INVESTIGATION: How the SNP spends billions ‘to buy loyalty from charities’

Summary

---

Podcast Summary: The Story

Episode: How the SNP spends billions ‘to buy loyalty from charities’
Date: April 2, 2026
Host: Manveen Rana
Guest: Daniel Sanderson, Scottish Political Editor at The Times and The Sunday Times

---

Overview

This episode explores revelations from a Sunday Times investigation into the Scottish National Party’s (SNP) financial relationships with charities. The main focus is how the SNP’s extensive funding of the voluntary sector has, intentionally or otherwise, created an ecosystem where many charities are financially dependent on government grants, leading to concerns about their independence, willingness to criticize government policy, and the true nature of their advocacy. Manveen Rana, with guest Daniel Sanderson, delves into specific examples, systemic impacts, and political responses amid the run-up to the Scottish elections.

---

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. The Case of Sarah Pedersen and Political Pressure on Charities

— [01:45-05:17]

• Background: Sarah Pedersen, respected academic, became chair of an Aberdeen women’s charity, feeling privileged and prepared for the role.
  • Quote: “I felt really good...this is some way I can give back.” — Sarah Pedersen [01:59]
• Incident: Within days, concerns emerged over her gender-critical feminist views.
  • Social media controversy led to a “dossier” compiled on her past comments.
  • Headquarters warned continued funding might be at risk if she remained chair.
  • Quote: “They warned...that the Scottish government might decide not to fund our particular branch because I was the chair.” — Sarah Pedersen [04:27]
• Outcome: Pedersen resigned to protect the charity’s funding and avoid jeopardizing its services.
  • Quote: “I just could not risk the funding disappearing. I just couldn’t do that to the charity…” — Sarah Pedersen [04:36]
• Insight: This incident highlights the precarious balance for charities reliant on government funding and the chilling effect it can have on open debate.

---

2. Investigation Findings: Charities Reluctant to Criticize the SNP

— [06:14-09:41]

• Observation: Daniel Sanderson notes a pattern of charities tempering criticism of the government, often citing timing (e.g., elections).
  • Quote: “A lot of the comments that came back were very, you know, they pulled their punches...Someone actually said to me, ‘We would comment on this, but the election's coming up and, you know, it's a bit sensitive.’” — Daniel Sanderson [06:26]
• Cause: Financial dependence on government funding makes dissent risky.
  • Quote: “...they're basically entirely funded by the Scottish government. So...you can perhaps understand why there's a bit of reluctance to, you know, bite the hand that feeds you.” — Daniel Sanderson [07:21]
• Tactics: No evidence of explicit threats, but pressure is implicit given charities’ funding structures.
  • Former SNP minister described “regular tactics” where charities were encouraged to publicly support controversial policies out of loyalty or financial interest.

---

3. How Scotland’s Charity Funding Differs Dramatically from England and Wales

— [10:44-12:39]

• Statistical Contrast:
  • England and Wales: ~24% of charity funding comes from government.
  • Scotland: 47% comes from government contracts and grants.
  • In some cases, individual Scottish charities receive up to 97% of their income from government.
• Implication: Raises questions about independence and accountability.
  • Quote: “If these organizations exist solely because of Scottish government money, can they truly claim to be independent...?” — Daniel Sanderson [12:44]

---

4. Example: Drugs Policy and Charitable Influence

— [13:35-17:57]

• Crisis: Scotland’s drug death rate is three times higher than England and Wales.
• Policy Divide: SNP supports liberal, public health–based strategies. The Conservatives proposed a law entitling addicts to treatment.
• Charity Response: SNP-backed charities with substantial government funding opposed the Conservative plan.
  • Funding Examples:
    • Scottish Drugs Forum: £1.2m in grants + £762,000 in traineeships (approx. two-thirds of income) [15:50]
    • Scottish Recovery Consortium: £124 in donations; £745,000 government grant [15:50]
• Effect: The more-funded charities could mobilize substantial advocacy resources, helping defeat the Conservative proposal at an early legislative stage.

