Councillor Kairin van Sweeden is cleared of conduct breach for the “New Scot” comment. An ethics hearing found no discriminatory intent.
Deena Tissera, another councillor, felt disrespected and thought the remark was discriminatory. Van Sweeden later apologized for what she said. Van Sweeden referred herself to ethics officials.
They held a hearing early in February. The panel decided the remark didn’t break conduct rules. Scotland’s Standards Commission recognized offense, but believed the comment wasn’t meant to offend and wasn’t discriminatory at heart.
Dr. Stewart chaired the hearing panel. She said Van Sweeden admitted her wording was clumsy. Evidence showed she didn’t intend harm, though the panel knew Tissera felt offended.
The panel noted Van Sweeden responded to Tissera’s point, not randomly targeting her. Van Sweeden seemed surprised by the negative reaction and apologized at the meeting promptly.
Concerns arose about “New Scot” usage. Van Sweeden likely thought positively about that term. Evidence indicated “New Scot” is used officially; government and council publications used it too.
A refugee integration strategy uses “New Scot.” The panel considered how people view the term. They didn’t think the term was always derogatory or commonly seen as discriminatory.
The panel assessed the term’s potential negative connotations. They didn’t believe “New Scot” linked to race or implied ignorance. Councillor Tissera’s characteristics weren’t a factor.
Dr. Stewart addressed the case’s sensitivity, acknowledging strong feelings of those involved. Racism is unacceptable and should not be tolerated. She stated politicians should show respect and shouldn’t use language that could offend.
Failing to avoid such language lowers standards and discourages reasoned debate, she noted. The public and the Standards Commission expect more from politicians. A full decision will be published online on the Standards Commission website within two weeks.
