Tag Archives: I. G. MacDonald

Only one commissioner re-stands for election

crofting commissioners leave the sinking ship?

Is there something telling about so many of the crofting commissioners not standing for re-election?

It had been expected that Comhairle nan Eilean Siar (Western Isles Council) would announce the candidates for the Crofting Commission Elections 2017 on Friday 27 January.

However, apparently, due to the large number of nominations received just before the deadline of Thursday, names of the candidates could not be released until Monday 30 January. And on Monday we discovered that those candidates are:-

East Highlands (East Sutherland, Easter Ross, East Inverness and Moray) 

  • Rod Mackenzie, Teanroit, Beauly.
  • Archie MacNab, Orsay, Old Inn Croft, Blairninich, Ross-shire.
  • John Ferme McMorran, Keepers House, Balnacoil, Brora, Sutherland.

South West Highlands (Lochaber, Argyll & Bute, Arran and Cumbrae, Small Isles)

  • Ronnie Campbell, 5 Bohuntin, Roy Bridge, Lochaber.
  • Colin Niall Kennedy, Croft No2, Arinagour, Isle of Coll
  • Catherine Mackinnon, Cul a’Bhile, Bohuntin, Roy Bridge.
  • Billy Neilson, 27 Cruachan Cottages, Taynuilt, Argyll.
  • Uilleam Smith, 2 Caledonian Road, Inverness.

West Highlands (West Sutherland, Wester Ross, Skye & Lochalsh)

  • Jonathan James Hedges, Caravan, Rossal, Rogart.
  • Stephen William Love, 13 Sand Passage, Laide, Wester Ross.
  • Mairi Mackenzie, Torran, Loggie, Lochbroom, Ullapool.
  • Peter O’Donnghaile (Donnelly), 5 Camustianabhaig, Portree.

Western Isles

  • Alasdair MacEachen, 15 Aird, Balivanich, Benbecula.
  • Iain Maciver, 23 Laxay, Isle of Lewis.

Only one nomination was received for Caithness & Orkney and also Shetland. Thus each candidate for those two constituencies is automatically elected and no election will take place.

Caithness and Orkney

  • Cyril  Annal, Stensigar, South Ronaldsay, Orkney.


  • Andy Holt, North House, Papa Stour, Shetland.

So only one of the existing elected crofting commissioners is standing for election again. That is the controversial convener of the Crofting Commission, Colin Kennedy. All other existing elected commissioners have clearly had enough of the many problems that have beset their tenure in office. Much of which Colin Kennedy has received the blame for.

Thus the following commissioners will all vacate office following the elections:-

  • Marina Dennis – East Highlands
  • Ian George Macdonald – West Highlands
  • Murdo Maclennan – Western Isles
  • Arnold Pirie – Caithness and Orkney
  • Kathleen Sinclair – Shetland

There will be continuity in respect of one of the appointed commissioners, David Campbell, having already been appointed by the Scottish Government to serve a second term as a commissioner.

It is also interesting to note that Colin Kennedy’s seat (South West Highlands) is the most hotly contested one with five candidates fighting it out for a spot in Great Glen House.

The Scottish Crofting Federation welcomed the high number of nominations for the Crofting Commission elections citing it as a very positive sign for crofting. Their Chair, Russell Smith, said:-

The number of people willing to stand as candidates for the forthcoming Crofting Commission elections is very heartening. It shows that crofters care about the survival of crofting and the Crofting Commission. There is a resilience within the crofting community and the will to move on.

It is very positive that so many have stood to be counted in the Highland constituencies, especially in the South West. The Western Isles have 2 candidates but it was disappointing that Scottish Government did not take the opportunity to create further constituencies in such a large area. Orkney has relatively few crofts now so it is perhaps no surprise to have only one nomination but it is disappointing that Shetland only put forward one candidate when it is has so many well-worked crofts.

But we have enough candidates to run an election and to form a new Commission with crofter representation. That is what this is all about. We now need a good turnout to vote on 16th March, and await the Scottish Government to make the remaining appointment.