---

5. Political Utility: Charities as Independent Supporters

— [09:27-10:24]

• Political Asset: Having third-sector bodies and charities endorse or reinforce government policy provides “external” credibility to government agendas, especially on controversial issues.

---

6. Gender, Rape Crisis Scotland, and Campaigns that Quietly Disappear

— [20:00-23:16]

• Shelved Campaign: A £250,000 nationwide sexual harassment campaign led by Rape Crisis Scotland was abruptly dropped due to political sensitivities during Alex Salmond’s trial.
  • Quote: “It was...completely vanished and the money was repurposed to pay for a staff member. And Rape Crisis Scotland never raised any concern about this publicly.” — Daniel Sanderson [22:11, 22:35]
• Gender Self-ID Rifts:
  • Rape Crisis Scotland allied with SNP on gender self-identification, backing trans-inclusive policies.
  • Several local rape crisis centers broke away, claiming funding favors organizations ideologically aligned with SNP and that dissenting groups’ voices were marginalized.

---

7. Access and Influence: Who Gets a Seat at the Table

— [26:25-28:07]

• Working Groups: Scottish government frequently invites favored charities (heavily government-funded) onto key consultative boards and forums.
  • E.g., The Equality Network sits on 11 government-led groups; 90%+ of funding from government.
• Exclusion: Dissenting groups, even those influential in policy (such as legal challengers), struggled for basic access.
  • Quote: “Four Women Scotland...have been waiting over a year for a single meeting with John Swinney, the first minister, which he promised them.” — Daniel Sanderson [27:38]

---

8. Political Response and the Electoral Context

— [28:07-30:01]

• Election Issue: The investigation has become a talking point in the run-up to the May elections.
• Proposed Reforms:
  • Conservatives advocate:
    • Review of charity status for groups almost entirely dependent on government funds.
    • Mandatory disclosure of taxpayer funding before charities give evidence to parliament.
  • Labour also expresses concern; responses from other parties pending.
  • Quote: “A common thing that they've said is this is just the tip of the iceberg and there's a lot more here. So I don't think we've heard the last of this story yet.” — Daniel Sanderson [29:47]

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

| Timestamp | Speaker | Quote | |------------|-------------------------|-------| | [04:27] | Sarah Pedersen | "They warned...that the Scottish government might decide not to fund our particular branch because I was the chair. These charities are so reliant on national and local government funding..." | | [06:26] | Daniel Sanderson | "A lot of the comments that came back were very, you know, they pulled their punches in a lot of cases." | | [10:52] | Daniel Sanderson | "Only about 11% of 6 billion total funding actually comes from donations and people leaving money in their will. 90% comes from government grants and 28% comes from government contracts." | | [12:44] | Daniel Sanderson | "If these organizations exist solely because of Scottish government money, can they truly claim to be independent of the government and speaking on behalf of those people who they were originally set up to try and help?" | | [20:45] | Manveen Rahna | “So, hang on, there's a £250,000, huge across Scotland campaign on sexual harassment... Why does it disappear without trace?” | | [22:11] | Daniel Sanderson | "It disappeared. And if you look at the Rape Crisis Scotland accounts that are quite interesting, so we know that money was spent on this campaign...it completely vanished and the money was repurposed to pay for a staff member. And Rape Crisis Scotland never raised any concern about this publicly." | | [29:47] | Daniel Sanderson | "A common thing that they've said is this is just the tip of the iceberg and there's a lot more here. So I don't think we've heard the last of this story yet." |

---

Important Timestamps

• [01:45-05:17] – Sarah Pedersen’s resignation and direct illustration of the chilling effect on charity governance.
• [06:14-09:41] – Patterns of muted criticism and implicit pressure explained.
• [10:44-12:39] – Funding disparities between Scotland and England/Wales outlined in detail.
• [13:35-17:57] – Case study: Drug policy, government funding, and the defeat of opposition proposals.
• [20:00-23:16] – Sexual harassment campaign dropped during SNP leadership crisis.
• [26:25-28:07] – Who gains access to government policymaking and who gets excluded.

