Police Scotland is assessing possible breaches of election spending rules involving nine Reform UK candidates who stood in May’s Scottish Parliament election. Four reportedly failed to submit constituency spending returns, while five others did not provide the required declarations. Reform UK has acknowledged administrative errors and says those involved have sought to correct them.
Police Scotland is assessing information concerning the election spending records of nine Reform UK candidates following reports of missing financial returns and declarations from the May 2026 Scottish Parliament election.
An investigation published by The Ferret on 17 October identified four candidates whose constituency campaign spending returns were apparently absent and five others who had submitted returns without the required candidate declarations.
The findings were subsequently reported by The Sunday Times, while Reform UK acknowledged on Sunday, 18 October, that administrative errors had occurred.
Police Scotland confirmed that information had been received and was being assessed. The force has not announced charges or established that any candidate committed an offence.
Four Candidates Reportedly Failed to Submit Returns
The four candidates identified by The Ferret were David McLennan, Dan Clarke, Malcolm Jones and Sean O’Hagan, who contested constituencies in West Lothian, South Lanarkshire and Glasgow.
McLennan, who became Reform UK’s first councillor in Scotland after winning a West Lothian council by-election in 2025, stood in Bathgate, where he received 22.5% of the constituency vote.
Clarke secured approximately 22% in Clydesdale, Jones received 19% in Almond Valley, and O’Hagan secured 16% in Glasgow Anniesland.
None was elected, although all four received thousands of votes.
According to The Ferret, the candidates’ required constituency spending returns were not among the records submitted to the relevant election authorities.
Scottish Parliament election rules require candidates and their agents to account for qualifying campaign expenditure and report donations exceeding £50. Returns must be submitted even where no money was spent or donations received.
These reports, known as nil returns when there is no expenditure or donation activity, are a legal requirement rather than an optional disclosure.
The absence of a return does not establish that spending limits were exceeded, donations were unlawful or campaign money was improperly used. It means the prescribed financial account has not been provided through the required reporting process.
Five Edinburgh Candidates Submitted Returns Without Constituency Declarations
The five other candidates named in the investigation were David Lees, Andrew McLaughlin, Cameron Rose, Davie Thomson and Charles Turner.
All contested Edinburgh constituencies for Reform UK.
The City of Edinburgh Council confirmed to The Ferret that five of the party’s six constituency candidates had submitted spending returns but had not provided the required candidate declarations.
The council also confirmed that the five had submitted declarations associated with their participation on the Edinburgh regional party list.
Those documents relate to a different part of the Scottish Parliament election system.
Voters elect MSPs through two ballots: one for a constituency representative and another for a regional party list. Candidates may stand in both contests, but the financial reporting requirements are separate.
Under Electoral Commission guidance, expenditure promoting candidates on a regional party list is generally reported as party spending. Constituency campaigns have separate spending limits and accounting obligations.
An individual standing in both contests must therefore comply with the rules governing their constituency campaign, regardless of the paperwork submitted for the regional list.
Both the candidate and the election agent must provide declarations confirming that the constituency return is complete and correct to the best of their knowledge and belief.
The five Edinburgh candidates had reportedly supplied financial returns but not their constituency candidate declarations. Their circumstances therefore differ from those of the four candidates whose spending returns were apparently missing altogether.
Election Law Requires Returns Even When Nothing Was Spent
The Electoral Commission’s guidance establishes specific deadlines for reporting election expenditure.
For the May 2026 Scottish Parliament election, spending returns and election agents’ declarations were due on 12 June where results were declared on 8 May, or 15 June where results were declared on 9 May.
Constituency candidates were separately required to submit their own declarations within seven working days of the spending return being submitted, subject to the applicable legal provisions.
The returns must account for expenditure during the regulated campaign period, including qualifying costs associated with advertising, campaign literature, meetings and other election activities.
They must also disclose reportable donations and identify relevant campaign expenditure, allowing the financial arrangements behind individual candidacies to be examined.
The Electoral Commission publishes information from candidate spending returns and monitors compliance with election finance legislation.
However, the commission does not have powers to impose sanctions for breaches of candidate spending requirements. Suspected criminal offences are matters for the police.
The commission’s guidance states that failure to submit a spending return or declaration by the relevant deadline without an authorised excuse is a criminal offence.
Whether an offence has occurred in any individual case depends on the evidence and the circumstances, including whether there is an authorised excuse.
Reform UK Acknowledges Administrative Errors
Reform UK responded publicly on Sunday, following publication of the allegations.
A party spokesperson told ITV News that the problems were administrative mistakes involving a relatively new party whose candidates and campaign staff were still becoming familiar with election procedures.
The spokesperson described the omissions as “simple administrative errors from a new party”.
According to the party, those involved regretted failing to exercise the necessary diligence and had since sought to correct the situation by providing the requested information.
The spokesperson added: “Lessons have been learned.”
The statement acknowledges failures in the party’s election administration but does not establish whether every missing document has subsequently been accepted by the relevant returning officer.
Reform UK won 17 seats at the May election, finishing level with Scottish Labour as the joint second-largest party at Holyrood. Its MSPs were elected through the regional lists.
None of the nine candidates identified in the spending-record reports was elected.
The apparent paperwork failures therefore concern unsuccessful constituency candidacies rather than financial declarations by the party’s 17 elected MSPs.
Police Scotland Assessing Information
Police Scotland has confirmed that the information is under consideration, although it has not announced a formal criminal investigation into the nine candidates.
A force spokesperson said:
“Information has been received and is being assessed.”
The original findings were reported by Jamie Mann of The Ferret, whose investigation examined spending records associated with the Scottish Parliament election.
The Electoral Commission has confirmed that it monitors candidate finance returns but that the police are responsible for dealing with possible criminal breaches.
No official findings establishing wrongdoing by any of the nine candidates have been published.
The outstanding position concerns whether the missing returns and declarations have been supplied, whether returning officers have accepted any subsequent submissions, and whether Police Scotland’s assessment will lead to further action.
Sources
Police Assessing Whether Reform UK Holyrood Candidates Broke Campaign Spending Laws
The Ferret, Jamie Mann, 17 October 2026
https://www.theferret.scot/police-assessing-whether-reform-uk-holyrood-candidates-broke-campaign-spending-laws/
Reform Admits ‘Errors’ as Police Assess if Election Spending Rules Were Broken
ITV News, 18 October 2026
https://www.itv.com/news/2026-10-18/reform-admits-errors-as-police-assess-if-election-spending-rules-were-broken
Deadlines: Guidance for Candidates and Agents at Scottish Parliament Elections
Electoral Commission, updated 8 December 2025
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/guidance-candidates-and-agents-scottish-parliament-elections/after-election/deadlines
What Happens if a Spending Return or Declaration Isn’t Submitted?
Electoral Commission, updated 8 October 2025
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/guidance-candidates-and-agents-scottish-parliament-elections/after-election/completing-your-return/what-happens-if-a-spending-return-declaration-isnt-submitted
Party Spending and Candidate Spending
Electoral Commission, updated 23 September 2025
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/scottish-parliamentary-election-2026-party-spending/party-spending-and-candidate-spending
Campaign Spending: Candidates
Electoral Commission, accessed 19 October 2026
https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/political-registration-and-regulation/financial-reporting/campaign-spending-candidates
2026 Election Results
Scottish Parliament, May 2026
https://www.parliament.scot/msps/elections/2026-election-results
