Cllr Peter Wallace is the Leader of the Conservative Group on Argyll and Bute Council.
A quiet policy change in Argyll and Bute last month should set alarm bells ringing far beyond the Council chamber. It goes to the heart of how a modern democratic society debates, disagrees, and holds power to account. Recent events in the Argyll and Bute Council Chamber have shifted that balance, in a way that endangers free-flowing debate and free speech.
Argyll and Bute covers almost nine per cent of the total Scottish land area, with 43 per cent of the population living in ‘remote-rural’ areas, including 28 inhabited islands. Given its disparate population, there is a heavy and growing reliance on digital connectivity. For many, digital connectivity is not a luxury but a necessity. Council meetings and committees are all hybrid as standard, with some, such as Planning, working entirely online for day-to-day committee work.
Against that backdrop, the Council met on 24th June and was undergoing the routine and somewhat benign work of updating their Social Media Policy. However, buried within the update under the heading of ‘Elected Members using Social Media,’ was a new and extraordinary line: “This can include responsibility for what others say on their social media accounts.”
Most of us agree that online debate should be respectful and constructive. We all know how corrosive and toxic online behaviour can be, not only towards individuals, but to public trust in democratic institutions. So yes, we should absolutely encourage better standards of debate and call for civility in the way we all engage with residents and with one another.
However, this policy went far beyond promoting good conduct. It asked councillors to take responsibility for comments made by third parties. Comments they did not write, cannot control, and of which they may not even be aware. For many of us that was a step too far and fundamentally shifted the balance of responsibility in the online forum.
Social Media is increasingly where people go to challenge authority and scrutinise decisions of government, both local and national. They highlight consequences, intended or otherwise, of actions taken. They hold Councils and elected members to account. Emotions run high when people feel ignored or disadvantaged.
That is part of democratic life. Social media is one of the few places people feel they can freely raise their concerns, and undoubtedly will produce comments that are challenging or unpopular. But is it for us to decide what should or shouldn’t be said by the public?
If there are abusive, threatening or unlawful comments, then of course action should be taken, but we should be encouraging democratic engagement, not creating barriers.
We were told not to worry: the Council had ‘no intention’ of policing elected members’ social media activities, rather complaints would be dealt with by the Council’s Monitoring Officer, who would give advice to members, and it was up to individuals to take a decision “in the knowledge that if they do not follow the advice they may end up before the Standards Commission.”
The problem is the Standards Commission guidance is clear: it focuses only on what elected members do and say and promote online themselves. Nothing in it suggests councillors are responsible for the actions of others.
The Council’s interpretation went further still, not just focusing on comments that are unlawful. The Council’s Monitoring Officer explained their interpretation included “to allow inappropriate, offensive, or disrespectful comments to remain on a page they control.”
With such a broad definition, the risk is obvious and the outcome anti-democratic. Councillors may feel compelled to delete challenging, critical or controversial comments simply to avoid disciplinary action. The tendency will be to err on the side of caution, to remove comments, to police the discussion, or to engage less with the public altogether, the people who they are there to serve. That is not democracy. It is self-censorship.
Expecting councillors to police the behaviour of every follower, every comment, every stranger who tags or replies to them, across multiple platforms, is unrealistic and unworkable. Social media moves too fast, and councillors do not have staff or resources to monitor it constantly.
There is a balance to be struck between protecting council staff and allowing public discussion. Perhaps, for all the right reasons, the Council is seeking to update the policy, but there is a real sense of over-reach in the new version, making elected members culpable for content they did not write, approve, endorse and may not even have seen. This policy creates an additional liability that sits squarely on elected members, not on the Council.
More importantly, it risks chilling legitimate political debate. If councillors fear being punished for the actions of others, the safest rational choice becomes silence. That is not healthy for democracy, and it is not what residents expect from us.
They say ‘turkeys don’t vote for Christmas.’ Yet despite all the concerns raised, the administration pushed the policy through, all voting for it to be adopted. Every opposition councillor voted against.
Argyll and Bute’s residents expect openness, accountability, and honest debate. Policies that make elected members responsible for the speech of strangers undermine all three.
If policies like this were to be adopted elsewhere, the implications would be profound. What happened in Argyll and Bute may seem like a small administrative change, but if replicated more widely it would mark a significant step away from transparent, accountable local democracy.