A cowardly political act

SIR, – Cab Sec Fergus Ewing raises more questions than he answers in his gloss over of the departure of the outgoing crofting commissioners and the yet to be elected new board. 
An editorial in our local magazine, Am Bratach, in discussing such, concluded by asking: “Is the crofting minister, Fergus Ewing, man or mouse?”
In what were the outgoing members engaged, if it was not regulation in relation to Upper Coll?
The commission investigated a complaint from an individual shareholder. The CEO is accused of setting the ball rolling without legal advice and appointing a constable not on the approved commission list.
Mr Ewing ordered the commissioners to apologise to men we now know to be under investigation by Police Scotland. These men lost a case before the Land Court, seeking declarator that the commission had no jurisdiction to investigate in their case. 
The court awarded costs to the men from Upper Coll on the basis that the apology was indicative of some wrong doing on the part of the commission. 
It is inconceivable that any self-respecting lawyer acting for the commission did not advise against the issuing of this apology. 
Which raises the question: Whose advice was taken – the lawyer’s or the minister’s? And where does that leave commissioners in relation to the spending of public money should the Scrutiny Committee choose to enquire into the shenanigans?
All of which leaves a legally-trained minister with some awkward questions to answer.
In particular, the propriety of the minister interfering in a process governed by the rules of the Tribunals Act. Moreover, constraints placed on ministers in such cases cannot just be ignored.
The doyen of crofting law, Sir Crispin Agnew, said to MSPs on November 9 that grazings committees have no right under current law to hold funds or register for SRDP. In fact, the only legal right they have is to administer the grazings. 
This appears to be the view held by the present commission after receiving council from Sir Crispin. The ScotGov appears to take a different view. Both cannot be right. 
Mr Ewing needs to clarify the position immediately and certainly before the election of new commissioners.
Shareholders in common grazings also require clarity and a knowledge that what is done in their names, is legitimate. 
Further, they must know that their funds, assets, heritable property, etc, has adequate protection under the law. For example, if a grazings committee invests money and banks fail, where does that leave the individual shareholders? 
The whole basis upon which grazings committees operate requires immediate and incisive consideration, resulting in reform adequate to the tasks asked of the committees.
The funding of the commission at present levels is inadequate and does not permit it to carry out the tasks asked for by government. Further rules and regulations are no doubt envisaged as is a cut in funding. Doing more with less appears to be the unsustainable mantra.
Mr Ewing committed one of the most cynical and cowardly political acts of modern times in ordering that apology, matched only by his own incompetence. 
The nearest parallel is the 18th century Whigs, who had the foppish admiral marched onto his own quarterdeck and shot to placate the London mob, whipped into a hysterical fervour, smashing the windows in the grand houses of central London.
As to his incompetence, we only have to refer to Jenny Marra’s critique of his handling of the payments shambles and the basket of poison he intends handing on to a new commission.
We had the hysteria of last summer, whipped up by the protagonists, their friends in sections of the press and broadcast media along with a lobbying group.
Enter Colin Kennedy – bogey man, chosen scapegoat. Elephant in the room, the chosen epitome of all that was wrong in a somewhat rotten commission. Ready for the old heave-ho. 
Now, all will return to normal once we see the back of this pesky lot. Dream on, minister!