In the news recently was the embezzlement of funds by Peter Murrell from the SNP. Nicola Sturgeon, his wife and former leader of the SNP, has also come under fire over these things. For an overview of the story, you can listen to the opening story on this podcast.
Two things worth noting that are particularly difficult questions to answer. First, Strugeon has claimed that she simply did not know anything about her husband’s embezzling funds. This has led to the question, how did Sturgeon not know what was and was not being spent in her home? It’s plausible that she didn’t know, but – as David Robertson points out in the above podcast – the best case scenario is that her marriage is a sham and she genuinely had no idea.
Second, how can she claim to have no knowledge of the funds in the SNP when she was a) party leader and b) signed off on the funds? As Danny Finkelstein pointed out in The Times this week, Sturgeon received advice on taking the SNP leadership role that keeping her husband in his treasury position might create conflicts of interest, a point she ignored. She claims not to know what was happening with the funds of the party she led, managed by her husband, whom she employed and vigorously defended. Finally, ‘she allowed three members of the party’s finance and audit committee, its treasurer and its auditors to resign, all complaining they were being prevented from doing their jobs properly. Through all this she defended the financial arrangements and therefore discouraged the discovery of the truth.’ Her ‘I know nothing’ defence is either a bare-faced lie or the most serious case of incompetence of a leader of any UK political party.
But it is the first question that I wanted to explore here. How did she not know what was going on with the finances in her own house? Sturgeon claims it was not beyond the realms of possibility – given their dual high wage income and their lack of children – none of the items she saw (and she claims not to have seen or known about all of them) were perfectly within their financial grasp. But she insists this is simply by virtue of looking at the items. At no point, it seems, did she actually bother looking at her bank account! Even if there are separate accounts (and I suspect there probably were) most married couples have some idea of what is going on in their spouse’s account.
It is this last point that I really want to think about. The SNP are kind of irrelevant to it, it’s just the story was the occasion for it coming up. Specifically, in David Robertson’s podcast as he thinks about Sturgeon’s defence, he had this to say:
My mother looked after all the money. My dad hadn’t a clue about the money. In our house, I look after all the money – Anabelle and I do have separate bank accounts – but we know what each other are spending; we discuss things together. Now it’s possible, as many people have rumoured for a long time, that Nicola Sturgeon’s marriage to Peter Murrell was just a, literally, political marriage; a marriage of convenience whereby the Chief Executive of the Scottish National Party was married to the First Minister, who came from the Scottish National Party and [was] the leader of the Scottish National Party.
Again, my interest here (though it is a fascinating and serious story) is not about the SNP as such. My interest here is in these marriages with separate bank accounts.
Before I go on, let me just make two notes upfront. First, my wife and I have always operated with joint bank accounts ever since we were married. We got married fairly young and will have been married for 18 years this August. But ever since we have been married, we have used joint bank accounts, into which both of our salaries go, both of us can access all the money and both of us can see what is and isn’t being spent. So, I am happy to admit some ignorance here, I don’t know what it is like operating in a marriage with separate accounts because I have never done so (more on which in a minute).
The second very significant note I want to make here is that none of what I am going to say is a matter of biblical mandate. If you operate with separate bank accounts – just like David Robertson says he does – this is not an issue of biblical fidelity or obedience to Jesus. If you operate with joint accounts, I don’t think there is chapter and verse congratulating or scolding you for doing so. Just bear this and the previous note in mind with everything that follows.
With that said, I am nevertheless often surprised by married couples who don’t have joint accounts. I cannot think of a more direct way of saying I don’t really trust you than keeping your cash separate and your spouse not having the same access to it as you do. I want to draw your attention again to my first caveat above. I accept I may be ignorant of some really helpful, particularly credible way that this is not the case with inaccessible separate accounts. But I am not aware of them.
On principle, my wife and I set up joint accounts when we got married. All money goes through it, all money can be seen, all money can be accessed by either of us. There is no ‘my money’ and ‘her money’. It is all our money.
In many ways, the SNP story is more believable to me if – as seemingly most people these days do – Nicola Sturgeon and Peter Murrell has entirely separate bank accounts and financial affairs. I can, to some degree, even understand unbelievers having that kind of setup, not least given the divorce rates of 1 in 2 marriages failing. Even then, the only way I can think of more clearly saying I don’t trust you than separate bank accounts (financially speaking) is to insist on a full pre-nuptial agreement. But I can see that unbelievers might well have all sorts of reasons for wanting this. I still think starting your marriage off in that kind of way is unlikely to engender the sort of trust that will lead to a long and happy marriage, but there we are.
What I can’t understand is believers who seem to follow suit. I don’t think the insurance policy principle quite works for Christian marriage. I can’t help but think if that is how we are entering it, we probably shouldn’t be going into that particular marriage at all. I certainly can’t help but think of the generosity of Christ and his sharing of everything with us and find it hard to translate into a Christian marriage in such a way that would justify the wisdom of separate, private bank accounts.
