Former SNP chief executive Peter Murrell “never at any time” had access to funds held by the pro-independence campaign group Yes Scotland, a leading lawyer has said.
Aamer Anwar claimed there had been a “desperate attempt” to link Nicola Sturgeon’s ex-husband – who has been jailed for embezzling more than £400,000 from the SNP – to the group.
Anwar issued a statement following newspaper reports which claimed the SNP “tightly controlled” the campaign group, which was set up to push for a Yes vote in the 2014 independence referendum.
To be clear, there is no ‘missing’ £1.5 million
The statement, made on behalf of former Yes Scotland chief executive Blair Jenkins, insisted that allegations £1.5 million was “missing” from the group’s accounts were “false”.
All Yes Scotland campaign spending was audited, the statement said, with the group having voluntarily provided Police Scotland with full accounts for 2013, 2014 and 2015.
Anwar said: “All of the income received by Yes Scotland is fully accounted for and it is grossly defamatory to say otherwise.
“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.
“To make it perfectly clear, Mr Murrell never at any time had access to Yes Scotland’s accounts.”
According to the statement, Yes Scotland received donations totalling £2,403,976 in 2013, with these identified in the accounts as “other income”.
The group had a year-end surplus of £878,978, after operating costs of £1,535,855.
World
Peter Murrell showed no reaction as his sentence was imposed
These operating costs included the salaries of Yes Scotland staff, the cost of the group’s Glasgow headquarters, and campaign events and publications.
Anwar said: “A balance sheet surplus of £878,978 and income of £2,403,976 doesn’t mean that over £1.5 million had gone missing or been stolen, rather that Yes Scotland’s operating costs were about £1.5 million in 2012-13.
“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.”