Brian Inkster

Secret meeting declares Brora meeting valid

Crofting Commission 'secret' Special Meeting

Crofting Commissioners meet to debate legality of their previous meeting

In my last post I considered the background to the ‘secret’ special meeting of the Crofting Commission that was to be held in Inverness this morning. It had been requested by the Convener of the Crofting Commission, Colin Kennedy, purportedly to seek to overturn the decisions taken after he walked out of the Brora meeting.

Mr Kennedy has maintained in statements to the media that the Brora meeting was ultra vires (illegal). It is assumed that he was to argue this at the special meeting called by him this morning even although I pointed out yesterday that it would be a clear conflict of interest for him to participate in any decision making process in this regard.

It was reported by the BBC that at the start of the meeting commissioner David Campbell (West Highlands) made a motion for the meeting to be held in public for the purposes of natural justice, accountability and transparency to the ordinary crofter.

However, none of the other commissioners in the room (who are all crofters) were willing to second this motion. Thus the meeting proceeded in secret and out of honourable principle Mr Campbell departed the meeting at the same time as the press and public were excluded.

David Campbell departs the meeting as it was being held in private rather than public

David Campbell departs the meeting as it was being held in private rather than public

Commissioner Murdo Maclennan (Western Isles) did not attend the meeting. It was reported by the BBC that this was due to a threat of legal action against the Commission/Commissioners by the Convener.

Thus the secret ‘cabal’ consisted of:-

  • Colin Kennedy (Convener) – South West Highlands
  • Ian George Macdonald (Vice-convener) – West Highlands
  • Kathleen Sinclair – Shetland
  • Arnold Pirie – Caithness and Orkney
  • Marina Dennis – East Highlands

However, at the end of the day (after a 6 hour meeting) the Convener didn’t appear to get his way.

Bill Barron confirms that the Brora Meeting was valid

Bill Barron confirms that the Brora Meeting was valid

The official statement issued by Interim Chief Executive Bill Barron to the BBC after the meeting stated:-

At the request of the Convener, the interim CEO called a special meeting of the Crofting Commission on Friday 9 December 2016.

The Commissioners present reaffirmed the importance of working together effectively in the final months of their terms.

The Board also discussed the status of the meeting held in Brora in September and how to move forward.

The Board decided that there was one meeting in Brora which took place in two valid parts, the meeting previously referred to as a special meeting being a continuation of the scheduled Board meeting.

Any consequences from this will be considered at their Board meeting on Wednesday 14 December 2016.

So six hours to decide that the two meetings in Brora (one with the Convener present and one without him after he walked out) were in fact one meeting held in two parts. It is assumed that legal advice had been sought on this (the Commission’s lawyer was evident in the film of the meeting shown on BBC Alba tonight) and that such advice conflicted with the Convener’s own interpretation which may well have been ingenious but flawed.

So there we have it: The Convener’s publicly stated position on the Brora meeting has been wrong from the outset. But will he now accept that?

The official statement says that any consequences from this will be considered at the Board meeting on Wednesday. Surely there are no consequences as such if the meeting was a legally held one. Is it not just a case of approving the minutes and moving on? Or are the consequences linked to the Convener’s stance on the meeting being ultra vires? After all in terms of the Standing Orders [PDF]:-

Once a decision has been reached, all members have a corporate responsibility to recognise and accept the decision as that of the Crofting Commission. Corporate responsibility entails that members must adhere to and accept such a decision until it is otherwise altered.

We will no doubt find out on Wednesday!

Brian Inkster

Image Credits: © BBC Alba

Crofting Farce

Crofting FarceIt is exactly one week since the Convener of the Crofting Commission, Colin Kennedy, walked out on a Board meeting at Brora Golf Club. The remaining Commissioners who convened a Special Meeting in his absence called on his resignation.

The Scottish Crofting Federation have expressed bewilderment that Mr Kennedy is still in place despite it being clear that he now stands alone. They have referred to his position as a farce that is getting in the way of important business.

