More than 1,000 people have funded a proposed judicial review of the authorities’ handling of nearly £667,000 raised through SNP independence appeals. The challenge is separate from Peter Murrell’s conviction for embezzling more than £400,000 from the party and turns instead on what police and prosecutors concluded about the original referendum-designated money.
A crowdfunding appeal to finance a legal challenge over the SNP’s independence referendum donations has passed its initial £30,000 target in less than three days, moving a dispute that began with party fundraising in 2017 towards the Court of Session.
Wings Over Scotland launched the CrowdJustice appeal on 1 October to fund the first stage of a proposed judicial review concerning the decision not to reopen or pursue a further criminal investigation into the use of money raised through SNP independence campaigns.
By 6 October, the appeal had reached £32,062 from 1,032 pledges. Its original £30,000 target had been passed by 4 October.
The campaign page now displays a £400,000 stretch target, but Wings has explicitly told supporters that this is not the amount presently required. It describes the figure as a worst-case estimate of pursuing the litigation through to a conclusion without protection from potentially substantial legal expenses.
Wings says it intends to seek an order limiting its exposure to the other side’s costs and has told donors it does not intend to continue if that protection is refused. Its King’s Counsel is acting without a fee and its solicitors, Halliday Campbell, are said to be working at a substantially reduced rate.
The significance of the fundraising is therefore not that £400,000 is being sought from the public. It is that sufficient money has now been raised to attempt to place the lawfulness of an institutional decision arising from Operation Branchform before Scotland’s highest civil court.
There Are Two Different Sums of Money
The first point requiring separation is the one most easily lost in the political argument.
Peter Murrell’s criminal case and the referendum-fund dispute are not the same case.
Murrell, the SNP’s former chief executive, pleaded guilty in May to embezzling £400,310.65 from the party. Lord Young sentenced him at the High Court in Edinburgh on 23 June to five years and three months in prison.
The agreed factual basis of the prosecution records that the money came from the SNP’s principal bank account, which contained income principally from membership fees, donations and legacies.
The court heard that Murrell carried out numerous dishonest transactions during a period of about 12 years. His methods included fabricated invoices and false information supplied to junior staff for entry into the party’s accounting system.
Lord Young described the conduct as a calculated crime of dishonesty and a serious breach of trust.
That conviction established that Murrell embezzled more than £400,000 from the SNP.
It did not establish that the SNP, or any particular individual acting for it, criminally embezzled the separate money raised through the independence referendum appeals.
The proposed judicial review concerns what happened to that second category of money and, more particularly, how the authorities dealt with allegations concerning its use.
The Story Began in 2017
The first major appeal was launched in March 2017 after Nicola Sturgeon announced plans to seek another independence referendum.
The SNP created a dedicated fundraising drive through the ref.scot website with a target of £1 million.
Contemporary reporting described the money as a campaign war chest for a future referendum.
By early June 2017, the appeal had raised almost £482,000 before the page was removed following the UK general election.
At the time, the SNP repeatedly maintained that the money raised for the referendum campaign was ring-fenced and had not been used for the general election.
Further independence-related fundraising followed, including an appeal in 2019.
By the end of 2020, the SNP itself recorded that £666,953 had been raised through independence-related appeals.
That figure is not an estimate made by Wings Over Scotland or by an opposition party. It appears in the SNP’s own annual accounts filed with the Electoral Commission.
The SNP’s Own Accounts Set Out the Commitment
The 2020 accounts contain an unusually detailed section headed “Referendum Appeal”.
The party said that when a donor gave money for a stated purpose, either independently or in response to a particular appeal, the donation was recorded internally and a running total maintained.
It said the independence appeal money had been treated in that way.
The accounts stated that the sums raised would be spent for the intended purpose and that the party would ensure money from the appeals went directly to work to secure a referendum and win independence.
The accounts then gave the exact total.
By 31 December 2020, £666,953 had been raised and coded as independence-related income. Of that, £51,760 had been applied against expenditure.
The remaining balance, the party said, remained earmarked for independence-related campaigning.
