WOMEN for Independence's National Committee learned of a £31,824.10 discrepancy in their known income and expenditure figures in November 2015, jurors at the embezzlement trial of former SNP MP Natalie McGarry have been told. 

The Yes supporting campaign group were also not aware that their PayPal account had been linked to Ms McGarry’s personal bank account since March 2014.

In her second day in the witness box, former health secretary Jeane Freeman, who was instrumental in setting up Women for Independence (WFI), was asked by prosecutor Alistair Mitchell if she was aware that the money from three crowdfunders set up to raise cash for the group were being transferred to Ms McGarry's bank account,

Freeman replied: "No."

Mr Mitchell asked where the witness expected the cash to go and she replied: "The WFI bank account."

The prosecutor later said: "From March 2014, the PayPal account was connected to Natalie McGarry's bank account, were you aware of that?"

Freeman replied: "No."

The former SNP MP is accused of embezzling £21,000 from the campaign group between April 26, 2013 and November 30, 2015 while she was its treasurer.

It is alleged she transferred cash made from fundraising events into her own personal accounts and failed to send on donations intended for Perth and Kinross food bank and the charity Positive Prisons Positive Futures.

A second charge she faces is that she allegedly embezzled £4,661 from the Glasgow Regional Association of the SNP between April 9, 2014 and August 10, 2015.

She denies both charges. 

In her evidence, the ex-minister was also asked about £6,436 of WFI cash that landed in Ms McGarry’s bank account that was paid back to the group. 

Mr Mitchell said: "The money that was paid back to WFI, it's agreed the source of these funds were a loan payment to Natalie McGarry, was WFI aware of that?"

Ms Freeman replied: "No."

The former MSP, who stood down in 2021, told the court that she contacted police as she had a “responsibility” due to the job roles that she and an accountant, Elizabeth Young, had.

Ms McGarry’s advocate, Allan Macleod, put it to Ms Freeman that Ms McGarry was "not an accountant or (had) any accountancy qualifications."

She said: "No, and I feel people who have the title of treasurer of a small organisation would fall into that category.

"It's not difficult to know how to record income and expenditure and get information to support that expenditure."

Mr Macleod also suggested that Ms McGarry was doing "a lot of work."

Ms Freeman replied: "Yes, along with others."

In her police statement read to the court, Ms Freeman told officers: "I was getting annoyed that if a National Committee were not submitting this information and missed the deadline it would be embarrassing.

"Natalie said 'It was all over the place' and it's at this time Elizabeth Young, an accountant, volunteered to do the accounts and it was ideal."

It was put to Ms Freeman by Ms Macleod that McGarry was a "bit disorganised."

She replied: "It would be fair to say that from time to time Natalie appeared to be quite disorganised and it was fair to say she was unwilling to accept any help."

Ms Macleod also suggested that Ms McGarry was a person that "got things done" but paperwork was not her "strong suit."

Ms Freeman said: "That would appear to be the case."

The trial continues.