Souter's cash took SNP to victory

A detailed breakdown of spending on the 2007 Scottish Parliament elections has revealed for the first time how the SNP spent about three times as much as they did four years earlier - with much of it funded by big-name donors.

The figures, from the Electoral Commission, show the SNP outspent Labour - a reversal of the usual position - for the first time.

The combined spending by all Scottish parties was twice as high as in 2003, while the SNP's 1.4 million outlay was by far the highest ever spent by a political party on a Scottish election campaign and close to the 1.5 million cap.

In 2003, the Nationalists spent 473,000. But after an unprecedented fundraising campaign, they banked 1.68 million in the nine months leading up to, and including, the election campaign.

The SNP's biggest donations came from the Stagecoach tycoon Mr Souter (625,000), with the businessman Sir Tom Farmer giving 100,000 and the actor Sir Sean Connery 30,000.

The SNP chief executive Peter Murrell confirmed the pivotal role Mr Souter's donation had played. "Without that kind of donation, we couldn't have done everything we wanted to do," he told The Scotsman.

A spokesman for the Electoral Reform Society said there was growing concern about the "unhealthy" influence of individual donors on political parties in Scotland, and across the UK.

"There is at least a perception of disproportionate influence which comes with disproportionate funding of political parties," he said. "This reflects the ridiculous arms race that all the main parties have got themselves into over donations.

"There is an unhealthy relationship between political parties and donors."

He said the problem had been softened to a certain extent in Scotland because the proportional electoral systems in use made it almost impossible for parties to get majorities. This made it much harder for individual donors to influence the political process in the way they could do at Westminster.

Professor John Curtice, from Strathclyde University, who is an expert on elections, said the SNP had managed to attract so many big donations in the run-up to polling day because the party looked like winning.

"Money follows the winner," he said. "The possibility that the SNP might win the election first appeared in June last year, and it stayed ahead through October to the turn of the year. It is easier to raise money when you are ahead."

He went on: "If Brian Souter hadn't given them the money, the SNP wouldn't have had the ability to run such a well-funded campaign, but would they still have won? It's impossible to say."

This is not the first time Mr Souter has used his money to play a central role in Scottish politics. In 2000 he spent about 1 million on an unsuccessful Scotland-wide referendum in an attempt to stop the repeal of Section 28 - the law that banned the promotion of homosexuality in schools.

This is the first time he has been on the winning side.

His donation allowed the SNP to outspend Labour, who had an outlay of 1.1 million, giving the Nationalists the money they needed to squeeze ahead of their main rivals by only one seat on 3 May.

Mr Souter's donation has already raised suggestions that he has been able to influence policy.

The SNP conference in October 2006 called for the bus industry to be re-regulated. But, when the SNP's election manifesto was published in April - a month after Mr Souter had given his donation - there was no mention of this policy, which Mr Souter opposed strenuously.

Mark Ballard, then the Green party's transport spokesman, said at the time that the U-turn was "at best a downgrading of an important policy. At worst it could be cash for policies". However, a spokesman for Alex Salmond, the SNP leader, said that not every conference decision formed part of the manifesto.

Mr Souter was also invited to dinner with the First Minister at Bute House in Edinburgh soon after the election, along with other major donors.

The Stagecoach boss declined to comment on his donation or his opposition to the re-regulation of the bus industry yesterday, but Mr Murrell said: "There were a few major donors who stepped forward and helped us deliver the positive, professional campaign we wanted to run."

And he went on: "There was not anything we wanted to do in this campaign that we were unable to do. Everything we wanted to do, we did.

"Getting a positive message across was critical and countering Labour's negative message."

Labour's campaign coffers did increase significantly, up more than 50 per cent on the 726,000 it spent in 2003, but this did not, ultimately, prove to be enough.

One area that let Labour down was in bureaucracy: it spent far more on administration and general overheads (118,789) than the SNP (76,146).

The Conservatives increased their campaign spend by 86 per cent on 2003, from 323,000 to 602,000, but this delivered them only 17 MSPs, one fewer than they won in 2003.

The Liberal Democrats increased their spending by a whopping 133 per cent, from 130,000 to 304,000, but this resulted in only 16 seats, three fewer than in 2003.

A Labour spokesman refused to condemn any influence that Mr Souter may have on the SNP's policies, preferring to comment on the nature of the Nationalists' campaign.

He said: "The SNP may have spent thousands of pounds more than any other party, but they were spending the money on advertising election promises they now cannot afford and were never going to deliver."

CAMPAIGN TAKES NATIONALISTS CLOSE TO 1.5M SPENDING CAP

PARTIES are only allowed to spend 1.5 million on each Scottish Parliament election campaign, and then only if they put forward a candidate in every seat.

Previously, the nearest any party got to the limit was Labour in 2003, which spent 726,000. But this year, the SNP spent nearly 1.4 million, 91 per cent of the limit.

That cap was set by the UK government and it would be a Westminster matter to change the cap. At the moment, there are no plans to raise that cap, which should keep spending reasonably in check for the 2011 election.

There is no limit on individual donations. There are caps on the spending allowed in each constituency and in each region which work out at roughly 9,000 to 12,000 for each one.

Candidates are allowed to spend 7,150 plus 5p for every elector for each constituency and 7,150 plus 7p for every elector in each region.

Issue of democracy in Scotland is at stake

ANALYSIS

BRIAN Souter's extraordinary donation to the SNP has been in the public domain since March.

What has only now become clear is quite what effect that one donation had on SNP finances.

The SNP spent 1.4 million in the election campaign window between January and the start of May. In March, right in the middle of that period, Mr Souter gave the party 625,000, - 45 per cent of the total.

The party covered every base in the campaign and managed to target resources exactly where they were needed.

This would never have been possible without the money provided by Mr Souter.

Never before has one individual affected the funding of a potential election winner to such a fundamental extent. Is this healthy? Almost certainly not.

However, the problem is that the SNP's opponents are hardly lining up to question Mr Souter's influence because they also rely on big donors.

Labour's difficulties have been well documented, in the past the Scottish Tories have relied to an unhealthy extent on the funding of one man, Irvine Laidlaw, and even the Liberal Democrats have run into problems because of the funding their party received from Scots businessman Michael Brown.

With such a collusion of interests, no-one is going to raise an issue fundamental to democracy in Scotland.

Perhaps it is time they put their party interests to one side and do what is right.

THE MAN WITH THE MILLIONS

• Brian Souter and his sister Ann Gloag are worth 770m.

• He earns about 6.3 million a year.

• He used his father's 25,000 redundancy to start Stagecoach.

• He spent about 1m fighting the repeal of Section 28, the law banning promotion of homosexuality in school.