Kieren @RonTLC

John Swinney in 2001 on Henry McLeish £9,000 expenses scandal: "You have got to be able to trust the First Minister." Once it escalated to £36k+ Swinney said: "People around Scotland will be staggered by the amount of money that is involved. For the good of the Scottish parliament as a whole and the office of first minister, Mr McLeish should now resign his position." John Swinney in 2026 on the SNP's £660,000 fundraising scandal: "Nothing to see here, folks."

@PoliceScotland now appears to be asking Scotland to accept that “ring-fenced” means “spent elsewhere”, “referendum campaign fund” means “general party activity” and “already investigated” means “don’t ask awkward questions”. Scotland is being taken for mugs. Worse, we are being expected to thank them for the explanation.

Swinney's strategy here is simple: 'Just admit that we screwed over the supporters and front it out'. Gamble that this would not constitute fraud and rely on the Greens to get him out of any trouble in Parliament. It's the actions of a party that just don't give a shit.

Alan Smith @Political_AlanS

2 days ago

Speaking with John Swinney in Glasgow this morning and asking him about what exactly happened to the SNP’s ‘ring-fenced’ independence referendum fund The First Minister says the money’s used as part of ‘the ongoing activities of the Scottish National Party’

134 42 101 72K 14

“I don’t know if Stephen Flynn is cheering me on or heckling me. He’s probably cheering me on… keeping his eye on the prize.”

@Wilson34David Or the invented tanks in Glasgow after WW1

Awkward. Speaking in parliament in 2022, John Swinney railed against the economic illiteracy of people suggesting he had the right to spend ringfenced money on other things.

@HebrideanYoon @TedOakleye And then just say that it is okay it is what they wanted all along. Despite specifically saying it was for the independence referendum.

It seems the Scottish Parliament's finance committee will have SNP MSPs appointed as convener AND deputy convener. Quite aside from suspicions this will lead to weaker scrutiny of gov than with opposition MSPs heading it, this is a party that can't even manage its own finances

6/ And that remarkable 2019 tweet is here:

Nicola Sturgeon @NicolaSturgeon

7 years ago

@harrisdistiller @PeterMurrell @EtafRum Thank you. Love these new highball glasses!

9 6 51 0 3

🚨1/ We already have loads of photos of Sturgeon with Murrell swag, but I’ve found a new kind of gaiety: tweets in which Sturgeon photographs and delights in expensive new household purchases, paid for with SNP money.🧵

Police Scotland's message appears to be: portray an 80-year-old Jewish woman as a horned devil and don't worry, it's not a hate crime. Another ridiculous decision that raises serious questions about two-tier policing.

Sloggi briefs? Really? Why would an individual, part of a couple earning over £250k annually risk it all to purchase Sloggi briefs? Why were nearly £60k of suspicious purchases dropped as part of a plea deal?

keyboard_arrow_left Previous keyboard_arrow_right Next

Can I point out to those SNP members that were fine with their money being ripped off. If you ticked box 2 but really meant box 1 why not just tick box 1 in the first place. The ONLY reason for ticking box 2 is that you wanted your money ring-fenced.

Sam Taylor @staylorish

2 days ago

In a predictable turn of events, the vast majority of @ScotNational readers are absolutely fine with being defrauded by the SNP.

