The head of Scotland’s prosecution service has refused to say whether a search warrant for Nicola Sturgeon’s home was “deliberately delayed” until after the SNP leadership contest ended.
Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain KC, who leads the Crown Office, was questioned by Sky News after it emerged her organisation was made aware of a police request to raid the former first minister’s home two weeks before it was given the green light.
The SNP‘s headquarters in Edinburgh was also raided by detectives.
According to a Freedom of Information request first published in The Sun newspaper, Police Scotland asked prosecutors to sign off the warrants on 20 March – which was one week before Humza Yousaf became SNP leader.
The go-ahead was not officially given until 3 April.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:32
Search on Sturgeon’s home ends
The Lord Advocate is the most senior law officer in Scotland and sits in the Scottish government cabinet as chief legal adviser.
She did not reply when asked if the Crown Office “deliberately” delayed issuing warrants until after the SNP contest and entered her car when asked if she personally was aware of developments in the case.
The Crown Office said it received a “draft warrant” before it was “finalised” on 3 April.
Advertisement
A spokesperson for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service said: “In all matters, Scotland’s prosecutors act independently of political pressure or interference.
“It is standard that any case regarding politicians is dealt with by prosecutors without the involvement of the Lord Advocate or Solicitor General.
“COPFS understand the interest in this case but to protect the fair administration of justice we urge restraint in public comment.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:36
I had ‘no prior knowledge’ of raid
‘Revelation will raise eyebrows across Scotland’
Scottish Conservative MSP Russell Findlay said: “There appears to be no evidence of any undue influence or interference in this process.
“However, the lack of answers to these questions only serves to fuel public concerns about the decision-making taking place behind closed doors.
“The whole murky saga brings into sharp focus the untenable dual role of the Lord Advocate, both as head of the prosecution service and the Scottish government’s most senior lawyer with a place at the cabinet table.”
Scottish Labour deputy leader Jackie Baillie said: “This is a very interesting revelation that will lead to raised eyebrows across Scotland.
“Whilst I accept that the Lord Advocate may not have had a direct influence on the timing, this story underlines why we need to have a serious discussion in Scotland about separating the role of the Lord Advocate to ensure that there is no perception of conflict of interest can ever occur.”
Image: Ms Sturgeon’s husband, Peter Murrell, former chief executive of the SNP
It has been an extraordinary few hours which may well set the tone for a hugely consequential week ahead.
In the time that it took me to fly from London to Saudi Arabia, where President Donald Trump will begin a pivotal Middle East tour this week, a flurry of news has emerged on a range of key global challenges.
• On the Ukraine war: President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has said he is prepared to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin in Istanbul – this announcement came minutes after Trump urged Zelenskyy to agree to the meeting.
• On the China-US trade war: The White House says the two countries have agreed to a “trade deal”. China said the talks, in Geneva, were “candid, in-depth and constructive”.
All three of these developments represent dramatic shifts in three separate challenges and hint at the remarkable influence the US president is having globally.
This sets the ground for what could be a truly consequential week for Trump’s presidency and his ability to effect change.
On Ukraine, Putin held a late-night news conference at the Kremlin on Saturday at which he made the surprise proposal of talks with Zelenskyy in Istanbul this Thursday.
But he rejected European and US calls for an immediate ceasefire.
The move was widely interpreted as a delay tactic.
Trump then issued a social media post urging Zelenskyy to accept the Russian proposal; effectively to call Putin’s bluff.
The American president wrote: “President Putin of Russia doesn’t want to have a Cease Fire Agreement with Ukraine, but rather wants to meet on Thursday, in Turkey, to negotiate a possible end to the BLOODBATH. Ukraine should agree to this, IMMEDIATELY. At least they will be able to determine whether or not a deal is possible, and if it is not, European leaders, and the U.S., will know where everything stands, and can proceed accordingly! I’m starting to doubt that Ukraine will make a deal with Putin, who’s too busy celebrating the Victory of World War ll, which could not have been won (not even close!) without the United States of America. HAVE THE MEETING, NOW!!!”
“We await a full and lasting ceasefire, starting from tomorrow, to provide the necessary basis for diplomacy. There is no point in prolonging the killings. And I will be waiting for Putin in Türkiye on Thursday. Personally. I hope that this time the Russians will not look for excuses,” Zelenskyy wrote on X.
The prospect of Putin and Zelenskyy together in Istanbul on Thursday is remarkable.
It raises the possibility that Trump would want to be there too.
Image: President Volodymyr Zelenskyy welcomes other world leaders to Kyiv. Pic: Presidential Office of Ukraine/dpa/AP Images
Israel’s war in Gaza
On Gaza, it’s been announced that US envoy Steve Witkoff will arrive in Israel on Monday to finalise details for the release of Idan Alexander, an Israeli-American hostage being held by Hamas.
The development comes after it was confirmed that Mr Witkoff has been holding discussions with Israel, Qatar and Egypt and, through them, with Hamas.
The talks focused on a possible Gaza hostage deal and larger peace discussions for a ceasefire.