---

Structure and Tone

The episode is investigative and analytical, balancing in-depth testimony from sources with hard data from charity accounts and government registers. Both the host and guest maintain a tone of professional skepticism, emphasizing the importance of transparency and accountability in the relationships between government and civil society.

---

Conclusion

The episode provides a compelling, data-driven look at how government funding can shape the advocacy ecosystem, potentially dampening independent voices in the voluntary sector and raising urgent questions for policy, politics, and democracy in Scotland. As the election approaches, this investigation is likely to provoke further scrutiny and demands for reform.

---

Transcript

[Progressive Insurance Announcer]

This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Do you ever think about switching insurance companies to see if you could save some cash? Progressive makes it easy to see if you could save when you bundle your home and auto policies. Try [e-mail] Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Potential savings will vary. Not available in all states.

[Narrator]

This episode of the Story is brought to you by HSBC uk.

[Manveen Rahna]

You know, in life we talk a lot about the grind.

[Narrator]

We put in the hours, the sweat and the late nights to build something meaningful. But there's a crucial shift that needs to happen. It shouldn't just be about how hard you work, it's about how hard your money works for you. That's exactly why we've partnered with HSBC uk. They know that wealth means more than money and they have the global experience and a diverse range of investment options to to help you grow what you've earned. Whether you're focused on long term wealth or building a legacy for the next generation, they provide the tools to help you look ahead with confidence. With HSBC uk, you can get personalised support from a network of wealth specialists. To learn more, search hsbc wealth today. TNCs apply HSBC UK current account holders only £100,000 investments or savings required for the advice service. Investing has its ups and downs so

[Manveen Rahna]

you could get back less than you invest.

[Narrator]

Eligibility criteria and fees apply from the Times and the Sunday Times.

[Manveen Rahna]

This is the story. I'm Manveen Rahna.

[Narrator]

Back in May 2021, Sarah Pedersen, a respected academic, was asked to lead the board of a women's charity in Aberdeen. For her, it was a deeply gratifying moment.

[Sarah Pedersen]

I felt really good. I mean, I'd been on the Board of Trustees for a couple of years by that point. I'd served as secretary and then the chair said that she was going to stand down and I was actually really surprised to be asked to take up that role. So I felt, yeah, this is some way I can give back. So, so I was really pleased to do it.

[Narrator]

Sarah was honored to be asked, but she also knew that her three decades of experience would bring real value to the board.

[Sarah Pedersen]

I've been campaigning for women's rights in my role as well. I was sex equality champion at my university. I've trained as a first responder at the university to support women in crisis students and staff. So, you know, the whole thing that the background was something that I, I felt confident that I could step up to be the chair.

[Narrator]

But just a few days after her appointment, things took a turn

[Sarah Pedersen]

a couple of days later, I'm contacted by my deputy, the deputy chair of the charity, and she said that she had been contacted by the leadership down in Edinburgh and that they had been concerned about some discussion on social media about my appointment. And they'd also received some letters asking about, you know, me being a gender critical feminist and how that was going to impact on the charity and the way in which they could support people.

[Narrator]

Sarah was surprised to hear this from the charity's head office, but both she and her deputy assumed that it would blow over, but it didn't.

[Sarah Pedersen]

The next day, the charity headquarters contacted her again saying that, you know, things had got worse. There was now a dossier about sort of how awful I was. It just felt absolutely awful. The dossier was ridiculous. Well, I think it was ridiculous. It was basically some of the things I'd tweeted on Twitter. So, for example, I'd retweeted an article in a, a magazine called Holyrood, which is about Scottish politics. And it had been an interview with Joanne Lamont, who had been the leader of Scottish Labour. And I just said something like, this is a good article.

[Narrator]

Alongside this dossier came a stark warning delivered to Sarah's deputy.

