Leader: Money will never guarantee votes but transparency helps

One interpretation of figures released yesterday by the Electoral Commission, which showed the income and expenditure of the political parties for 2010, might lead to the conclusion the answer is "yes".

The Tories expenditure was more than 49 million, 15m ahead of Labour, and the Conservatives ousted their rivals from power in the Westminster election of that year. The Scottish National Party spent 2.1m compared to Scottish Labour's 600,000 in the year which ended just over four months before the Holyrood elections and resulted in the Nationalists winning a historic outright majority.

There is, however, a danger in inferring such a simple relationship between the millions a party can spend and its electoral success. It could equally be argued the figures for the UK parties prove the electorate stubbornly refuses to be bought. Despite having both a higher income and higher spending than Labour - a party which had been in power more than a decade and was looking jaded and directionless under Gordon Brown - the Tories failed to win the outright majority most commentators expected and were forced into an uncomfortable coalition with the Liberal Democrats.

The picture in Scotland is similarly complex. While it is true the SNP used money from donors such as bus tycoon Brian Souter and their rising membership (something Labour chooses to ignore) to build a formidable campaigning machine, the Nationalists had in Alex Salmond the most formidable Scottish politician of his generation and were facing a Labour party which had lost a UK election and was led in Scotland by the decent but far from charismatic Iain Gray.

Yet if there is not a direct relationship between spending and votes, it is also obvious that parties need money to function day-to-day and to fight elections. This, in turn, leads to a debate over how they are funded, an issue of particular relevance in Scotland which faces a referendum on independence.

There is, of course, a case for restricting party spending, to ensure a level playing field in the spending battle for votes. However, there are only two ways of doing so: capping fund-raising or funding parties from the public purse.

The first would restrict the choice of individuals, companies and trades unions to fund an organisation whose goals they support. The second is simply impossible given the public's sceptical view of politicians in the post-expenses scandal era.

So although there may be a problem with the current approach, in particular for smaller parties which do not have major backers, the system we have where all donations above 7,500 have to be registered and parties must be transparent about their finances, is the least worst option.

Armed with the facts about funding, the voters can make up their own minds who to back.