Claims that Peter Murrell, recently jailed for embezzling funds from the Scottish National Party (SNP), did not have control over the finances of the pro-independence group Yes Scotland have been met with strong criticism. Campaigners pushing for a police investigation have dismissed these assertions as “weasel words,” suggesting they are an attempt to distance Murrell from the financial dealings of the campaign.
A statement issued on Tuesday by lawyer Aamer Anwar, on behalf of former Yes Scotland boss Blair Jenkins, asserted that Murrell never had access to the campaign’s funds. The statement further contended that approximately £1.5 million, which some have described as “missing” from the campaign’s accounts, was in fact spent on legitimate running costs.
However, these claims were directly challenged by campaigners David Henry and Sean Clerkin, who spoke to journalists outside Fettes police station in Edinburgh after meeting with detectives. They rejected the narrative presented by Mr. Anwar, with Mr. Henry labeling it as “weasel words.”
Challenging the Narrative on Fund Control
David Henry questioned the distinction between having “access” and having “control.” He stated, “Access doesn’t mean he wasn’t in control or acting as a shadow director, right? Peter Murrell may not have had access to the Yes Scotland Limited account, if that’s what he’s referring to.” Mr. Henry also suggested that Scott Martin, identified as a former SNP lawyer, was the individual “in charge of the Yes Scotland bank account.”
Sean Clerkin echoed these sentiments, emphasizing the hierarchical structure within the SNP and its associated campaigns. “And who was his boss? His boss was Peter Murrell,” Mr. Clerkin asserted. “Peter Murrell had very close control over all the donations that were coming into Yes Scotland.”
The campaigners raised the possibility that multiple individuals might have been involved in the financial matters of Yes Scotland. Mr. Clerkin went as far as to allege the potential existence of a “criminal cabal inside the SNP.” They confirmed that the police are currently reviewing the information they have provided and will decide whether to initiate a formal investigation based on this assessment.
Details of Yes Scotland’s Finances
The statement released by Aamer Anwar earlier on Tuesday provided specific figures regarding Yes Scotland’s financial activities. According to the statement, the campaign group received total donations of £2,403,976 in 2013, which were categorized in the accounts as “other income.” The group reported a year-end surplus of £878,978 after accounting for operating costs amounting to £1,535,855.
These operating costs, as detailed in the statement, encompassed a range of expenditures, including staff salaries, the rental and upkeep of the group’s Glasgow headquarters, and the costs associated with organizing campaign events and producing publications.
Mr. Anwar’s statement sought to clarify the financial position, asserting, “All of the income received by Yes Scotland is fully accounted for and it is grossly defamatory to say otherwise.” He further argued that the surplus and income figures do not indicate any missing or stolen funds. “There appears to have been a desperate attempt to link Peter Murrell’s criminal conduct in the SNP to the financial affairs of Yes Scotland,” the statement read.
To be unequivocally clear, Mr. Anwar stated, “Mr Murrell never at any time had access to Yes Scotland’s accounts.” He concluded by explaining that the £1.5 million figure, which had been characterized as missing, actually represented the campaign’s substantial operating expenses for the 2012-13 period. “To be clear, there is no ‘missing’ £1.5 million, but what is missing is any explanation as to why it did not occur to those making the allegations that the £1.5 million represents spending by the campaign,” the statement concluded.
Ongoing Scrutiny and Potential Investigation
The differing accounts highlight a significant dispute over the financial management and oversight of the Yes Scotland campaign. While the statement on behalf of Blair Jenkins, through his lawyer, aims to provide a clear accounting of expenditures and deny Peter Murrell’s direct access to funds, campaigners David Henry and Sean Clerkin remain unconvinced.
Their insistence that Murrell maintained a level of control, potentially as a “shadow director,” and their allegations of a broader “criminal cabal” suggest that the police investigation, if launched, could delve deeply into the internal operations and financial accountability of both Yes Scotland and potentially the SNP itself. The police’s decision on whether to proceed with an investigation will be a critical next step in resolving these conflicting claims.
