Hawick councillors at loggerheads

by DOUG COLLIE

A bust-up at local government election time between a veteran Hawick councillor and two other elected representatives from the town ended up at the door of the Standards Commission which was asked to look into potentially "misleading and disrespectful" Facebook posts.

But the spat involving former amateur boxing champion Davie Paterson (Independent) on one side of the dispute, and Watson McAteer (Independent) and Stuart Marshall (Independent) on the other has ended with the complaint against Mr Paterson being dismissed by Bill Thomson, Scotland's Standards Commissioner without the need for an investigation. All three were and are serving members of Scottish Borders Council.

The complaint from Messrs McAteer and Marshall was submitted because they considered comments made by Councillor Paterson on Facebook relating to both men to have been inaccurate, misleading and disrespectful.

But Mr Thomson has told the complainers: "I have given detailed consideration to the copy Facebook postings which you have provided, together with the additional explanatory information which you have supplied. I note that all of the comments made by Councillor Paterson appear to relate either to political matters, or to actions or decision making on the part of the Council and/or its officers."

In his assessment of the complaint, the Commissioner said he noted that the complainer (Mr McAteer) had considered comments made by Councillor Paterson on Facebook during the election period in 2017 to have potentially given rise to an infringement of electoral law.

"But consideration of such matters falls outwith my jurisdiction, and accordingly I am unable to deal with this aspect of your complaint", said Mr Thomson.

He added: "Secondly, as I have indicated and as you have alluded to in your correspondence to me, the application of the Code must take account of other applicable legislation. In particular, I am required to have regard to the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”). Section 10 of the ECHR guarantees a right of freedom of expression.

"As applied by the courts, enhanced protection applies to those who engage in or who comment on matters of  'political expression'. The term is not specifically defined. Essentially, it covers matters of public concern including, but not limited to, issues of political contention and public administration. The protection is wide and can even extend to comments which some may consider to be inappropriate, offensive or insulting. It seems to me that the respondent’s [Mr Paterson] comments are protected in this way, notwithstanding the obvious upset which they have caused you."

In closing the case Mr Thomson stated: "Accordingly, taking account of the circumstances and the detail of your complaint, I am satisfied that the alleged conduct could not amount to a breach of the Councillors’ Code and that there is, therefore, no basis for me to investigate your complaint. I appreciate this outcome will offer you no comfort, but I hope you will realise that I must operate within prevailing legislation and the powers conferred on my office."

Councillor Paterson had aimed criticisms at his fellow councillors (or candidates as they were at the time) over their apparent support for changes to the council's controversial grass cutting frequencies. The alterations meant the fortnightly cutting of grass in council owned open spaces was to be reduced to one cut every four weeks.

His attack on Mr McAteer and Mr Marshall also centred on moves to take the Hornshole site outside Hawick into the care of the town's Common Good Fund. Hornshole was the location for a famous skirmish in the Sixteenth Century when local men defeated an English raiding party. The site is the scene of an emotional ceremony at the annual Common Riding.

Mr Paterson had strongly opposed taking Hornshole out of private hands and into the Common Good which is administered by the council. He believed it would land the local authority with unwanted maintenance costs.