Chris Snowdon, head of lifestyle economics at the right-leaning think tank the Institute of Economic Affairs, said Scotland was “in a league of its own when it comes to funding its own pressure groups”. He believes another flagship SNP policy — minimum unit pricing for alcohol — is an example of the public debate being influenced by charities which the SNP chose to fund well.
He cited Alcohol Focus Scotland, which last year received more than 85 per cent of its £792,000 annual income direct from the Scottish government in the form of a “core grant”, and Scottish Health Action on Alcohol Problems, entirely government funded. He said both groups acted as “the Praetorian Guard of the SNP” when it came to minimum unit pricing, a contentious policy introduced in Scotland in 2018.
After the policy was introduced, alcohol deaths in Scotland increased, with some evidence emerging that it had forced those addicted to drink to go without food.
A report by Public Health Scotland said there was “strong evidence” it had reduced deaths compared with how many would have died had it not been in place. However, it also acknowledged “negative health and social consequences at an individual level” including driving up debt, reduced spending or even alcoholics turning to “acquisitive crime”.
In 2024, after lobbying from charities heavily funded by the SNP, the minimum price was increased, from 50p to 65p. The SNP cited charities to back up its policy.
In February 2024, Sandesh Gulhane, a Scottish Tory GP, pointed out in Holyrood that despite minimum pricing, alcohol deaths were at a 14-year high, and only one out of 40 studies had claimed it led to a reduction in deaths. In response, Shona Robison, then the deputy first minister, quoted the chief executive of another charity, Scottish Families Affected by Alcohol & Drugs, accusing the MSP of being “the only person in the room who does not believe the evidence”.
It is another charity that the SNP has chosen to fund well because of its ideological position. Last year, it received almost £1.9 million in government, 17 times more than it received in donations. A decade earlier, it received only £447,000 from the devolved administration. Snowdon said: “It is creating a fake level of putatively public support that wouldn’t exist, or at least wouldn’t have any amplification, if it wasn’t for government money.”
Charities in England protected
A paper Snowdon wrote almost a decade and a half ago, “Sock Puppets: How the government lobbies itself and why”, led to changes in England.
Under David Cameron, the government banned charities from using government money to lobby the parliament or government, although they remained free to do so using income from other sources. SNP ministers rejected the idea, arguing that it would amount to “gagging” clauses against charities.
Last year, the Labour government introduced what was known as the civil society covenant, which explicitly states charities that criticise government policies cannot be penalised “by excluding them from policy discussions or funding opportunities”. Again, no such contract is in place north of the border.
In Scotland, there are claims that the SNP has in effect shut down criticism from the charity and voluntary sectors because of a system that leaves them umbilically tied to its political objectives and fearing grave consequences if they step out of line.
There are never explicit threats — and never anything put in writing. But according to numerous sources, a dependence on public funds has meant scores of charities in Scotland have been co-opted into becoming proxies for the SNP. Those with the same objectives as the SNP have been given millions of pounds in funding, allowing it to use them as advocates for its policies.
According to Alex Neil, who served in SNP governments under Sturgeon and Alex Salmond, including as health secretary, the administration would regularly ask “friendly” charities to support it publicly with controversial policies. He said any link between funding and the requests, often made by SNP special advisers, was always implied, but that it was understood their dependence on the government meant they would almost always fall into line.
A Scottish government spokesman said: “We are improving the way we provide funding to the third sector through our commitment to fairer funding”, a reference to a policy intended to make the awarding of grants more transparent and making them over several years.
He added: “The Scottish government agrees with the regulator’s position that political campaigning, such as advocating for or against changes in government policy or legislation is a legitimate way for some charities to pursue their aims. Charities play a vital role in civil society and it is right that they have the ability to advocate for change that aligns with their charitable purposes.”
