The Aims Of Justice
Wings has today sent the following letter to the named recipients.
—————————————————————————–
The Chief Constable
Police Scotland
5 Fettes Avenue
Edinburgh
EH4 1RB
Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service
25 Chambers Street
Edinburgh
EH1 1LA
4 June 2026
.
Dear Chief Constable and Crown Office,
RE: REQUEST FOR CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION — ALLEGED
MISAPPROPRIATION OF RING-FENCED POLITICAL DONATIONS
I write to request that Police Scotland/COPFS open a criminal investigation into the alleged misappropriation of funds donated to the Scottish National Party (SNP) on the basis that those funds would be held and applied for a specific, designated purpose.
THE FACTS
Between 14 March 2017 and the summer of 2020, the SNP solicited donations from the public, representing — expressly and repeatedly — that the funds raised would be ring-fenced and applied exclusively for the purposes of a future independence referendum campaign.
Those representations were made through two dedicated websites (ref.scot and yes.scot), direct mail, press statements, social media, a video from the then-First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, and so on, and were a material inducement to donors. The SNP insisted in 2017 that this money would “only be used for the specific purpose of a referendum campaign”.
It is now clear — and, given public pronouncements by the current First Minister over the last few days, not seriously disputed — that the funds so raised, totalling in excess of £600,000, were not applied for that purpose (ie a referendum campaign).
They were instead used as, to quote the current First Minister, “part of the ongoing activities of the Scottish National Party”. It goes without saying, I should have thought, that there is a material difference between a referendum campaign (which might be the aim of many people, regardless of political affiliation) and “the ongoing activities of the SNP”.
GROUNDS FOR INVESTIGATION
I respectfully submit that the following offences fall to be considered:
- Fraud (Scots common law)
If those responsible knew, at the time of soliciting donations, that the ring-fencing representation was false or that they did not intend to honour it, then the donations were obtained by fraud. The elements — a false pretence, made to induce a practical result, which did so induce — are plainly engaged. It is clear that a false representation of present intention will suffice for fraud: Richards v H. M. Advocate 1971 JC 29.
- Theft by Appropriation
Even if the original intention to ring-fence was genuine, the subsequent deliberate decision to divert the funds for an unauthorised purpose may constitute theft by appropriation under Scots law. The donors’ proprietary interest in the application of their money to the stated purpose survived donation. The decision to override that interest without donors’ consent constitutes the necessary appropriation.
The law is clear that “the appropriation of goods by the person to whom they have been entrusted for a limited and specified purpose constitutes theft”: see O’Brien v Strathern 1922 JC 55. It does not matter if the appropriation is temporary (ie it is no defence to say that the ring-fenced funds will be paid back): as soon as appropriation occurred, the crime was complete. A repentant thief who returns stolen property remains a thief, liable to be convicted as such: Carmichael v Black 1992 SLT 897.
- Embezzlement
I am not here talking about the actions of Mr Murrell, which have been fully aired of late. Rather, I am talking about the disposal of the “ring-fenced” funds, which can now clearly be seen to have been used for purposes other than those for which they were donated.
Scots law is clear that the ingathering of funds for an express purpose will result in the creation of a trust consisting of those funds. In the very recent case of Harper Macleod LLP [2026] CSIH 26, the Court cited with approval the comments of Lord Deas in Connell v Ferguson (1857) 19D 482 at 487:
“Where parties join in a subscription to effect a particular object, and place the money subscribed in the hands of certain persons to carry out that object, I think the quasi trust, thereby created, is for the alternative purpose of either carrying out the object of the subscription, or, if that cannot be done, of paying back the money.”
Those responsible for the custody and management of donated funds thus occupied a position of trust in relation to the donors. If there was a deliberate and dishonest decision to apply trust funds to an unauthorised purpose, that constitutes fraudulent breach of trust, which in turns amounts to the offence of embezzlement under Scots common law: see Moore v HMA [2010] HCJAC 26.
The same case shows that, once more, even temporary appropriation will suffice (as the fact that some of the money had been repaid in that case was held not to amount to a defence).
- False or Misleading Statements
If, following the decision to divert the funds, responsible persons continued publicly to represent that the ring-fence remained intact, those continuing representations may themselves constitute fraud by false pretence, with the relevant mens rea attaching at the point each such representation was made.
STATEMENT OF JOHN SWINNEY, FIRST MINISTER OF SCOTLAND, 3 JUNE 2026
Yesterday, 3 June 2026, Mr John Swinney, leader of the Scottish National Party and First Minister, publicly confirmed for the first time that the ring-fenced referendum funds had been applied to the general ongoing activities of the party.
