of the Contempt of Court Act 1981 and the public are therefore advised to exercise caution if discussing it on social media. As the investigation is ongoing we are unable to comment further.”
Under the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2016, police can release a suspect for further investigation, but they can be re-arrested at a later date.
Despite her release, police have said the case remains active for the purposes of the Contempt of Court Act 1981.
It means everyone has to be careful about what they say to avoid potentially prejudicing any future trial.
This applies to politicians and members of the public on social media as well as broadcasters and newspapers and the rules around what can and cannot be said about this - or any other - case are interpreted much more strictly in Scotland than in some other parts of the world.
So, speculation and conjecture may lead prison and/or a fine …
I too also question the police action… what happened to the simple ‘helping the police in their enquiries’
by arresting her you dont need an imagination to smell a big problem
no doubt the party will be distancing its-self from the mess
i fear this could knock Scotlands Independance back decades
I glad she has been released.
Hearing Nicola had been arrested did seem somewhat a knee-jerk reaction by the police. Yes as Crabby has said what has happened to “ helping the police with their enquiries “
Whether you agree with Nicola’s crusade she always seem to be reliable hard-working with principles.
Agreed, and that pasty faced pillock Douglas Ross is screaming for her to be suspended. He’d be far better cleaning the Tory doorstep than looking for dirt elsewhere.
A wise man once told me that if the Labour party ever lost Scotland then the UK would be doomed to Conservatism for good… Then Alex and her took over the Labour seats, and the rest is history, so to get a change in govt in the UK Labour must retake Scotland…
They had to arrest her to enable them to say this, if they hadn’t then they wouldn’t have any comeback if she told them any lies, etc.
“You do not have to say anything.But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something that you later rely on in Court.Anything you do say may be given in evidence. ”
Apparently, in Scotland, the arrest statement is different.
This statement is set out under Police Scotland’s Standard Operating Procedure governing the arrest process as the following:
"I am arresting you under Section 1 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2016 for (general nature of offence). The reason for your arrest is that I suspect you have committed an offence and I believe that keeping you in custody is necessary and proportionate for the purposes of bringing you before a court or otherwise dealing with you in accordance with the law. Do you understand?
You are not obliged to say anything but anything you do say will be noted and may be used in evidence. Do you understand?
I do require you to give me your name, date of birth, place of birth, nationality and address.
You have the right to have a solicitor informed of your arrest and to have access to a solicitor. These rights will be explained to you further on arrival at the police station."
Why’s that any different to what I posted, the words might be slightly different, but the same reasoning for arresting her which was the point of my post.
