Yes Scotland chief executive issues statement on 'missing £1.5m' – read in full

Yes Scotland chief executive Blair Jenkins pictured with Nicola Sturgeon in 2013 (Image: PA)

THERE is no “missing £1.5 million” in the Yes Scotland accounts and former SNP chief executive Peter Murrell never had access to the campaign group’s funding, Yes Scotland boss Blair Jenkins has said.

In a statement issued through his lawyer Aamer Anwar, Jenkins – who was chief executive of Yes Scotland during the 2014 independence referendum campaign – said claims that £1.5m had gone missing from the group’s accounts were “based on a very basic misunderstanding”.

Independence campaigner David Henry made a complaint to police after alleging that the funding was unaccounted for in Yes Scotland’s books.

Yes Scotland chief executive's statement in full

Blair Jenkins, CEO of Yes Scotland, pictured in Glasgow in 2012 (Image: Kirsty Anderson)

However, speaking through Anwar, Jenkins said: “On the 5th of July a Sunday paper published allegations that £1.5m was ‘missing’ from the Yes Scotland accounts for 2013. These false allegations were then repeated by other sections of the media. This story was based on a very basic misunderstanding of accounts and Yes Scotland’s financial statements.

“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.

“Johnston Carmichael fulfilled their duty as qualified auditors to report on the campaign spending return and stated that in their opinion it fairly represented Yes Scotland’s campaign expenditure as required by the Scottish Independence Referendum Act 2013.

“A copy of their opinion was provided to the Electoral Commission, all of which was in accordance with the law. The report of the Electoral Commission can be viewed by any member of the public.

“Blair Jenkins has an impeccable reputation and cannot allow highly defamatory allegations to continue unchecked.

“On the 13th of July, due to the falsehoods in the press, Yes Scotland on a voluntary basis provided information to Police Scotland, to assist them in their assessment of a complaint that had reportedly been made. Full sets of accounts for 2013, 14, 15 were also provided to the Police.”

Jenkins then provided the following explanation of the 2013 balance sheet, as adjusted in the 2014 accounts:

1. In 2013, Yes Scotland [YS] took in donations of £2,403,976, identified in the accounts as ‘other income’. It had a year-end surplus of £878,978. The difference between the two figures is explained by the fact that YS had operating costs of £1,535,855.
2. The operating costs included all salaries, the costs of YS HQ in Glasgow, events, publications, and every other expense incurred by the official campaign for Scottish independence. Apart from the donations received, YS had a profit of £10,857 on merchandise sales.
3. A balance sheet surplus of £878, 978 and income of £2.403,976 doesn’t mean that over £1.5m had gone missing or been stolen, rather that YS’s operating costs were about £1.5m in 2012/13.
4. The full signed accounts from Johnston Carmichael in 2014 confirm that this was the case – showing expenditure in the 2013 accounting period as £1,535,855. This is of course exactly the same figure that is in the original 2013 accounts, because that number never changed.
5. Mr David Henry complained that ‘other income’ was not mentioned again in subsequent accounts. That is because in abbreviated accounts (which all small companies publish), details of income and expenditure are not reported – rather it is just the balance sheet at the year-end. The only reason that ‘other income’ is included and identified in regard to 2013 in the published 2014 accounts is to explain the Prior Period Adjustment.
6. Questions were also asked about an adjustment made in 2015 to the 2014 accounts – this reflected advice from the accountants that some invoices received in the later stages of the referendum campaign should be accounted for in the 2014 figures rather than in the following year’s accounts.
7. To be clear there is no ‘missing’ £1.5m, but what is missing is any explanation as to why it did not occur to those making the allegations, that the £1.5m represents spending by the campaign.