[Sarah Pedersen]

They warned her that there was a good chance that the Scottish government might decide not to fund our particular branch because I was the chair. These charities are so reliant on national and local government funding. I just could not risk the funding disappearing. I just couldn't do that to the charity and I couldn't risk me being sort of having to sit there at the head of that table and sort of say, well, actually they've pulled the funding and it might be because of me. It just simply wasn't something I was prepared to do, so I, I had to step down.

[Narrator]

Sarah's experience is not unique. A Sunday Times investigation has brought to light claims that the SNP has in effect shut down criticism from the charity and voluntary sectors who rely on them for funding and fear the consequences if they step out of line. These include charities involved with women's rights, rape centres and drug abuse. With millions of pounds tied directly to the government, scores of registered charities have been co opted into allegedly becoming proxies for the snp. The story today how the SNP spends billions to allegedly buy loyalty from charities.

[Daniel Sanderson]

It's something that I think a lot of people have been aware of in Scotland for a number of years.

[Narrator]

Daniel Sanderson Scottish political editor at the Times and the Sunday Times it really

[Daniel Sanderson]

struck me a few months ago I was doing a separate project about an analysis of the SNP's manifesto and the areas where they had delivered and the areas where they hadn't. It just struck me, going to a lot of sort of charities and third sector bodies in Scotland and asking them for reaction when the SMP had fallen short of promise they were going to do. And just a lot of the comments that came back were very, you know, they pulled their punches in a lot of cases. Someone actually said to me, oh, you know, we would comment on this, but the election's coming up and, you know, it's a bit sensitive.

[Manveen Rahna]

And that is unusual when you call up a charity for a comment on how a policy is going, they shouldn't really care about the politics that doesn't involve them. They're not a government department. They shouldn't be worried that there's an election coming. I mean, how unusual was that? Did you get a sense of why people. They were saying that to you?

[Daniel Sanderson]

Well, I thought it was. It was slightly odd, but again, in Scotland, it wasn't especially surprising. When you look at the financial situation, I think it starts to explain things, you know, so you look at their accounts and how they're funded and you find out that they're basically entirely funded by the Scottish government. So when you sort of look at the relationship that way, you can perhaps understand why there's a bit of reluctance to, you know, bite the hand that feeds you.

[Manveen Rahna]

Yeah. So, I mean, they are reliant on government money to fund them quite substantially. Is there an explicit threat, though? Is there a threat that if they said something the government didn't like, that funding would stop?

[Daniel Sanderson]

Yeah. So we didn't find any direct evidence for that, you know, so we didn't find. There was. There were cases where, you know, the SNP had called up and said, we'd like you to support this policy publicly, and if you don't, you know, we're going to cut off your funding. That, as far as we know, hasn't happened, but it almost doesn't have to when you look at the accounts and how they're funded. So, spoke to Alec Neal, who was previously a senior figure in the snp, served as Health Secretary and Community Secretary under Nicholas Sturgeon and Alex Hammond. And he explained that this was a sort of regular tactic the Scottish government would deploy if they were about to announce a controversial policy. They would ring up, you know, friendly charities and third sector bodies and say, you know, can you. Can you support us on this publicly? And it's not so much that they say, if you don't do that, we're going to, you know, cut you off. But because of the dynamic, Alec Neal felt that, you know, they almost feel obliged to fall in a line because that relationship with the Scottish government financially is so important that it does cause these organizations to think twice about criticizing the government publicly.

[Manveen Rahna]

Yeah, I mean, you can see the fears on the side of the charity. In terms of the smp, though, why is it so important for them to have the charities on side?

[Daniel Sanderson]

Well, I think especially when you're announcing something that the public might not like, I think it really helps the politicians to have these, you know, external bodies coming out and backing them up.

