I could probably copy-paste this comment from any one of the many other Scala discussions where this has come up, but in short:
Scala isn't functional; Scala is proper (pure) OO in a way that Java never was. Scala doesn't support top-level functions (only singleton objects), which doesn't exactly prevent it from being functional, but certainly suggests that the primary paradigm is still object-orientation.
It just so happens that pure OO, when properly done, happens to embody a lot of features similar to functional programming - Smalltalk is the easiest example of this (eg. the similarities between Smalltalk message passing and Haskell's implicit currying are very clear).
The reason for this is that it's trivial to create a good object system in a purely functional language, so the FP-OO relationship isn't an either-or so much as a 'special case' (ie, OO can be seen as a 'special case' of FP). The converse isn't so true; it's hard and clumsy to build a truly functional paradigm within an OO paradigm.
What GP probably meant is that Scala isn't a good choice for those who are coming from an FP background, since they'll likely notice that Scala seems very OO by comparison (because it is). Even on the JVM, there are other languages (ie, Clojure) which embody functional paradigms more transparently. On the other hand, Scala is a decent choice for OO programmers who want to get a taste of functional programming (or who want to incorporate those paradigms into their code), because Scala allows several aspects of the FP paradigm to come through as well.