THE SNP had to bail out the Yes campaign to the tune of £825,000 at the end of the independence referendum, it has emerged.
The party transferred the huge block of funding to Yes Scotland Ltd in three tranches straddling September 18, according to newly released Electoral Commission records.
The files show the SNP donated an initial £275,000 just eight days before the vote.
The party then donated another £100,000 on November 7 and a further £450,000 ten days later, when Yes Scotland was settling its invoices.
Without the cash, Yes Scotland, which also included the Scottish Greens and Scottish Socialists, could not have paid its bills, insiders admit.
Yes Scotland and the SNP previously insisted the campaign was "self-financing".
In contrast, the unionist Better Together campaign stopped taking donations in July because it had all it could legally spend and took no money from a political party.
A senior SNP source told the Sunday Herald: "The party has never been upfront about this."
Overall, the SNP gave Yes Scotland more than a third of its £2.4m income over the last leg of the referendum, known as the regulated period.
Only Ayrshire lottery winners Chris and Colin Weir gave more, donating £1m.
The SNP also donated £343,000 in start-up costs to Yes Scotland in mid-2012, making its total support almost £1.2m. The party spent another £1.3m on its own campaign.
Two years ago, then Yes Scotland chief executive Blair Jenkins stressed that, aside from SNP seed money, Yes Scotland would pay its own way.
He said: "I wanted Yes Scotland to be self-financing and within about four to six weeks after starting, Yes Scotland was self-financing.
"[It's] very important to me there's a distinction made between the SNP and Yes Scotland.
"The campaign has to be self-financing so it's seen as a national movement which embraces a far wider range of people than just the SNP."
However the scale of the SNP financing reinforces long-running criticism - dismissed by Jenkins as a "smear" - that Yes Scotland was an "SNP front" bankrolled and staffed by the party, rather than a genuine grassroots movement.
Stan Blackley, Yes Scotland's ex-deputy director of communities, said the outfit always struggled for money as it failed to employ experienced fundraisers.
"Yes Scotland was meant to be cross-party and self-sustaining, but there was a naive view that the great and good would just reach into their pockets for it.
"It's no surprise to hear it was in need of finances when it came to a conclusion."
A key problem was a lack of donations from businesses.
Both campaigns raised similar sums from individuals in the regulated period - £1.6m for Yes, £1.75m for No - but Better Together also raked in £711,000 from companies against Yes Scotland's £20,000.
This was in spite of Yes Scotland hiring one of Alex Salmond's former special advisers, Colin Pyle, to liaise with the business community.
A Better Together source said: "One of the most ridiculous things about the Yes campaign was Blair Jenkins feigning mock outrage whenever anyone suggested they were just an SNP front. Now everyone can see that was just another piece of nonsense."
A Yes Scotland source insisted: "It was always the case that, as the largest stakeholder in the Yes movement, the SNP would be responsible for funding to a substantial extent. There was no question of being bailed out. The campaign ran smoothly and it was well-funded."
An SNP spokesperson said: "Obviously the SNP would support Yes Scotland."
Both Yes Scotland and Better Together spent £1.42m in the regulated period, while Labour spent £732,000, the Tories £356,000, and the LibDems £188,000.
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