Meanwhile, officials from the United States and China have been holding talks in Geneva, Switzerland, to resolve their trade war, which was instigated by Trump’s tariffs against China.
Late on Sunday evening, the White House released a statement claiming that a trade deal had been struck.
In a written statement, titled “U.S. Announces China Trade Deal in Geneva”, treasury secretary Scott Bessent said: “I’m happy to report that we made substantial progress between the United States and China in the very important trade talks… We will be giving details tomorrow, but I can tell you that the talks were productive. We had the vice premier, two vice ministers, who were integrally involved, Ambassador Jamieson, and myself. And I spoke to President Trump, as did Ambassador Jamieson, last night, and he is fully informed of what is going on. So, there will be a complete briefing tomorrow morning.”
Beijing Global Times newspaper quoted the Chinese vice premier as saying that the talks were candid, in-depth and constructive.
However, the Chinese fell short of calling it a trade deal.
Follow The World
Listen to The World with Richard Engel and Yalda Hakim every Wednesday
In a separate development, US media reports say that Qatar is preparing to gift Trump a Boeing 747 from its royal fleet, which he would use as a replacement for the existing and aging Air Force One plane.
The Qatari government says no deal has been finalised, but the development is already causing controversy because of the optics of accepting gifts of this value.
Of all the fronts in Donald Trump’s trade war, none was as dramatic and economically threatening as the sky-high tariffs he imposed on China.
There are a couple of reasons: first, because China is and was the single biggest importer of goods into the US and, second, because of the sheer height of the tariffs imposed by the White House in recent months.
In short, tariffs of over 100% were tantamount to a total embargo on goods coming from the United States’ main trading partner. That would have had enormous economic implications, not just for the US but every other country around the world (these are the world’s biggest and second-biggest economies, after all).
So the truce announced on Monday by treasury secretary Scott Bessent is undoubtedly a very big deal indeed.
In short, China will still face an extra 30% tariffs (the 20% levies cast as punishment for China’s involvement in fentanyl imports and the 10% “floor” set on “Liberation Day”) on top of the residual 10% average from the Biden era.
But the rest of the extra tariffs will be paused for 90 days. China, in turn, has suspended its own retaliatory tariffs on the US.
The market has responded as you would probably have expected, with share prices leaping in relief. But that raises a question: is the trade war now over? Now that the two sides have blinked, can globalisation continue more or less as it had before?
That, it turns out, is a trickier and more complex question than it might first seem.
Image: Pic: AP
For one thing, even if one were to assume this is a permanent truce rather than a suspended one, it still leaves tariffs considerably higher than they were only last year. And China faces tariffs far higher than most other countries (tot up the existing ones and the Trump era ones and China faces average tariffs of around 40%, while the average for most countries is between 8% and 14%, according to Capital Economics).
In other words, the US is still implementing an economic policy designed to increase the cost of doing business with China, even if it no longer attempts to prevent it altogether. The fact that last week’s trade agreement with the UK contains clauses seemingly designed to encourage it to raise trade barriers against China for reasons of “security” only reinforces this suspicion. The trade war is still simmering, even if it’s no longer as hot as it was a few days ago.
And more broadly, the deeper impact of the trade rollercoaster in recent months is unlikely to disappear altogether. Companies remain more nervous about investing in factories and expansions in the face of such deep economic instability. No-one is entirely sure the White House won’t just U-turn once again.
That being said, it’s hard not to escape the conclusion that the US president has blinked in this trade war. In the face of a potential recession, he has pulled back from the scariest and most damaging of his tariffs, earlier and to a greater extent than many had expected.
That was in response to the opening gambit made on Saturday by Ukraine and its European allies.
Image: Sir Keir Starmer, Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Emmanuel Macron among world leaders in Kyiv. Pic: AP
Britain’s Sir Keir Starmer said they were “calling Putin out”, that if he was really serious about peace, he should agree to a 30-day unconditional ceasefire starting on Monday.
And they thought they had Donald Trump’s backing until he made his move.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:29
Kremlin: ‘We don’t share Starmer’s view’
Late Sunday, he drove a cart and horses through claims of western unity, coming down on Putin’s side.
Ukraine, he said, should submit to the Russian leader’s suggestion of talks.
“Ukraine should agree to this – immediately”, he posted. Then: “I’m starting to doubt that Ukraine will make a deal with Putin…”
So much for the Coalition of the Willing having Putin where they wanted him.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
11:51
Are Putin’s call for peace talks genuine?
Trump let him off the hook.
All eyes were then on President Zelenskyy, who has now in turn dramatically raised the stakes.
He will go to Istanbul, he said, and wait there for Vladimir Putin.
The fast-paced diplomacy aside, the last twenty-four hours have brought Europe closer to a moment of truth.
They thought they had Donald Trump’s support, and yet even with 30 nations demanding an unconditional ceasefire, the US president seemed, in the end, to side with the Russian leader.
He has helped Putin get out of a hole.
Yet again, Trump could not be counted on to pressure Vladimir Putin to end this war.
If America is no longer a reliable partner over Ukraine, Europe may need to go it alone, whatever the cost.