Russell Smith, Vice-chair of the Scottish Crofting Federation said:-

The Crofting Commission board meeting last week was certainly an eye-opener. It quickly became apparent that the Convener had lost the support of his board and it came as no surprise that he left the meeting with his tail between his legs. What is astounding though is that he still has not resigned. What does it take for him to get the message?

At the Board meeting of the Crofting Commission, held in Brora last week, observers were treated to a bizarre display involving the Convener, Colin Kennedy, attempting to force his will on the rest of the board and officials. Failing in this he closed the meeting without any business being conducted and left. The meeting was re-convened with vice-convener Iain George MacDonald in the chair and normal business was resumed. Mr MacDonald issued a full and open apology for the recent debacle involving the Commission’s handling of common grazing committees.

The apology is very welcome and shows the other Commissioners do have integrity. However, the apology should have come from Mr Kennedy, along with his resignation speech, both because he is the spokesman for the Commissioners and because he has been the chief antagonist in the whole affair. Mr Kennedy has been very destructive for crofting and for the Commission, and it is time to put an end to this sorry episode.

There is much to be done in crofting development and in rural issues, especially with the uncertainty over the effect of the European referendum. Mr Kennedy is standing alone now, his position is a farce and he is getting in the way of important business. It is time for the Commission, as a body, to have him removed.

Image Credit: Farce of Nature © Aleks Ortynski

Kennedy walks out of Brora meeting and remaining Commissioners apologise and call for his resignation

Crofting Convener, Colin Kennedy, walks out of Board meeting at Brora Golf Club and remaining Commissioners seek his resignation

Brora Golf Club – Location of the latest episode of the Crofting Soap Opera

Dramatic happenings in the world of crofting this morning in Brora.

The Crofting Commission were holding their board meeting in Brora Golf Club. It started at 9.30am this morning. On the agenda, amongst other things, was their meeting with Fergus Ewing MSP last week when they were in effect given a direction to apologise for dismissing three grazings committees from office. It was fully expected that this apology would be forthcoming after the meeting and would have to be made by the Convener, Colin Kennedy.

The BBC initially reported that:-

The Crofting Commission’s convener has walked out of a meeting at which the body was under pressure to make a public apology in a long-running row.

Colin Kennedy had earlier in the meeting refused to allow a commissioner to withdraw his declaration of interest in the dispute about common grazings.

When officials told him he had to accept the request, Mr Kennedy closed the meeting and walked out.

It would appear that the remaining commissioners then convened a Special Meeting which was posted on the Crofting Commission’s website as starting at 10.15am. They resumed the business of the day without their Convener who has been known to go into hiding before today.

An updated report from the BBC on the resumed meeting states that:-

Commissioners passed a motion calling on Colin Kennedy to stand down after he walked out of a meeting in Brora, Sutherland, earlier on Wednesday.

They have also issued a public apology for how the commission handled its dispute with the crofters.

It is understood that this apology was issued, in the Convener’s absence, by Vice Convener, I. G. MacDonald. Clearly that was the responsibility of the Convener but one that he evaded.

This apology has now been issued in writing by the Crofting Commission. It reads:-

The Crofting Commission wishes to apologise for the way it has handled recent grazings committee cases.

Three unprecedented cases have been considered by the Commission under Section 47(8) of the Crofting Act and resulted in committees being put out of office.  The decisions taken by the Commission have created a poor result for everyone involved.  The actions taken in these cases did not enable communities to work together for the benefit of crofting and in fact have had an adverse impact on the crofting community.  The Commission acknowledges that the recent decisions have caused prolonged uncertainty and anxiety not only for the three communities involved but for all crofters, and for this we are sorry.

The Commission continually seeks ways to ensure it is delivering in the best interests of crofters and will ensure that any lessons learned from the cases can inform future procedures and decision-making.  We will also continue to engage with Scottish Government to look at greater flexibility in crofting legislation.