[Advocate or Activist]

But, you know, on your right side of the argument, when Arnie International closed the gap in gender. Human Rights Consortium, Just Right Scotland, NUS Scotland. One Parent Family Scotland. Rape Crisis Scotland. Scottish Trade Unions Congress, Scottish Refugee Council, Scottish Women's Aid, Scottish Women's Convention, Scottish Women's Right Centre, Young Women's Movement and zero tolerance on the same side as us.

[Daniel Sanderson]

So it is politically very useful for the SFP or any politician really, to be able to sort of cite these bodies and external support as justification for what they're doing and, you know, fend off opposition attacks, particularly when it might be a policy that isn't particularly popular with the public.

[Manveen Rahna]

Yeah, I mean, I can see how that affected. That would be to understand why this is so unusual, though, why the SNP is able to get charities to effectively support them on unpopular policies. I guess you go back to that relationship between the charities and the snp. You know, you said it's difficult for

[Narrator]

charities to bite the hand that feeds them.

[Manveen Rahna]

Just explain why that sort of ecosystem has sprung up, why it's so different in Scotland compared to England and Wales.

[Daniel Sanderson]

Yeah, so you look at the figures on this and they're really interesting. I mean, obviously charities across the UK get funding from the government, but I think sometimes the public, you know, they think of a charity and they think of someone on a street corner or a supermarket checkout with a. With a little tin, asking for people to drop coppers into it. And it doesn't really work like that. So if you look at England, for example, we looked at figures from the Charity Commission. Charities in England and Wales raise about 100 billion pounds in total. About a third of that comes from donations. Around 24% comes from public money providing government services. But the situation in Scotland is massively different from the figures we looked at. Only about 11% of 6 billion. Total funding actually comes from donations and people leaving money in their will. 90% comes from government grants and 28% comes from government contracts. So. Yeah. So looking at the big picture, 24% of charity funding in England and Wales comes from government, and in Scotland, 47% comes from government contracts and grants.

[Manveen Rahna]

Wow. So that's substantially different.

[Daniel Sanderson]

Yeah, it's massively different. And that's. That's obviously sort of across the whole sector. You know, many charities in Scotland don't get anything from the government, but you look at sort of some individual organizations, particularly those that are engaged in quite controversial areas of public policy. I mean, there's examples of charities that are, you know, 97% funded by the government. So. And that raises questions, you know, are these truly independent bodies or are they just, you know, an arm of the government, but they're also not charities?

[Manveen Rahna]

If they're receiving 97% of their funding from the government, that sounds more like a government department.

[Daniel Sanderson]

Well, exactly. And, you know, there's all sorts of, you know, measures that are in place to scrutinize them and how they're spending public money. And charities aren't subject to the same regime. So, yeah, I think there are questions there about use of government funds. And, you know, if these organizations exist solely because of Scottish government money, can they truly claim to be independent of the government and speaking on behalf of those people who they were originally set up to try and help,

[Manveen Rahna]

and you're right. Shouldn't they be more accountable? Dan, you've painted this picture of this really uncomfortable relationship between charities and government. Give us a few examples. What were the most jarring examples you found?

[Daniel Sanderson]

Yeah, well, I mean, I think it's important to say it's not always necessarily that these charities are saying some things they don't believe or explicitly just trying to help the smp. You know, sometimes they do believe what they're saying. It's just the fact that they get so much money they could employ armies of staff, that it sort of amplifies the voice. Their voices and other ones are shut out. I mean, one example is the issue of drug deaths. This has been a huge scandal for years. You know, the number of drug deaths per capita in Scotland is the highest in Europe. It's around three times bigger than in England and Wales. So there's been a massive debate about how government fixes this. The SNP have preferred a sort of very liberal approach. You know, drugs should be treated as a public health condition. They've backed things like legal fixed rooms, which is where people can take drugs under supervision. They're pushing for decriminalization. As yet, it hasn't led to any huge reduction in numbers. You know, the number of drug staffs have fallen slightly, but by, you know, they still remain the highest in Europe. They're still by far the highest in the uk. So Douglas Ross, the former leader of the Scottish Conservatives, he had an alternative plan. He wanted to give people, people who are addicted to alcohol and drugs, a legal right to clinically appropriate treatment in law. A lot of the charities that the Scottish government funds, however, range from sort of skeptical to outright hostile to this idea. We saw groups like the Scottish Drugs Forum come out and say that, you know, they raised concerns about the affordability of the plan. They were concerned about use of terms like addicts, they prefer patients. And I think that that really helped the snp.

