Ex-MP Natalie McGarry asked dinner guests to pay for her shopping, court hears

An accountant has said it was likely funds from a Scottish independence organisation were covering Natalie McGarry’s expenses.

Elizabeth Young, 37, alleged that she came to the conclusion after she was handed McGarry’s personal bank statements in 2015.

Young claimed that Woman For Independence brought her in due to “concerns” about McGarry’s handling of the organisation's finances.

The witness told a jury at Glasgow Sheriff Court that worries were raised about her when the former politician asked a fellow dinner guest to pay for her shopping. 

Young added that she felt “fobbed off” as she chased McGarry for financial information between April and November 2015.

McGarry, 40, who represented Glasgow East for the SNP, allegedly stole more than £25,000 from two organisations advocating for Scottish independence between April 2013 and August 2015.

McGarry allegedly embezzled £21,000 while treasurer for Women for Independence (WFI) between April 26, 2013 and November 30, 2015.

Young, a chartered accountant, claimed she initially tried to get involved with the WFI in relation to helping McGarry with the WFI's electoral commission report regarding finances for December 2014.

The witness claimed she was brought in by the organisation in 2015 as there was a "bit of concern" regarding the finances.

The court was shown emails from April 2015 in which Young appeared to ask McGarry for the organisation’s financial information, including bank statements. 

Young said that she was invited over for dinner by recently elected McGarry in mid-2015 who told her she would hand over financial information.

She said: "When we were there, that's the first time I had some concerns.

"Natalie had a story that her partner had taken her bank card and didn't have any money and asked the other guests to pay for her shopping to make dinner.

"It struck me in my mind as a strange thing to happen, it seemed an odd thing to invite people round for dinner and ask those there to pay for it.

"I don't know if she paid it back and I didn't know if she was on top of her finances."

Prosecutor Alistair Mitchell asked: "Was she an MP at the time?"

Young replied: "She was."

The witness claimed she became “fobbed off” with McGarry who was not providing “much” financial information.

It was stated that the organisation was transferred cash by McGarry which was said to have been the outstanding balance of a closed WFI PayPal account she had control over. 

Young said: “When Natalie transferred money out, it was a serious red flag.

“At that point it’s fair to say it was a red flag and we began to have serious concerns that this would be quite significant and we needed to be careful.”

Mitchell asked: “After being aware of the red flag, did you speak to Carolyn Leckie or Jeane Freeman?”

Young repled: “I said not to touch the money until we had this sorted out.”

Young claimed that she began to compile a financial report with the information that she had and was being given by McGarry.

It was stated that she discovered a gap of more than £31,824.

The witness claimed that she and other members met to discuss the organisation's income and expenditure since its formation. 

She said: “In 2014, £75,000 was brought in by WFI and there was an expenditure of £43,000.

“It’s not credible that £30,000 could be spent on things that someone could not remember. 

“We couldn’t say any further discussion with Natalie would throw up a valid explanation for that amount of money.”

The witness claimed that as there was “no credible” explanation for the financial gap, WFI reported McGarry to the police.

She stated this was due to a “lack of engagement” from McGarry and “patterns” around her own personal expenses.

Mitchell: “You said patterns you came across, what do you mean?”

Young: “I had personal bank statements, as her funds ran low, there would be a lodgement of funds from WFI PayPal or cheques.

“It seemed to me it’s more likely that funds were being deposited to cover her own personal expenses.

“It looked like her funds ran low and more money came in - obviously that was a warning.”

Allan Macleod, defending, asked: “Before she was an MP, Natalie McGarry appeared to be a person spinning a lot of plates?”

Young replied: “I didn’t know her well enough to form a view...when I first met her there was a suggestion she wasn’t on top of the finances and that set the tone for me.”

Macleod: “Did you sit down with Natalie with email or text and show her your report and ask to fill in the gaps?”

 Young: “No.”

It was suggested by Macleod that McGarry paid substantial funds from her personal bank account for things such as the organisation’s wages. 

Young replied: “That’s true.”

McGarry denies the charges.

The trial continues.