Ms Sturgeon has also vehemently denied wrongdoing or knowledge of Murrell’s crimes.
Peter Murrell, the former SNP chief executive, pleaded guilty to embezzling £400,310.65 from the party over a 12-year period.
He is the estranged husband of former first minister Ms Sturgeon and used the funds earmarked for independence campaigning to purchase luxury items, including cars, watches and a motorhome.
The Scottish Tories pressed the Scottish Government over the matter during an urgent question in Holyrood on Tuesday.
It follows months of scrutiny over the dual role of the Lord Advocate, as head of the prosecution service and chief legal adviser to the government, after Mr Swinney was given details of Mr Murrell’s legal case months before the details became public.
Rachael Hamilton, the deputy leader of the Scottish Conservatives, demanded Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain publishes the reasons why no action was taken against Ms Sturgeon.
She said: “The Lord Advocate is responsible for all criminal prosecution decisions in Scotland, as well as sitting in the SNP cabinet – and she should publish the reasons why the Crown Office did not pursue charges against Nicola Sturgeon.
“It’s sadly typical of John Swinney’s efforts to sweep this scandal under the carpet that he refused to agree to this.”
Mr Swinney hit back at the assertion he was “sweeping” questions around Murrell’s embezzlement “under the carpet”.
He also said Ms Hamilton’s questions were “incredibly inappropriate”.
“That question that Rachael Hamilton has put on the record today is disrespectful to the judicial system in this country and it is an insult to the rule of law and it should not be tolerated in this Parliament,” he said.
(Image: Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images)
He said Ms Hamilton was “essentially questioning the independent decisions of the prosecution system in Scotland when I have placed on record the fact that the public should take confidence from the fact that no matter who you are, the police and Scotland’s courts will act with integrity and impartiality in all cases”.
“The idea that I am sweeping this under the carpet, Rachael Hamilton appears to have missed that I held a press conference yesterday afternoon and for 50 minutes answered the questions that were put to me by the media,” he said.
He also said that he was in Holyrood answering the urgent question was “worthy of some respect” from political opponents.
Mr Swinney appointed Murrell as SNP chief executive in 2001 while leader of the party.
Ms Hamilton asked if the First Minister’s “judgement was lacking” in doing so.
She said: “Given that it was the First Minister himself that appointed Peter Murrell, can the First Minister tell the public if his judgment was lacking?”
Meanwhile, Jackie Baillie, the deputy leader of Scottish Labour, asked: “How can the public trust John Swinney when he is the man who is the architect of this culture of secrecy?”
Mr Swinney said the blame rested with Murrell.
He said: “My decision to appoint, as part of an interview process, Peter Murrell 25 years ago, before any of this behaviour started, is I think somewhat irrelevant.
“What has happened here is a complete and utter betrayal of trust by a trusted individual and should never have happened. That is the responsibility of Peter Murrell and Peter Murrell alone.”
A spokesman for the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service said: “Professional prosecutors from COPFS and independent counsel dealt with this without involving the Lord Advocate or Solicitor General. All Scotland’s prosecutors operate independently of political influence.
“Where allegations are made against people or institutions in which the public have placed trust, it is the responsibility of the authorities to conduct a thorough investigation to determine if there is evidence that criminal conduct has occurred.
“We understand public curiosity about this investigation. However, the Crown does not publicly share details of confidential inquiries where there are no proceedings in court. This protects the rights of the individuals concerned who are entitled to a presumption of innocence.”
In a statement, Ms Sturgeon said: “I have seen questions raised about how I could not have known about this. I want to reiterate that I had no knowledge or suspicion whatsoever that personal items had been purchased using SNP funds.
“I was cleared of any wrongdoing after a lengthy and thorough investigation.
In relation to many of the items in question, for example expensive watches and games consoles, I was not aware of them having been purchased at all.”
