You can subscribe to The National for just £1 for three months here.
JOHN Swinney is facing repeated questions over the “ring-fenced” fund raised for a second independence referendum.
Following the guilty plea of the SNP’s former chief executive Peter Murrell for £400,000 worth of embezzlement of party funds, questions still remained over where the £650,000 raised through a crowdfunder had actually gone.
On Wednesday, the First Minister admitted to journalists that this had been spent, but then on Thursday insisted that his comments said “nothing different” to what the party said in 2021.
As a reminder, questions over where this money had gone and a report made to the police about it, sparked Operation Branchform which uncovered Murrell’s crime spree.
The question of the independence referendum crowdfunder cash has dogged the SNP for years, and now it’s as if we are back where we started.
Lets have a brief recap
In March 2020, SNP corporate governance and compliance officer Ian McCann told an activist who had donated and wanted a refund that it couldn’t be given back as it was “in a ring-fenced fund”, according to a Sunday Mail article from June 2021.
In 2021, then-SNP treasurer Colin Beattie said in a statement that he could give an “assurance” the funds from “independence related appeals since 2017” would be spent “directly” on a campaign to win independence.
Going into great detail about how donations to the SNP were treated internally, the key part of Beattie’s statement read: “Donations made to the independence related fundraising appeals have been treated in this way.
“They are recorded within HQ as being related to these appeals and amounts equivalent to the sums raised will be spent for the intended purpose.
“Of course, the SNP is the party of independence and, as such, every penny we spend – directly or indirectly – is in support of winning independence.
“However, through this internal process we will ensure that an amount equivalent to the sums raised from these appeals will go directly to our work to secure a referendum and win independence.”
This is not much different from what Swinney said this week, when he told journalists that it was “part of the resources available” within the SNP for campaigning.
Following FMQs – where the issue was raised by both Anas Sarwar and Russell Findlay, of Scottish Labour and the Scottish Tories, respectively – Swinney was pressed on the issue again by journalists.
Asked if he would apologise to those who were under the impression the money was solely for a second referendum, Swinney said: “I think people know when they give money to the Scottish National Party, they’re giving money to the cause of Scottish independence. I think that’s a pretty well established point in people’s psyche about how to donate to the SNP.”
So why isn’t this issue going away?
The problem is two-fold. One, a second police complaint has been put in regarding the fund by the original complainer, Sean Clerkin, giving the Scottish Sun another front page taking aim at the SNP.
Just before publication of this newsletter, Police Scotland put out a statement confirming there wouldn't be a second investigation, much to the relief of SNP HQ, I imagine.
Second, the use of the phrase “ring-fenced” by the SNP is what is causing anger, as it implies that it would be used during a referendum campaign.
It is undoubtable that some of those who donated to the crowdfunder did so under the impression that it would be used in the run up to a second referendum, not simply for the SNP to pursue a second referendum as part of its normal political activities.
My colleague Laura Pollock spoke to Scottish Greens members who made this point, noting that they would have been in breach of their membership for donating to another political party.
It is clear that the SNP’s primary purpose is to pursue independence, but the lack of clarity over where that £650,000 money actually went is an issue that is going to rumble on and on and on.
When I told Mhairi Black, former SNP MP and guest on The National’s podcast this week, about John Swinney’s comments, she was not surprised.
“On a technicality, I suppose it's technically true, but that's a bit disingenuous, innit?”, Black said, adding that it was “not a good look”.
“It's kind of the party's own fault that this is spilling out in such a public forum, because so many concerns were raised about different things, not just financial things, even to do with the code of conduct and standing orders and stuff like that, and it was just always ignored. So it's yeah, it's messy.”
We asked the SNP if they would provide a statement on concerns that the wording around the crowdfunder was not clear enough, or if they had any comment to make to those who felt they had been misled.
They did not respond.
You can subscribe to The National for just £1 for three months here.