[Manveen Rahna]

And with these charities who are opposing this plan for, you know, clinical treatment for people who had addictions, again, as you say, surprising for charities in that sector, how reliant are they on government funding? Do we have a sense of how much they are getting from. From the government?

[Daniel Sanderson]

The Scottish Drugs Forum, you know, its long campaign for liberal drugs interventions and consumption facilities. So the Scottish government supported them with 1.2 million in grants and a further 762,000 in traineeships. That's about two thirds of its total income. Another charity that expressed skepticism about Douglas Ross's proposals was the Scottish Recovery consortium in 2024. There is just £124 in donations, but they got £745,000 in grants from the Scottish government.

[Manveen Rahna]

So what happened with these proposals from Douglas Ross?

[Daniel Sanderson]

Well, the Scottish Tories were pushing this really hard for a number of years, but it never got past its first stage in Holyrood. When it got to its committee stage, the Green and SNP members on that committee basically voted against it. They said the Parliament shouldn't support it. And then when it got to its first stage, one vote at the Parliament. So that's a vote on the general principles of the bill, not a final vote on whether it becomes law. The SNP and Greens again voted it down, so that effectively killed it. You know, it may well be that these charities genuinely believe in what they're saying. That's certainly what they've told us. But I think the fact that they get so much money from the government while others struggle just sort of elevates their voice. It allows them to, you know, mount more professional defenses, you know, to bring in experts in communication and to write up jazzy policy papers and things like that, which, you know, the people who were back in Douglas Ross's legislation just didn't have a chance to do so. Yeah, and then, you know, that was just one example with the drugs policy. And then you look in other areas of controversy or controversial policies that the Scottish government's proposed over the years and you find that there's a lot more of this.

[Narrator]

Coming up, how the SNP used its influence over charities in one of its most controversial policy positions, gender self ID rules. We'll have more on that from Daniel in just a moment.

[Progressive Insurance Announcer]

This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Do you ever think about switching insurance companies to see if you could save some cash? Progressive makes it easy to see if you could save when you bundle your home and auto policies. Try [e-mail] Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Potential savings will vary. Not available in all states.

[Optum Announcer]

Healthcare can feel complicated. That's why Optum uses technology to connect the people and processes that make healthcare easier, more affordable and more effective. We're making it clearer for you to know exactly what your benefits cover and to help you better manage your health. We're coordinating care between your doctors and your technology. We believe better, simpler healthcare is always possible. That's healthy optimism.

[Manveen Rahna]

That's Optum.

[Optum Announcer]

Visit optum.com to learn more at VRBO.

[VRBO Announcer]

We understand that even the best of plans sometimes need a little support. So we plan for the plot twists. Every booking is automatically backed by our VRBO care guarantee, giving you confidence from the very start. Whenever you need help, it's ready before your stay, through the moments in between and after your trip. Because a great trip starts with peace of mind and maybe a good playlist, but we've got the peace of mind part covered.

[Manveen Rahna]

Daniel, you've been telling us about this really uncomfortable relationship between charities and, and government. Give us some of the other examples where you saw this happening.

[Daniel Sanderson]

So I think one of the most striking examples when we were investigating this was we found out about there were plans for a sexual harassment campaign, a huge national campaign which was launched by Nicola Sturgeon and she said this was going to sort of shift how society looks at sexual harassment. It was announced in 2018, then they committed £250,000 towards it. They brought in Rape Crisis Scotland, which is, you know, I think fair to say quite a close charity to the Scottish government. To lead on it. They get about £5 million a year from the government. This campaign just never happened. As one former board member told us, it just vanished into thin air.