The Crofting Commission will continue to work alongside stakeholders to develop good practice guidance for grazings committees.  We would like to reassure crofters that as the regulator of crofting, our main focus continues to be securing the future of crofting through effective regulation and we look forward to working constructively with crofters, grazings committees and crofting stakeholders.

Scottish Crofting Federation chair, Fiona Mandeville, said:-

Surely now the convener will do what he should have done weeks ago – stand down and let the people who genuinely care about crofting get on with their work. So much time and energy has been wasted during this inexcusable debacle. We have had enough of Kennedy and want to see the back of him. By his action in walking out from the board meeting today and refusing to meet the Minister’s request for an apology, we take it that he has finally abdicated.

We welcome the Commission board taking this decisive action at last and look forward to working with them to rebuild trust in the Commission and to developing strategies for crofting, taking up again all the positive initiatives which had been set aside while Kennedy was in control.

We also naturally welcome the apology issued by the board after the convener’s departure.

It is little wonder after these latest developments that his fellow commissioners have now decided enough is enough. The board had appeared split in their loyalties towards him but they have clearly realised that it is time for them to unite under the stewardship of a new convener and seek to heal the damage done as a result of ‘The Common Clearances‘.

There have been repeated calls over a number of months from crofters and from the Scottish Crofting Federation for Colin Kennedy to resign. Those calls have been ignored by him. Now his fellow commissioners are calling on him to do the same thing.

Will, however, Colin Kennedy accept the motion and stand down? Does he have any option? If he doesn’t will Fergus Ewing have to intervene?

Brian Inkster

Image Credit: Brora Golf Club


Who are we supposed to believe?

Whose riddles are the right riddles?

Whose riddles are the right riddles?

A guest post by the Crabbit Crofter.

Over the last five months “the public” has become more and more confused by the Crofting Commission’s changing statements, retractions, and now silence on the subject of ‘The Common Clearances‘. So whose fault is it the message is so confused?

The Crofting Commission seems to have the right intention. It has a button you can click on its website called Openness. It boldly claims “We aim to provide high quality services and information to all members of the public.” So how is it getting on with its aim?

First. Who should be making sure we were given clear messages about such an important topic? And lo and behold Crofting Commission has a handy Framework Document [PDF]. It became operational just about when everything started to go wrong with the common grazings furore so a shame everyone seems to have forgotten what it says. It covers the period April 2016 to March 2018. The introduction says:-

This framework document has been drawn up by the Scottish Government (SG) in consultation with the Crofting Commission. It sets out the broad framework within which the Crofting Commission will operate and defines key roles and responsibilities which underpin the relationship between the Crofting Commission and the SG.

How handy. It tells us lots of useful stuff. It sets out who is responsible for communicating with the public. Guess who it is? The Convener of the Crofting Commission. The Framework Document states one of the Convener’s “particular responsibilities” is:-

Representing the views of the Board to the general public

So how has Convener Kennedy been getting on with this “particular responsibility”? Since the 2016-2018 Framework Document came into force, there have been:-

  • various interviews on Radio nan Gaidheal and An La, BBC Alba (TV) with Commissioner MacLennan, including one where he was challenged by the interviewer Donald Lamont on why he hasn’t done more to help Lewis grazing committees. Mr MacLennan explained he couldn’t talk about Mangersta or Upper Coll because he had conflicts of interest. In the Upper Coll case because he had some sort of link with the solicitor representing Upper Coll in the Land Court case.

