Wings Over Scotland | 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:

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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).

4. 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