Swinney says £660,000 independence fund used on SNP ‘objectives’
This admission post-dates the conclusion of the prosecution of Mr Peter Murrell and constitutes new evidence directly bearing on the questions posed above.
I draw particular attention to the distinction between Mr Murrell’s personal embezzlement — which has been the subject of prosecution — and the separate question of whether those responsible for SNP party finances deliberately and dishonestly applied the ring-fenced donations to purposes outwith the stated purpose, without donors’ knowledge or consent.
Mr Swinney’s statement yesterday confirms the latter occurred. Whether it was dishonest, and who bears criminal responsibility, is a matter for investigation.
.
KEY EVIDENTIAL QUESTIONS
I respectfully draw the following matters to investigators’ attention as central to any inquiry:
— The precise date on which a decision was made to apply the funds otherwise than for the ring-fenced purpose, and who made that decision;
— Whether any public statements affirming the ring-fence continued to be made after that decision was taken;
— The party’s accounting records for the relevant period, and how the funds were recorded and categorised;
— Any internal communications — emails, messages, minutes — bearing on the decision to divert.
.
I appreciate that the question of if and when criminal intent crystallised is a matter for investigation and, ultimately, for the Crown. However, the public facts as presently known are sufficient, in my submission, to warrant a formal investigation.
If I were to “crowdfund” money on the basis that I needed it to pay for legal expenses to defend a claim which I said was threatened against me, that would be fraud if there was, in fact, no such threatened claim. And if there was such a threatened claim which, once crowdfunding was complete, was then abandoned, it would have been theft (certainly) or embezzlement (probably) if I had then used the money to go on holiday.
The situation of the SNP is no different from that imagined scenario. Police Scotland would have no difficulty in investigating me in such circumstances, and by parity of reasoning they should have no such difficulty here.
I should be grateful if you would acknowledge receipt of this letter and advise me of the reference number assigned to this complaint.
Yours etc
Rev. Stuart Campbell
Oh, boy, that is going to set the cat among the pigeons. Well done, Stuart.
Brilliant!!
Well done Stuart and thanks. Thanks for establishing the facts, applying the logic and morality. It would not surprise me if a further criminal investigation is now launched, charges levied and in due course sentences applied.
The criminals will attempt to wriggle out of the accusations with lies, but in due course, the facts will convict them.
Ref.scot now hosts a gambling page. How ironic.
Ouch!
A wee bit of pee dribbled out. Brilliant Stu.
Well done Stu, it will be very interesting to see when and if you receive an answer to your complaint.
I actually pray that this complaint gains traction and results in a proper grown up investigation
Hats off to you, Stu you are not letting this go and I am fully behind you
Same.
WoS, thank you.
Unfailing, unflinching, unfaltering, true to every carefully chosen word and analysis.
If only there were peeps capable of the same within the SG.
Instead we get lies about lies, and more lying about the last lie told, like a mille feuille of lies.
Masquerades and lies, sleight of hand, smoke and mirrors.
It’s all we get.
I’m disgusted by them.
Bravo!
However, I hope your representations are not met with the same high-handed dismissal by Police Scotland earlier today as that of Sean Clerkin’s complaint regarding SNP the referendum campaign fundraisers.
Do you have a link to the high handed dismissal please?
agentx
link to bbc.co.uk
Try this and see if it works:
link to msn.com
The first police response Clerkin is quite positive, but later he’s given the brush-off.
I saw Sean Clerkin being brushed off and was furious. Thank goodness we have Stu to get right in there and demand some answers…
Robin McAlpine has stated on the record that three separate sources have told him the police are unhappy that only Murrell was charged. So here’s hoping they will open an investigation based on your submission and indeed Sean Clerkin and potentially others’ complaints as donors to the fund(s).
You may find stonier ground when it comes to COPFS but that in itself may be instructive…
Stony ground?
Indeed.
Good luck we’re right behind you and if you need a crowd fund keep us informed
We dont need that party
Let the mothafuckas burn
Burn muthafuckas BURN
Perfect.
Thankyou for doing this.
It’ll be discarded out of hand, the Crown doesn’t jail it’s own.
Well done. I hope this is the stake through the heart of the vampires in the SNP.
Though I’m stuck as to how this plays out with the SNP just voted back in. This is new political territory. If the Sturgeon clique lose power who takes over? Will the party remember its reason?
You’ve done an exemplary job for your country. In an independent Scotland we should put your face on a bank note. Obviously one of a large denomination so that we seldom see it.
Well done Stu – I believe the Electoral Commission should investigate the submission of fraudulent accounts.
They will go over this for days till they find an obscure excuse not to investigate
As we know they are all in it together
Corrupt to the core
I think they have already declined to investigate further, saying it has already been done
Yet again I stand amazed and admiring.