The accounts also explained why no separate bank account or restricted fund appeared in the published balance sheet.
The SNP is not a charity and was not required to record restricted and unrestricted funds in the same way as a charitable organisation. Instead, it said the commitment was managed internally through the party’s ordinary cash flow.
That distinction became the centre of the later controversy.
The question was no longer simply whether an account containing exactly £666,953 could be found. The question was whether money raised on an explicit commitment to future independence campaigning had in fact been used consistently with that commitment.
The Police Investigation Began With Complaints About Those Funds
Concerns over the referendum appeals eventually moved beyond internal SNP argument and political criticism.
In July 2021, Police Scotland confirmed that it had received seven complaints relating to the party’s finances and had begun a formal investigation.
The investigation became Operation Branchform.
It would eventually develop far beyond the original fundraising controversy.
Police Scotland carried out extensive financial enquiries over several years. Nicola Sturgeon and then-SNP treasurer Colin Beattie were arrested during the investigation and released without charge. Criminal enquiries concerning them were later concluded without prosecution.
Murrell’s position was different.
The investigation established a long-running pattern of personal embezzlement from the SNP, leading to his guilty plea and imprisonment.
Police Scotland described Operation Branchform after sentencing as an extremely detailed and complex investigation conducted over more than four years, involving specialist financial work and enquiries extending beyond Scotland.
The force has consistently maintained that the investigation was comprehensive.
What the Crown Says It Considered
The distinction between Murrell’s proven embezzlement and the referendum-fund question becomes particularly important when examining what prosecutors say they considered.
Correspondence subsequently published by Wings records the Crown Office saying that no person had been reported to the procurator fiscal on a charge of fraud relating to the wider allegations.
However, the Crown said that fraud had been considered during the police and prosecutorial investigation.
According to that correspondence, the investigation did not disclose sufficient evidence to establish fraud or another crime beyond the embezzlement ultimately prosecuted.
The Crown said that conclusion was agreed by the procurator fiscal, Crown Counsel who was a King’s Counsel and a reviewing King’s Counsel.
Police Scotland has likewise said that financial investigators, analysts and a forensic accountant examined reported financial irregularities and that consideration was given to other possible crime types.
It said those matters were investigated and reported to the Crown Office for advice and guidance.
Those statements are significant because they contradict any suggestion that the authorities simply never looked at the wider financial allegations.
The dispute now concerns whether their conclusions were lawful and whether later information should have caused those conclusions to be revisited.
John Swinney’s 2026 Statements Reopened the Argument
The controversy returned sharply in June 2026, after Murrell’s guilty plea.
During exchanges at Holyrood, opposition parties pressed First Minister and SNP leader John Swinney about the referendum appeal money.
At First Minister’s Questions on 4 June, Labour leader Anas Sarwar accused Swinney of having acknowledged the previous day that money raised for a referendum campaign had been used for other party expenses.
Swinney did not accept Sarwar’s characterisation. He said what he had said the previous day was no different from the SNP’s position in 2021 and argued that the party raises and spends money in pursuit of Scottish independence.
That exchange matters because Wings argues that Swinney’s statements supplied new information about how the money had actually been used.
On 4 June, the site wrote formally to Police Scotland and the Crown Office asking for a criminal investigation into what it described as the alleged misappropriation of funds donated for a specific purpose.
The legal contention advanced by Wings was that a deliberate and dishonest use of entrusted funds for an unauthorised purpose could potentially amount to fraudulent breach of trust and therefore embezzlement under Scots law.
That is an allegation and legal argument advanced by Wings. It is not an offence established by a court.
Police Scotland Says the Wider Matters Were Already Investigated
Police Scotland’s answer has been materially different from the one Wings wanted.
In correspondence later published by the site, Assistant Chief Constable Stuart Houston said financial investigators, analysts and a forensic accountant had examined the reported irregularities during Operation Branchform.
He said other crime types had been considered and investigated and that the circumstances had been reported to the Crown Office for advice and guidance.
That position narrows the dispute considerably.
The question is not whether Operation Branchform investigated the SNP’s finances. It plainly did.