[Manveen Rahna]

So, hang on, there's a 250,000 pound huge across Scotland campaign on sexual Harassment, which sounds like, you know, a laudable project, that's a really important issue. Why does it disappear without trace?

[Daniel Sanderson]

Well, we've managed to establish the reason it was dropped was because at the time, Alex Salmond was engaged in this really bitter feud with Nicola Sturgeon. He was about to go on trial.

[Manveen Rahna]

Head of the snp.

[Daniel Sanderson]

Yeah, yeah. Arrested last night in court this afternoon, Alex Salmond arrived at Edinburgh Sheriff's court to face 14 charges, including two of attempted rape. With legal proceedings active, there's little he can say. But he did emerge to give a statement. The only thing I can say is I refute absolutely these allegations of criminality and I'll defend myself to the utmost in court. He was acquitted of all charges, but he was due to go on trial in early 2020. And the feeling was that having a big sexual harassment campaign at this time would cause the SNP embarrassment, and that was the reason it was dropped.

[Manveen Rahna]

So entirely because it would have been politically awkward for the snp, this national campaign across Scotland about sexual harassment just disappears.

[Daniel Sanderson]

It disappeared. And if you look at the Rape Crisis Scotland accounts that are quite interesting, so we know that money was spent on this campaign. We understand that they started to develop, you know, materials like videos that could be shown then. Yeah, it was. It completely vanished and the money was repurposed to pay for a staff member. And Rape Crisis Scotland never raised any concern about this publicly.

[Manveen Rahna]

Have you spoken to people from Rape Crisis?

[Daniel Sanderson]

I've spoken to former board members and people who were in the sort of that space, you know, they work in, women's rights refuges and things like that. And, yeah, they were just really shocked that Rape Crisis Scotland got along with this. I mean, their counter argument is that, you know, this was government money, they were just helping and they ultimately didn't control the campaign. But still, I think it tells us something about the dynamic there, that this, what was sold as this huge campaign to challenge sexual harassment, which, you know, is one of the reasons Rape Crisis Scotland exists, was just completely dropped without a squeak.

[Manveen Rahna]

That is really shocking. And that wasn't the only time that Rape Crisis came up against the snp. Effectively came up having difficult issues with them.

[Daniel Sanderson]

Yeah. So another massive area of controversy in Scotland, as I'm sure you're your listeners will know, is the gender Self ID law. Now, clearly there's a huge debate within the feminist movement about, you know, trans rights and gender self ID and to what extent that poses a threat to women. Now, clearly there are views on both sides of that, but Rape Crisis Scotland were One of the sort of loudest supporters for self id, they said that, you know, there was nothing for women to fear about, you know, biological men in their spaces, potentially in, you know, services that are for women who have been raped or sexually assaulted, you know, so Rape Crisis Scotland has always been sort of very close to the Scottish government. They've backed them up on all sorts of policy areas. But we are beginning to see a bit of a rift now. Like recently Glasgow and Clyde RIP Crisis center about 18 months ago, broke away from the Rape Crisis Scotland umbrella. They said it was, you know, preventing their aim of having a single sex service and a single sex staff. And just within the last month or so, we've seen three other Rape crisis centres in the west of Scotland doing the same. Basically, they have said for a number of years that, you know, the funding isn't following the demand, that local centres who are more ideologically in line with the SNP are favored for funding. So we are seeing this sort of fracture in, in that space in particular.

[Manveen Rahna]

So for the centers where they are now observing, you know, women exclusive spaces, are they feeling the, the wrath of the snp? Effectively? Are they, is there an impact on their funding?

[Daniel Sanderson]

So they're, they're saying, they're telling me that as of yet, because of, you know, how this debate shifted around since the Supreme Court ruling, as yet, they don't feel that they're being punished. You know, they're directly funded by the Scottish government. That hasn't changed. But they do feel that there's a reluctance to sort of address the underlying issues with funding. The four groups, I understand, are in, you know, discussions with the Scottish government to get recognition in the same way that Rape Crisis Scotland has, as, you know, a sort of authoritative voice for the center. Those talks are progressing, as we understand, but there's nothing being decided yet.