I remember when we were remortgaging and the advisor asked about our bank account. He expressed real surprise when we said it was a joint account. His response, ‘you don’t see many of those these days!’ Perhaps I am wrong to feel this way, but I find that rather sad. Particularly, I think, when it concerns those of us in the church.
Again, I don’t think it is a matter of biblical faithfulness. I’m not convinced you are disobeying Jesus whatever you do here. But I do think it should be an issue we really think about. If we really mean what we say in our wedding vows, ‘all that I have is yours’, do we really mean it if we’re actually hiving our money off and keeping it apart? It doesn’t sit well with me.
On bank accounts 1. I agree in general that one flesh mean our money is shared. 2. I don’t have an issue with separate bank accounts as starting point though I think in most cases a joint account is wise. 3. There is often a family member who looks after the accounts … My mum in their case, my father in law in their case. On a practical note we need to be alert as to what happens if the other partner outlives the one who looked after the money. 4. We have a joint account. However we put a small amount into individual accounts each month. I don’t expect to know what happens in Sarah’s account beyond some general principles. One of the reasons we have those accounts is so that we can treat/buy presents for each other! B. On the SNP case, this seems to fit a pattern we have seen with Corbyn and laying wreaths, Johnson and parties or Starmer and Mandelson. In the best case scenario, our political classes seem to show a complete lack of curiosity.
I’m not sure #3 is wholly relevant to the point I’m making, though I’m sure something to be mindful of. I have no problem with one spouse having the main duty of looking after the money so long as the money is accessible to both and seen by both. My wife mainly looks after ours, but I do some of it and I can still see and access it all.
I just can’t see a good case for hiving off money separately. I have never found the gifts thing (which I have heard before) particularly compelling.
I wouldn’t be too fussed if things work better differently for others. What I would say is that such examples are not necessarily s case of “hiving off”. I think as well that we need to work through the what is mine is yours principle. I have my own razor blades and toothpaste.
Toothbrush rather …. We hold the toothpaste in common
Sure. I’m not suggesting there are no examples out there of legit separation, I’m just saying I’m yet to hear any I find (and I emphasise, ‘I find’ not ‘the Bible says’) particularly compelling. But I’m prepared to be compelled
Hi,
I can why people think a married couple should only use a joint bank account however I don’t think it is a big issue. My wife and I moved back to the UK 6 years ago and she couldn’t open a bank account until she had her spousal visa so we had to use just my bank account. Later on we did open a joint bank account for evidence for our visa however we generally use our own bank accounts as moving everything over would be alot of work. In our case, my wife regularly sees my bank account and I see hers and we are both accountable to each other about what we are spending. It is clear to both of us that our money is shared and belongs to both of us. I think we need to be careful not to become legalistic about these things. It is not about whether you have a joint bank account or not. You could have a joint bank account and still behave as if your money is yours to spend as you wish and not consider your spouse’s opinion.
Yes, entirely possible to be legalistic about these things. I think I have said enough times in the post that I wasn’t suggesting this is a matter of biblical obedience or anything close to that. Nor was I suggesting there cannot be any circumstances under which separate accounts might be necessary or even more appropriate, just that I hadn’t encountered any – in the ordinary run of things – that would supersede what strikes me as the wiser case for joint accounts for the reasons I gave.
All I would say here Steve is that things can get slightly more complicated than you might realise. I agree, a joint bank account is ideal.
But there are scenarios that might be outside of your experience. I would also caution against smugness (not saying you are) in the case of the joint account. But there are situations like re-marriage where there is property or money and two sets of children and grandchildren. I don’t want to say any more. I suppose what I am describing could be the exception rather than the rule. Just bear in mind that things aren’t always quite so simple as you’d like them to be.
It’s difficult to believe that Nicola Sturgeon didn’t know but isn’t this the woman that suggested cutting off the bottom of classroom doors during covid – so I’m prepared to accept that she’s just completely incompetent.
Thanks for your comment Mike.
The scenarios you mention really aren’t outside my experience. Not that they have happened to me personally, but I have family and know many others who have been in all the scenarios you mentioned. There is nothing about them inherently that would be convincing to me so specific situations would need to be explored if I were to be compelled by the argument (I appreciate we may not, for a host of reasons, want to get into such things here though).
I want to point out again – given you raised the potential for smugness (and recognising you are not saying I am being smug) – this is not a matter of something the Bible says so it isn’t something one must or even ought to do just because I generally think it is so. I am a bloke with an opinion, no more or less.
I do weigh seriously though the points I made in my post. Particularly those of trust and the sharing of all that we have. As I said there, I’m not saying there are no good arguments against those things and no scenarios that might override these broad concerns, but I am yet to hear them. But I am ready to be compelled and persuaded by any that arise.
As for Nicola sturgeon, I am prepared to believe incompetence or sham marriage, but I struggle to accept shs isn’t responsible for what happened under her leadership and with finances she signed off. And it just looks worse when it’s your husband!