Nor is the question whether police obtained a criminal result. They did: Murrell was convicted of serious embezzlement.
The remaining question is whether the decision not to take separate criminal action over the referendum-designated donations was reached lawfully and whether the material that emerged after the investigation closed required further consideration.
A Senior Counsel’s Opinion Added a Separate Civil Dimension
Wings then pursued independent legal advice.
In July, Roddy Dunlop KC, Dean of the Faculty of Advocates, provided an opinion concerning the prospects of donors bringing a civil claim against the SNP for fraudulent breach of trust.
The opinion was reported as describing such a civil claim as exceptionally strong.
Dunlop’s advice concerned the rights of donors and the possible civil consequences of money having been solicited for a stated purpose and then applied differently.
That opinion must also be kept within its proper limits.
It is not a criminal conviction.
It does not require Police Scotland to charge anyone.
It does not bind the Crown Office.
And it does not determine whether a judicial review will succeed.
It is a professional legal opinion obtained by one side of the present dispute.
The Case Then Moved Into Formal Pre-Litigation
On 20 August, solicitors Halliday Campbell sent Police Scotland a formal letter before action on behalf of Wings.
That moved the dispute beyond campaigning correspondence into preparation for possible court proceedings.
Wings subsequently announced that it intended to seek judicial review of the decision-making surrounding the refusal to reopen or further investigate the referendum-fund allegations.
The CrowdJustice campaign launched on 1 October to finance that first stage.
Its success means the question can now potentially move from correspondence between campaigners, police and prosecutors into judicial proceedings.
What Judicial Review Would Actually Decide
A judicial review is not a criminal trial.
The Court of Session would not be asked to determine whether an SNP official stole the referendum money.
It would instead examine the legality of the public authority decision challenged in the petition.
Exactly what grounds will be advanced cannot be known until the petition is lodged.
Judicial review can, depending on the case, consider questions such as whether a decision-maker acted within its powers, applied the correct law, followed a fair process, took relevant matters into account and reached a decision that was legally open to it.
There is also an initial permission test.
Section 27B of the Court of Session Act 1988 provides that judicial-review proceedings cannot proceed unless the court grants permission.
The applicant must demonstrate a sufficient interest in the subject matter and that the application has a real prospect of success.
Raising the money therefore does not mean Wings automatically gets a full substantive hearing.
The court must first allow the petition to proceed.
Even Success Would Not Necessarily Produce a Prosecution
This is another important limitation.
Judicial review examines decision-making rather than substituting the court for the police or prosecutor.
If a challenged decision were reduced by the Court of Session, the practical consequence could be that the relevant authority had to reconsider the matter according to law.
That would not automatically mean charges followed.
After reconsideration, police or prosecutors could still conclude that the evidential or legal test for further criminal proceedings was not met.
The proposed litigation is therefore about scrutiny of the decision-making process, not a mechanism by which a private campaigner can order a prosecution.
Why the £400,000 Figure on the Fundraiser Is Misleading Without Context
Once the initial £30,000 target was reached, CrowdJustice displayed a £400,000 stretch target.
Wings immediately warned supporters not to interpret that as a new fundraising request of that size.
Its 4 October update said the figure represented a worst-case legal-cost estimate if the case were pursued to a conclusion without protection against the other side’s expenses.
The site said it would not continue in those circumstances.
The immediate £30,000 was raised to fund preparation and filing of the judicial-review application and provide a contingency for potential expenses during the opening phase.
The campaign says Dunlop is acting pro bono and Halliday Campbell at a reduced rate.
That leaves the expenses question as one of the first major procedural issues if the petition is lodged.
More Than 1,000 People Have Chosen to Finance the Test
The crowdfunding result carries a separate public-interest significance.
More than 1,000 pledges produced the initial £30,000 in less than three days.
At £32,062 from 1,032 pledges, the average contribution is a little over £31.
The comments attached to the fundraiser also show that contributors cannot safely be treated as one political bloc. Some describe themselves as independence supporters; at least one publicly states that they are not a nationalist but are supporting the case on the principle of equal application of the law.
Those comments cannot establish why every donor contributed.