[Manveen Rahna]

What has the SNP said about this when you've gone to them?

[Daniel Sanderson]

The Scottish government have said that, look, there's nothing wrong with charities advocating for political positions on policy. They say that's part of their, they have an obligation to do that. They completely deny that there's any pressure applied to them through funding or their buy and support. A lot of people have a different view, though.

[Manveen Rahna]

And Daniel, when it comes to the fears around funding for charities, it's not just funding that makes all the difference. I suppose it's also just their access to government, their ability, as you said earlier, to influence policy.

[Daniel Sanderson]

Yeah, absolutely. I mean, one thing the Scottish government likes to do is, you know, set up a working group or have a big consultation on things or set up a forum. And you see these groups, you know, time and time again, the same groups, the same sort of favor charities that are heavily funded, invited to sit on, you know, quite influential boards or, or forums that, that shape Scottish government policy. And often it's the organization that dissents tell me that they're shut out. So, you know, a good example of that is, is the Equality Network. They're a group in the LGBT space in Scotland heavily reliant on the Scottish government for fund, and I think it's over 90%. And they in their accounts say that they sat on 11 separate boards and various forums that that was set up by the Scottish government last year. In contrast, you know, four women Scotland who were the campaign group that won the Supreme Court ruling last year on sex and gender, have been waiting over a year for a single meeting with John Swinney, the first minister, which he promised them. I mean, it's not an exact comparison because Forward Scotland aren't on a charity. But, you know, they've been trying to get access to the Scottish government or to the first minister for months and it just hasn't happened.

[Manveen Rahna]

Dan, all of this has come out. Your story, it's come out in the run up to elections in Scotland in May. Is it being talked about? Is it becoming an electoral issue?

[Daniel Sanderson]

The response to the story has been really positive. A lot of people have been in touch saying, you know, this is something that was long overdue. We know that the Scottish Conservatives are going to, to sort of push quite hard on this. They're going to unveil in their manifesto they want basically a review of charity status for organizations that are almost completely dependent on the government for money. They also want them to have to openly declare their, the amount of taxpayers money that they receive in grants and also state that before they, you know, give evidence at a Hollywood committee. So, you know, in the same way that an MP has to declare on their register of interest that, you know, they took money from, from this company or this interest group, they believe that charities should proactively have to declare that before making interventions on public policy. You know, with Scottish labor as well, have said they're concerned about this. We're still waiting for most of the party's manifestos. But yeah, it'll be, it'll be interesting to see what they include. As I said, the response to the story's been really positive. A lot of people have said, you know, this has been going on for years and it's, it's long overdue. I've had quite a number of people get in touch anonymously. A common thing that they've said is this is just the tip of the iceberg and there's a lot more here. So I don't think we've heard the last of this story yet.

[Narrator]

That was Daniel Sanderson, Scottish political editor at the Times and the Sunday Times. The producer today was Taryn Siegel, the executive producer was Tim Walklate, and sound design and theme composition were by Maliceto.

[Manveen Rahna]

Thanks for listening. We'll be back tomorrow.

[Progressive Insurance Announcer]

This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance. Do you ever think about switching insurance companies to see if you could save some cash? Progressive makes it easy to see if you could save when you bundle your home and auto policies. Try [e-mail] Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates. Potential savings will vary. Not available in all states Healthcare can feel complicated.

[Optum Announcer]

That's why Optum uses technology to connect the people and processes that make healthcare easier, more affordable and more effective. We're making it clearer for you to know exactly what your benefits cover and to help you better manage your health. We're coordinating care between your doctors and your technology. We believe better, simpler healthcare is always possible. That's healthy optimism. That's Optum. Visit optum.com to learn more.