THE No campaign has received £2.4 million in its fight to save the Union, which is more than double the number of large donations for pro-independence groups over the last six months.
The figures emerged as a row broke out between the opponents over allegations of rule breaking in the run up to the referendum on September 18.
Almost £4m was given to both camps between December last year and last month, the Electoral Commission has revealed.
By law, gifts of more than £7,500 to registered campaigners have to be publicly declared with the details now made public in the Commission's donations report, the first of its kind before a UK referendum vote.
In the last six-month recorded period, there were just six organisations with such declarable donations.
The lead campaigner for the pro-independence side, Yes Scotland, received £1,160,000 with the pro-UK Better Together group given £2,406,475.
Other pro-independence campaigners such as Business for Scotland received £199,120 and Christians for Independence £100,000. Anti-campaigners such as No Borders received £75,000.
The largest No campaign gift, £1m, was made on June 10 by author J K Rowling, listed under her marital name Joanne Murray.
Other pro-UK donors included: Rain Dance Investments £200,000; Christopher Sansom, the Edinburgh-born author £200,000, and the whisky distillers William Grant and Sons £185,000.The largest donation for the Yes campaign was a total of £1m from husband and wife Colin and Chris Weir, who scooped £161m on the EuroMillions lottery in 2011. In May, it was estimated the Weirs had given 80 per cent of the donations to the pro-independence campaign, put at £3.5m.
Business tycoon Brian Souter gave £100,000 to Business for Scotland and the same amount to Christians for Independence.
The total of donations under £7,500 given to either side will not be known until after the poll.
Blair McDougall for Better Together said the campaign was humbled by the level of its financial support and noted how it did not include smaller donations from thousands of ordinary Scots, which, during the six-month period, meant the total raised was more than £4m.
He claimed the Commission figures showed the Nationalists "don't have a broad base of support" and argued the Yes campaign was doing "whatever it can to funnel cash to front organisations".
Commission rules state spending by an organisation working with an umbrella campaign group such as Yes Scotland must come off its £1.5m total for the formal final period, June to September.
He added: "Nobody can credibly believe Yes Scotland and Business for Scotland do not meet the legal definition of 'working together'. All the signs are that the Nationalists intend to break the Commission rules on spending."
He insisted the Commission could not wait to look at rule breaches until after the vote, which was irreversible.
"The public need to have confidence in the referendum process," insisted Mr McDougall. "The Yes camp is operating on the basis of it is easier to get forgiveness than permission. The Commission need to take action."
Blair Jenkins, for Yes Scotland, said: "Yes Scotland has followed the Commission rules from day one and continues to do so. This is a bit rich coming from a movement that is funded largely by wealthy landowners, bankers and rich Tories, many of whom live outwith Scotland and don't have a vote in the referendum."
Mr Jenkins added the Yes camp's "massive grassroots support" had been overwhelming in its generosity and that almost 11,000 people had given more than £194,000 since May.
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