One of the most important responsibilities of an elected councillor is to ask difficult questions.
That might mean challenging a council decision, questioning how public money is being spent or holding senior officials and political opponents to account.
It’s not always comfortable, and it isn’t supposed to be.
But if councillors are afraid that robust scrutiny could lead to a standards complaint, we risk weakening an important part of local democracy.
That’s why I raised concerns about the councillors’ code of conduct and the operation of the standards regime with Deputy First Minister Jenny Gilruth in the Scottish Parliament today.
Scrutiny is part of the job
Having served as a Highland councillor for many years, and now also as an MSP, I’ve seen how important it is for elected representatives to be able to challenge decisions.
Councillors are elected to represent their communities, not simply to agree with whatever is put in front of them.
Sometimes that means asking awkward questions. Sometimes it means challenging senior officials, questioning established practices or disagreeing strongly with other councillors.
All of that should be possible within a system that expects high standards of behaviour.
Of course, there must be safeguards against bullying, harassment and genuinely improper conduct. The councillors’ code of conduct serves an important purpose, and I am not suggesting that elected representatives should be above the rules.
But there is a difference between misconduct and legitimate political disagreement.
And there is a real danger if the complaints process can be used, or is perceived to be used, as a way of discouraging councillors from speaking out.
Taking the issue to Parliament
During questions on the Scottish Government’s proposed local governance reforms, I asked whether ministers would review the councillors’ code of conduct and the operation of the standards regime.
In particular, I wanted to know whether the protections for legitimate scrutiny and political expression are working effectively in practice, while maintaining proper standards of public conduct.
The Deputy First Minister acknowledged the issue and agreed to raise my concerns with COSLA, the organisation representing Scotland’s councils, as part of the Government’s discussions on local governance reform.
She also explained that matters relating to the Standards Commission itself would be for the Scottish Parliament to address.
I welcome her willingness to take the concerns forward.
But I also want to see a proper examination of how the current arrangements operate, including whether councillors have sufficient confidence that legitimate scrutiny will be protected.
Why this matters in the Highlands
This issue is particularly relevant as the Scottish Government considers wider changes to local government.
I’ve argued for many years that decisions affecting Highland communities should be made closer to the people who live in them.
The Highlands are simply too large and diverse for every community to feel that its particular needs are always understood by a distant decision-making centre.
But strengthening local democracy isn’t only about council boundaries or structures.
It’s also about ensuring that the people elected to represent communities can do their jobs properly.
Whether a councillor represents a remote Highland village or a large urban ward, they must be able to ask questions, challenge decisions and express political views without fearing that legitimate disagreement will automatically become a disciplinary matter.
Getting the balance right
There is no contradiction between expecting councillors to behave properly and defending their right to speak freely.
In fact, a healthy democracy depends on both.
The public should be able to expect integrity, honesty and respect from elected representatives. They should also expect those representatives to challenge decisions when necessary, even when doing so is unpopular.
I will follow up on the Deputy First Minister’s commitment to raise this with COSLA and continue making the case for a standards system that protects both public ethics and legitimate democratic scrutiny.
Councillors should be accountable for their conduct, but they must also be free to hold others to account.