Nor does successful crowdfunding establish that the underlying legal case is correct.
It establishes something narrower: enough people are willing to finance judicial scrutiny for the proposed litigation to reach the stage at which the court can be asked to consider it.
The Case Arrives During a Wider Review of Scotland’s Prosecution System
The timing also intersects with a separate institutional development.
On 29 September, John Swinney announced an independent review of the roles of Scotland’s Lord Advocate and Solicitor General, chaired by Lord Boyd of Duncansby.
The review will consider whether the existing arrangement remains appropriate, including the Lord Advocate’s dual position as head of the prosecution system and principal legal adviser to the Scottish Government.
There is no evidence that the review was established because of the Wings case, and the two should not be presented as causally connected.
But the proposed judicial review will now proceed, if permission is sought and granted, while the institutional structure of Scotland’s prosecution system is itself under formal examination.
The Unanswered Question Is Now Narrower Than It Was in 2021
Operation Branchform has already answered one major question.
It established that Peter Murrell stole more than £400,000 from the SNP, and he is now serving a prison sentence for it.
It also established that police and prosecutors conducted a large and prolonged investigation into the party’s finances.
What remains disputed is what legal conclusion was reached over the £666,953 raised through independence-related appeals, why separate charges did not result from that aspect of the investigation and whether information that emerged after Operation Branchform was brought to a close required the authorities to reconsider.
Police Scotland and the Crown Office maintain that wider financial allegations were examined and that the evidence did not justify additional criminal proceedings.
Wings Over Scotland argues that the later statements about how the referendum money was used fundamentally alter that position.
The first £30,000 needed to test that argument has now been raised.
The next decision belongs not to a political party, a campaign website or a newspaper, but to the Court of Session if and when the petition is lodged.
Sources
Without Fear Or Favour
CrowdJustice, launched 1 October 2026; update 4 October 2026
https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/without-fear-or-favour/
Scottish National Party Annual Accounts 2020
Scottish National Party / Electoral Commission, filed 2021
https://search.electoralcommission.org.uk/Api/Accounts/Documents/23205
SNP shuts down online fundraising drive for indyref2
STV News, 13 June 2017
https://archive.news.stv.tv/politics/1391116-snp-shuts-down-online-fundraising-drive-for-indyref2.html
Police investigate SNP over independence campaign cash claims
The Guardian, 13 July 2021
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/jul/13/police-investigate-snp-over-independence-campaign-cash-claims
HMA v Peter Murrell
Judicial Office for Scotland, 23 June 2026
https://www.judiciary.scot/home/sentences-judgments/sentences-and-opinions/2026/06/23/hma-v-peter-murrell
Peter Murrell prosecution briefing
Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, June 2026
https://www.copfs.gov.uk/publications/peter-murrell-prosecution-briefing/html/
Sentencing of Peter Murrell
Police Scotland, 23 June 2026
https://www.scotland.police.uk/what-s-happening/news/2026/june/sentencing-of-peter-murrell
First Minister’s Questions
Scottish Parliament Official Report, 4 June 2026
https://www.parliament.scot/chamber-and-committees/official-report/search-what-was-said-in-parliament/meeting-of-parliament-04-06-2026
The Aims Of Justice
Wings Over Scotland, 4 June 2026
https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-aims-of-justice/
The Only Notes That Really Count
Wings Over Scotland, 9 July 2026
https://wingsoverscotland.com/the-only-notes-that-really-count/
SNP trust breach claim over donations ‘nigh on irresistible’, says senior lawyer
Press Association, 10 July 2026
Before Action
Wings Over Scotland, 20 August 2026
https://wingsoverscotland.com/before-action/
Court of Session Act 1988, sections 27A–27D
UK Parliament, as amended
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/36/part/IV
Court of Session Rules — Chapter 58, Judicial Review
Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service
https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/rules-and-practice/rules-of-court/court-of-session-rules/
Scottish Law Officers Independent Review: Terms of Reference
Scottish Government, 29 September 2026
https://www.gov.scot/publications/scottish-law-officers-independent-review-terms-of-reference/
