LAWYERS acting on behalf of embattled MP Natalie McGarry are to demand the release of an audit report that is believed to detail alleged discrepancies in a pro-independence campaign group's finances.
The Glasgow East MP stood down from the SNP after Women for Independence, an organisation she co-founded, called in police, saying it had uncovered financial discrepancies with around £30,000 apparently unaccounted for. It quickly emerged that Ms McGarry was at the centre of the controversy.
Allegations are believed to centre around a PayPal account used for donations that Ms McGarry had control of. However, friends of the MP have indicated that the financial arrangements at the Women for Independence were highly chaotic, particularly in the run-up to the independence referendum, and insist that poor accounting practices are likely to explain apparent discrepancies.
Aamer Anwar, Ms McGarry's solicitor, has called in forensic accountants to examine accounts and called for information held by Women for Independence to be released to his team to aid the investigation.
He said: "If Women for Independence want to get to the bottom of this shambles, it is essential that we are provided with full details of what they allege the financial discrepancies to be.
"Nobody has been able to even provide definitive details of what went wrong. My firm will be approaching Women for Independence to request this. It would be very helpful to know what the discrepancies actually are and what accounting methods were used.
"To date a copy of the so-called audit has not even been provided to Natalie. Surely natural justice means that she is entitled to such information and be allowed to answer the serious questions she faces. Cooperation by the Women for Independence would be helpful to everyone and stop the damaging wild speculation and trial by media."
It is understood that the audit was carried out by two senior Women for Independence figures and a chartered accountant covering the period 2014 to March this year, which the group has highlighted as the timeframe in which discrepancies were uncovered.
A leaked email, written by Ms McGarry in March, detailed income and expenditure for the group and promised to follow up with audited accounts that it is claimed were never provided.
While sources within the group have insisted that Ms McGarry has been given multiple opportunities to explain apparent discrepancies, friends of the MP have said that she was shocked to learn that police had been called in, and has been left "distraught" by the sequence of events.
It has emerged that Ms McGarry paid back a four-figure sum to Women for Independence, which her supporters claim had been lying dormant in an account, in late summer.
One source said that Ms McGarry had been "thrown under the bus" by her former friends at Women for Independence, a group that was established "over a glass of wine" in 2012 with former socialist MSP Carolyn Leckie a driving force in its early days. The organisation grew in the run-up to the independence referendum and carried on following the vote, campaigning on a series of issues.
The source added: "To try to pin this on Natalie is ridiculous. If someone is trying to steal money why would they leave that money in an account then pay it back? If they wanted to steal it they would have spent it. Anyone who has worked in a new, grassroots organisation will know that finances can be chaotic.
"People were demanding travel expenses, hotel rooms and equipment and receipts weren't always provided. It seems everybody is jumping on the bandwagon and saying Natalie was the only person involved, but that's unfair. People like Carolyn Leckie, Jeane Freeman and Susan Stewart were all central in the organisation."
Sources within Women for Independence indicated that the audit report was in the hands of police. The group declined to comment, citing the ongoing police investigation.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article