Scotland’s two standards watchdogs are ‘not fit for purpose’ and should be reformed, it has been claimed.
Speaking to The Herald on Sunday, several elected politicians raised concerns over the complaints and investigation process; as new figures outline that just 2% of complaints are ultimately upheld.
According to statistics obtained via Freedom of Information legislation, the Ethical Standards Commissioner (ESC) received 1,103 complaints relating to MSPs, 3,658 complaints about councillors, and 162 complaints about public body board members between 6 April 2020 and 5 April 2025.
Several 'super complaints' are contained in the total, including one instance in which 2,520 compaints were made about 12 councillors.
The ESC, which is one of two standards watchdogs in Scotland, investigates complaints about the conduct and behaviour of MSPs, councillors, and other public figures.
However, after initial vetting, the ESC conducted investigations into just 427 complaints during the five year span.
The commissioner went on to substantiate 107 complaints, 2% of all complaints that had been submitted.
Tory MSP Murdo Fraser MSP told The Herald that the entire complaints ‘apparatus’ was ‘unsatisfactory’.
He said: “It offers neither transparency from elected officials nor protection for them when they express legitimate political opinions and criticisms.
“It’s time for a complete overhaul of the system to ensure that councillors and MSPs can express their views freely, while being accountable for their actions in office.”
Once the ESC concludes its work, it hands its findings about councillors and board members to the Standards Commission for Scotland (SCS), who will hold a hearing and make the ultimate determination.
Likewise, findings related to the conduct of MSPs are “referred to the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee of the Scottish Parliament instead of the SCS”.
A previous FOI request submitted by The Herald found that referrals to SCS have increased in recent years.
Between 2020 and 2025, 229 cases were referred to the Standards Commission for Scotland, rising from 14 in 2020/21 to 68 in 2024/25.
During this time period, the watchdog held 64 hearings and determined a breach had been committed in 43 cases.
Figures show 18 people were censured, 15 were fully suspended, nine were suspended in part, and two were disqualified.
Likewise, Glasgow Labour councillor Fiona Higgins is the subject of an ongoing investigation after posting a critical tweet about a member of council staff.
She told The Herald: “Every democracy needs an impartial watchdog to uphold standards and fairness. The key test for any regulator is striking the right balance between ensuring accountability and allowing elected members to speak openly on matters of public concern.
“The system works best when it protects integrity and also gives councillors confidence to question and challenge. Fine-tuning the process to achieve that balance would help councils serve their communities better.”
In a statement, a spokesperson for the ESC said: “We are experiencing a higher volume of complaints, specifically regarding councillors and board members.
“Nonetheless, we are currently and have for the past two quarters in the financial year, been increasingly successful in completing complaint timeframes within our target KPIs.”
However, critics remain — Deena Tissera, a Labour councillor in Aberdeen, previously accused the watchdogs of ‘whitewashing’ an investigation into ‘New Scot’ comments made against her by a fellow councillor.
She said that the SCS was in urgent need of reform’ and is ‘simply not fit for purpose’.
Tissera added: “It operates with public funding, yet expects councillors earning £25,982 a year to personally bear the cost of defending themselves against unjust or flawed decisions.
“The fundamental issue lies in how the Standards Commission interprets the Councillors’ Code of Conduct. The Code is applied subjectively, not factually. What one person deems ‘disrespectful’ may, to another, be entirely reasonable - that distinction is a matter of opinion, not evidence.
“The Standards Commission would benefit from greater transparency. At present, the scales of justice at a Standards Commission hearing are not balanced - and that is a disservice to Scotland’s councillors and to our democracy.”
In a lengthy response, a spokesperson for the SCS hit back at Tissera’s claims, stating that councillors were not required nor expected to obtain legal representation.
The spokesperson added: “The Standards Commission does not dispute that what one person deems ‘disrespectful’ may, to another, be entirely reasonable.
“At Standards Commission Hearings, the Hearing Panel listens to any evidence and submissions made by the parties to the Hearing (the Ethical Standards Commissioner and the Respondent councillor).
“The Panel is then obliged to make a decision, on the balance of probabilities, as to whether the Code has been breached in the particular and specific circumstances of each individual case.
Read More:
- 'Too easy to weaponise' – record 2,700 complaints made against councillors questioned
- How Scotland’s Standards Code is failing local democracy
- Whistleblower challenges secrecy culture at Scotland’s largest council in ethics row
The SCS also pushed back on claims that it was not transparent, stating: “The Standards Commission also publishes its annual reports, which detail all work undertaken in the year and decisions on all cases referred to it.
“In addition, minutes of all Standards Commission meetings are published on the website, along with information about its members, all the work it is undertaking, its policies and processes (both in respect of its adjudicatory work and its governance arrangements) and its educational material.
“The Standards Commission issues to all councillors and members a quarterly update newsletter summarising decisions made at Hearings and outlining both its plans and work it has undertaken. As such, the Standards Commission is satisfied that it is transparent.”
