The Lord Advocate is accused of giving the First Minister advance information on the case involving the SNP’s former chief executive. Our Writer at Large, Neil Mackay, says it smacks of the kind of impunity and privilege the public will no longer tolerate.

This article appears as part of the Unspun: Scottish Politics newsletter.

The people are sick to death of the old, rotten system. The notion that there’s ‘one rule for them, and another rule for us’ will no longer be tolerated.

The tables have been turned. Politicians, government leaders, royals, captains of industry, superstars and billionaires who don’t realise that the world has shifted beneath their feet are going to get steamrollered by public rage unless they change and behave as we demand.

The people are angry. It is not wise to cross the public at such a time. The Epstein scandal has changed everything when it comes to the relationship between the people and power.

Anyone seen to be acting with impunity or privilege will reap the whirlwind; any politician who receives advantages over the rest of us will be dealt with so hard their head spins.

Why should politicians receive any special treatment which is unavailable to the public?

The rather brutal row ongoing at Holyrood over the so-called Murrell memo is a case in point. Politicians are battling over the minutiae as they always do. But the public is clear-sighted enough to see that this issue has at its heart the simple question: why does John Swinney deserve to know more about the trial of Peter Murrell than you or I?

We should all be treated equally, should we not? We should all be in receipt of the same information, should we not? If that’s not the case, then something is wrong with society.

Here’s the meat of the issue: the Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain is both Scotland’s chief prosecutor, and the government’s principal legal adviser, a role she performs as cabinet minister.

She wears two hats, already creating a risk of conflict of interest.

Bain sent a memo to Swinney about the criminal accusations against the SNP’s former chief executive Peter Murrell, Nicola Sturgeon’s estranged husband.

The email was sent on January 19 and gave details of the charge against Murrell, long before the information became public, including that he was accused of embezzling almost £460,000 from the SNP. 

Is the SNP still actually interested in delivering independence?

Whoever is lying about the QEUH scandal needs hunted down

The BBC has a serious Scotland problem so why is nobody talking about it?

The 61-year-old is yet to make a plea. A preliminary hearing is scheduled for May 25.

When it comes to national security, it makes sense that government ministers receive information which cannot be released to the public.

This memo is not such an instance. Indeed, in England, the King received no advance information when it came to the arrest of his brother Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor.

There’s no more need for Swinney to have advance knowledge, than there is for you or I. Evidently, even the most non-conspiratorial would be forgiven for thinking an advantage has been supplied.

Bain told parliament she was able to send the memo because the indictment could become public at any moment after it had been served to Murrell.

If that’s the case, then the public and the First Minister should have been informed at the same time.

Bain claims she wrote the memo to inform Swinney about major developments in the case and to remind ministers not to comment on live proceedings. 

If that’s the case, why give Swinney information the rest of us were not given? Why was the £460,000 figure included, for example, when it wasn’t yet made public?

Significantly, after the email had been sent the Crown Office said details of the indictment couldn’t be published until a preliminary hearing.

Opposition MSPs have raised the spectre of corruption, and said the explanations given lack credibility.

Get Scotland's top politics newsletter straight to your inbox.

A distracting war of words is now underway with Swinney saying Bain’s critics should be “ashamed” for spouting “contemptible rubbish”. Lawyers have got involved, circling the wagons for one of their own. 

Bain has denied the allegations, claiming the memo wasn’t requested by government and ministers hadn’t been granted “preferential access”. She denied the email gave government any “political advantage”.

Bain said: “I have had no involvement in this case and any suggestion that I am corrupt or my position is compromised I roundly reject.” She isn’t considering her position.

It’s never a good look when someone in public office is forced to deny corruption, especially in the current climate.

Despite attempts at distraction and the clever - or rather not so clever - semantic games being played, the public sees through this.

The picture which emerges is that you and I follow one set of rules, whilst those with power, privilege and position live by another set.

© Herald Scotland