If a crowdfunding effort is required I doubt not that it will be well supported.
Bravo.
I’m not sure if this suggestion would have a material impact on the investiation, but after the resignations of those tasked with looking into SNP finances, there surely could not (in a fair balance of probability) be any defence for anyone who made the assurances to the donors that the money was still in the SNP coffers. The insinuation or claim by all the assurances was that those like Sturgeon or Swinney had sight of the finances so could assure everyone that the money wasn’t there.
If evidence shows the money wasn’t there, they are part of a conspiracy to commit fraud. theft.
There is a reference above to Sean Clerkin’s renewed complaint having been dismissed already by Police Scotland. If this is true how dare they? This is as blatant a theft/fraud/embezzlement as you are likely to see. Moreover Sean was restating his original complaint from several years ago re the disappearing ring-fenced funds. The police have had a ridiculous period of time already to investigate this. In the process they have identified the theft of SNP funds by Peter Murrell but have not dealt with Sean’s complaint. Why not?
Unless the Police respond quickly and positively to Wing’s formal complaint, much as it pains me to say, Westminster should be asked to step in and instruct the complaint to be properly investigated by a police force from south of the border. In the meantime they should second senior officers from other forces to man the key positions at Police Scotland and suspend the present occupants of those positions until this is resolved.
As far as COPFS is concerned. Dorothy Bain should be sacked now, no waiting for a fancy pension laden retirement. The police file on Sturgeon should be independently reviewed and in all probability charges laid against Sturgeon. The performance, or lack of it, of the other senior staff of COPFS should also be reviewed with a view to weeding out the corruption which obviously pervades that organisation.
This matter is also going to have to be investigated by the Electoral Commission and an enquiry at Holyrood.
Donations over a certain amount to political candidates/parties – the name and address of the donor has to be obtained to ensure Britishness, can’t remember if it was £50 or £500. Helping yourself to a ringfenced fund – even had it been for the correct reason – should really be identified in the accounts, and, it cannot be lawful for a party to fund a GE using stolen money.
Getting a bit ahead with this but interesting nonetheless. From AI –
The Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service (COPFS) can refuse to take a case to court if there is insufficient admissible evidence to prove the crime, or if prosecuting is not in the public interest.
In Scotland, saying a prosecution is “not in the public interest” means that even though a crime was committed and can be proven, taking the case to court would do more harm than good to society, the justice system, or the individuals involved.
Stu, you seem to be doing a rotweilers job on the essenpee,
keep it up…
If you want something done, then best do it yourself, as they say.
You really are the only journalist worth their salt in Scotland.
Mega congratulations! We shall soon all see, indeed.
? Perfect.
The fundraiser was specifically publicised for everyone who wants independence, not just for the SNP.
That’s why people from Labour for Indy and Greens for Indy, and those with no political affiliations, donated to it. It was for indy, and not the SNP.
Popcorn at the ready…
Kudos, Rev, for your attempts to clean out the swamp that is the Scottish Government.
All right-minded individuals desire a Scotland free of all who would seek to gain personally from the political institutions with which we have been lumbered.
Let’s start with the SNP…
The SNP confirmed there was 2 referendum funds one for SNP members and another for independence supporters not aligned to the SNP. Whatever happened to the second funds money ? Has it been emptied into the SNP account.
Great work and good luck. BBC and others are reporting Police Scotland say they are not going to do anything more on the donation money. They do say they will consider new information and maybe your quote of Swinney’s admission will be taken as such.
At least it will force them to state publicly they are not going to do their job by upholding the law.
A class action suit by donors might succeed in getting money repaid to all who can show they donated. Trouble is, most of the donors are likely cultists who actually like being lied to / having their money misappropriated by SNP.
Rev, I can’t help wonder it would have a been better Idea to ask Joanna Cherry to write this letter.
I have every faith in you, but no faith in any of the institutions run by the SNP.
link to bbc.co.uk
The SNP has been turned into a Ponzi Scheme. Run by a criminal gang headed by Peter Murrell, Nicola Sturgeon and helped by a group who offered false claims to cover up the fraud.
I think Wings has done a big favour for everyone in Scotland.
Good luck Stu! I hope you receive a timely response.
Typical of the Sturgeon clique to see everyone & everything as their personal fan club. They did the same with the Indy rallies despite not everyone being an SNP supporter.
How dare they use public fundraising for “the ongoing activities of the SNP”
What a fucking liberty!
It wasn’t an SNP fundraiser & Wouldn’t we all love to know what exactly those activities were considering they’ve done fck all since Alex Salmond stepped down.