When will it go all wrong for the SNP?

[JamesT]

So read the whole thing...the time-frame was set as 18 months to 2 years during which the application to trigger Section 30 was made - an essential part of the Indy campaign. It was obviously rejected by the Westminster Government, but time and effort was put in by the Scottish Parliament, Scottish Government and SNP to make that application.

But as there never was a referendum, there wasn’t a referendum campaign for the money to be used on.
I’d be surprised if there was anything the party could point at as meaningful spending for the section 30 request, which appeared to be produced by the Scottish government. Even if there were specific items, it’s unlikely to amount to the whole £600k.
Swinney has apparently admitted the money was spent on general day to day operations.

 

[35B]

B

So read the whole thing...the time-frame was set as 18 months to 2 years during which the application to trigger Section 30 was made - an essential part of the Indy campaign. It was obviously rejected by the Westminster Government, but time and effort was put in by the Scottish Parliament, Scottish Government and SNP to make that application.

But it was explicitly for a war chest for a referendum, not campaigning to bring that about. The terms are clearly stated and lack any provision for diversion to general SNP funds if the referendum did not come about.

Absent the fraud (at which point other issues intervene), my expectation from that would be that the funds would be on account and earning a return towards that referendum.

It is unreasonable to present this on the basis that support for a referendum is the same as support for the SNP - the two are separate propositions, albeit with a high degree of overlap

 

[styles]

This is why when you're fundraising you're careful about how you word how the money will be spent. I volunteer with a couple of charities and we do fundraising, and to avoid donations becoming what the Charity Commission calls 'restricted funds' (i.e. those ringfenced for a specific purpose which is a subset of the charity's overall purpose), we are clear to add on something about any leftover funds to be used for day-to-day running of the charity (specific wording varies by charity!)

It's not impossible to move money from restricted funds to unrestricted funds, but there are established processes for doing it, not something you do on a whim! It's been easier in England & Wales for quite a while, but Scotland was slow to the game and it was only around 2012/2013 I think where you could apply to the charity register to reorganise your funds; before that you'd have had to apply through the courts.

I'm not sure how it works with political parties mind, having never run one!

 

[JamieL]

This is why when you're fundraising you're careful about how you word how the money will be spent. I volunteer with a couple of charities and we do fundraising, and to avoid donations becoming what the Charity Commission calls 'restricted funds' (i.e. those ringfenced for a specific purpose which is a subset of the charity's overall purpose), we are clear to add on something about any leftover funds to be used for day-to-day running of the charity (specific wording varies by charity!)

It's not impossible to move money from restricted funds to unrestricted funds, but there are established processes for doing it, not something you do on a whim! It's been easier in England & Wales for quite a while, but Scotland was slow to the game and it was only around 2012/2013 I think where you could apply to the charity register to reorganise your funds; before that you'd have had to apply through the courts.

I'm not sure how it works with political parties mind, having never run one!

Important to note that donations to political parties are not governed by charitable regulations. They are not tax deductible and are governed by the Electoral Commission.

 

[35B]

Important to note that donations to political parties are not governed by charitable regulations. They are not tax deductible and are governed by the Electoral Commission.

So implying that the SNP defence might be that it's legal to divert donations given for one purpose to another wholly distinct purpose.

I'm not sure that "governed by the Electoral Commission" would be that robust a shield for the SNP in that circumstance, and nasty words like "misrepresentation" and "fraud" come to mind*.

* - in their lay meanings, and without knowledge of how Scots law may differ from English in this area.

 

[JamieL]

So implying that the SNP defence might be that it's legal to divert donations given for one purpose to another wholly distinct purpose.

I'm not sure that "governed by the Electoral Commission" would be that robust a shield for the SNP in that circumstance, and nasty words like "misrepresentation" and "fraud" come to mind*.

* - in their lay meanings, and without knowledge of how Scots law may differ from English in this area.

I am not in anyway saying what I think the SNP defence might be - I am not affiliated, linked or involved with the SNP in anyway. Nor I am involved with WoS, other than (like most here) being aware of their very dubious, highly politicised and controversial output. But is clear to see, even from WoS own draft Counsel paper, that the purpose of the spend wasn't "wholly different", that money was spent on IndyRef2 related activity (noting it is the core function of the SNP) and that it needs to be judged by the laws and rules in place rather than the ones you might wish were in place. Moreover, generally speaking I would be inclined to believe the Police and Electoral Commission are both broadly competent having both been involved to date and both deciding to take no action against the SNP. Finally, I would gently note this is a draft Counsel paper, not one that has been submitted to the Court (which of course is when liability for lost case costs start to become a factor).

 

[35B]

I am not in anyway saying what I think the SNP defence might be - I am not affiliated, linked or involved with the SNP in anyway. Nor I am involved with WoS, other than (like most here) being aware of their very dubious, highly politicised and controversial output. But is clear to see, even from WoS own draft Counsel paper, that the purpose of the spend wasn't "wholly different", that money was spent on IndyRef2 related activity (noting it is the core function of the SNP) and that it needs to be judged by the laws and rules in place rather than the ones you might wish were in place. Moreover, generally speaking I would be inclined to believe the Police and Electoral Commission are both broadly competent having both been involved to date and both deciding to take no action against the SNP. Finally, I would gently note this is a draft Counsel paper, not one that has been submitted to the Court (which of course is when liability for lost case costs start to become a factor).

It is the contention that a donation for IndyRef2 is the same as a donation to the SNP that I think is questionable - the more so if the funds are not ringfenced and/or are used for general expenditure.

As a unionist resident in England, I have no particular dog in this fight and would be delighted for the two to bring each other down