keyboard_arrow_left Previous keyboard_arrow_right Next

31 55 184 16K 5

theguardian.com/politics/2026/…

The public is now being invited to admire a new miracle of Scottish political finance: the ring-fence with no fence, the referendum fund with no referendum and the campaign war chest that appears to have gone off to fight a brave battle against the SNP’s day-to-day bills. The form below could hardly be plainer. Donors were not merely asked to help the party. They were asked to add a personal donation to a “ring fenced Independence Referendum Campaign Fund”. Those words matter. They are not decorative bunting. They are not campaign confetti. They are a representation made to people before they put their hands in their pockets. Now we are told, with the usual solemn face and institutional throat-clearing, that the money was in fact used as part of the SNP’s general resources. We are apparently meant to accept that “ring fenced” did not mean ring fenced in the vulgar, dictionary sense understood by donors, but in some more sophisticated Holyrood sense known only to party officials, treasurers, spin doctors and those gifted souls who can look at a missing fence and still see excellent fencing. That is where the fraud argument becomes painfully simple. Fraud in Scotland is not some exotic thing requiring a suitcase full of cash and a villain in a cloak. It turns on false pretence, dishonest misrepresentation and someone being induced to act because of it. If a donor gave money because they were told it was for a ring-fenced referendum campaign fund, and if those soliciting or managing that money knew it was not being kept or used in that way, then the issue is obvious. The question is not whether the SNP later produced a cloud of accounting language. The question is what ordinary people were told when they donated. The defence will be equally predictable. We will be told that all @theSNP activity is ultimately about independence, that money is fungible, that an internal earmark is just as good as a separate pot and that only fools imagined a ring-fenced fund meant the money was actually ring fenced. This is the kind of explanation that sounds cleverest to the people most invested in not understanding why it is absurd. A political party may well be entitled to raise money for its broad objectives. What it cannot morally do, and is not legally be able to do, is raise money under a specific label then later dissolve that label into general expenditure when convenient. “Give us money for X” and “we spent it on Y because Y helps X in a very broad philosophical sense” is not transparency. It is evasion @JohnSwinney style. The image share by @nats_tired is not a conviction. It is not, on its own, a complete criminal case. But it is the first brick in the wall: evidence of the promise made to donors. If that promise was false, knowingly misleading or never intended to be honoured, then this is not merely bad optics. It is the point at which politics starts to smell very much like fraud. @PoliceScotland @COPFS @scotgov

Just an old bloke @nats_tired

2 days ago

@CliveWismayer

3 2 13 7K 1

Strugeon "deceived, misled and betrayed" OK... so why exactly has she done a deal with lying criminal Murrell to protect £60K worth of 'Sturgeonesque purchases'? This stunk before, now it's rancid.

Tomorrow (Thursday 4 June 2026), Parliament is being invited to vote on a motion to establish committees with both the Convenor and Deputy Convenor of the *FINANCE* Committee to be from the SNP ........

This was under a week ago @AlynSmith....👀 Care to make any further comment? 😆

Sam Taylor @staylorish

5 days ago

Some good news for the SNP. Alyn Smith says the £600k ringfenced independence fund never did go missing. #bbcdn

63 67 266 71K 22

Dear @uartlach I write as an academic and political commentator with a longstanding interest in SNP financial accountability, author of 'Scotland Undone'. The following questions arise purely from the public record, and I would welcome your clarification. In October 2020 you stated the indyref2 fund held £593,501, earmarked for the referendum and ready to deploy at a moment's notice. Your successor Douglas Chapman resigned months later stating he could not access the financial information required to carry out his legal duties as National Treasurer. You returned to the role. Within weeks, the fund you had described as referendum-ready was being characterised as having been spent on "independence related campaigning." With that sequence in mind: 1. When you returned as National Treasurer in May 2021, did you have access to the party accounts that Douglas Chapman stated he had been denied? 2. If so, at what point did you become aware that the £593,501 you described as ready to deploy in October 2020 had been spent — and on what? 3. Your June 2021 statement referred to funds spent on "independence related campaigning." Can you identify specifically what expenditure that describes, and when it occurred? 4. Douglas Chapman resigned citing statutory obstruction. You returned to a role he found untenable. What had changed? I appreciate your time and consideration. Sincerely, Dean MacKinnon Thomson Author, Scotland Undone Lecturer, Beijing Normal-Hong Kong Baptist University

Dean M Thomson @DeanMThomson

2 days ago

In May 2021, John Swinney told the BBC he didn't understand why the SNP's treasurer — who'd been denied access to the party accounts — had resigned. Five years later he's explained what was in those accounts all along. He didn't mean to. deanmthomson.substack.com/p/from-ringfen… [1/4

4 37 51 12K 8

Colin Beattie told us in October 2020 the fund had £593,501 ready to deploy. He was replaced by Douglas Chapman as treasurer, who resigned May 29 2021 saying he couldn't access the books. @uartlach returned to the role — and within weeks was redefining the same fund as having been spent on "independence related campaigning." Despite Ian McCann's claim same month money was still there. Chapman couldn't see the accounts. Beattie, apparently, could. The question a Westminster Scotland Committee inquiry would reasonably ask is what exactly he saw — and when.

Dean M Thomson @DeanMThomson

2 days ago

From 'Ringfenced' to 'Resources': The Admission John Swinney Didn't Realise He Was Making deanmthomson.substack.com/p/from-ringfen… ▶️2020: SNP claims the money was spent on elections are "categorically not true" ▶️Oct 2020: Beattie — £593,501 "ready to deploy at a moment's notice" ▶️Jun 2021:

keyboard_arrow_left Previous keyboard_arrow_right Next

1 35 65 12K 9