It could be argued Mr MacLennan as a Gaelic speaker was used for these interviews rather than Convener Kennedy. But, guess what?  There have also been:-

  • An interview in English with Commissioner Swan after the meeting in Mangersta on 17th May on Aithris an Fheasgair, Radio nan Gaidheal.
  • An interview in English with Chief Executive Catriona MacLean on Radio nan Gaidheal, and An La, BBC Alba, after the meeting attended also by Convener Kennedy (and Commissioner MacLennan) in Stornoway with the CNES Joint Consultative Committee, on 13th June.
  • Statements at the Scottish Parliament Cross Party Group on Crofting in June by Commissioner MacLennan and Chief Executive Catriona MacLean (in English). Convener Kennedy was notably absent when the big topic of the Commission’s self-inflicted common grazings crisis was on the agenda and obviously politicians and the general public would be demanding a clear statement from the Commission. Strangely Commissioner MacLennan seemed to have forgotten about his reluctance to talk about the issue because of a conflict of interest in the two Lewis cases.
  • Interviews with Commissioner MacLennan following the board meeting on 17th August, carried on Aithris an Fheasgair and An La in Gaelic and in a BBC Highland report in English. These interviews were almost unintelligible. They left the “general public” in a worse state of confusion than if there had been no interviews at all by anyone.

There have also been numbers of statements –

  • The famous Convener Kennedy statement on how to manage common grazings finances, now removed from the Commission’s website but available on the Crofting Law Blog.
  • statement from Vice Convener MacDonald on 8th June contradicting the previous statement from the Convener but with no explanation if it was his own views or those of the whole board who had agreed to disagree with their Convener on the issue.
  • The famous Open Letter from Chief Executive Catriona MacLean still available on the Commission website. It contradicts the Convener’s previous statement, but claims no such statement was ever made. So which of the Convener’s or the Chief Executive’s statements was the views of the board? We have to assume the Convener’s since it is his “particular responsibility” to convey the views of the board to the general public.
  • report from Jackie O’Brien on Good Morning Scotland (Radio Scotland) who hadn’t managed to get an interview but had got a statement from Convener Kennedy prior to the board meeting on 17th August. The Convener’s statement was extraordinary because it disagreed with his Minister. And it stated the Convener’s position on the matter before he allowed the board to have a democratic discussion. But then the Convener didn’t make any attempt to convey the views of the board to the general public after the board meeting. Why not? Instead we got something almost completely unintelligible from Commissioner MacLennan no-one has been able to decipher yet. So what were the views of the board? Since it is his “particular responsibility” to convey the views of the board to the general public we must assume it was the Convener’s statement before the board meeting.

All of this leaves the general public totally confused. Which of these contradictory interviews and statements from five different people (Vice Convener, two Commissioners, Chief Executive, Convener) over the past 5 months is the opinion of the board?  The Framework Document tells us we should only listen to the Convener because he has “particular responsibility” to convey the views of the board to the general public. But he has consistently refused to give interviews. And his two public statements baldly state grazing committees have to pay out all money immediately to shareholders and can keep none.  So there you have it. It looks like he is in conflict with his Minister. And with his board. And his Chief Executive. Not to mention crofters.  No wonder we are all so confused and angry.

Crabbit Crofter

Guest Blogger Bio: A crabbit crofter who wishes the weather was better & Scotland produced more of its own food. He believes in a just & honest world, full of integrity & decency.

Image Credit: The Riddler – Batman Forever © Tim Burton Productions and PolyGram Pictures

Abuse of power within the Crofting Commission?

Abuse of Power within the Crofting Commission

Is there an abuse of power within the Crofting Commission?

The publicity last week surrounding a Common Grazings Committee being summarily removed from office by the Crofting Commission highlights a worrying trend concerning alleged abuse of power within the Crofting Commission. It is not the first time that I have heard actions taken by the Crofting Commission referred to as being “dictatorial, vindictive and unjustified“.

The facts appear to be that two shareholders in the Upper Coll Common Grazings lodged complaints with the Crofting Commission to the effect that the Grazings Committee were not conducting its duties in a proper manner. This resulted in the Crofting Commission calling a meeting of shareholders on 10 November 2015 where the Crofting Commission were represented by Colin Kennedy (Convener), I. G. MacDonald (Vice-Convener) and Linda Gourlay (Staff Member).

Following that meeting formal complaints were lodged with the Crofting Commission by a number of those attending accusing the Convener of “unfair and biased conduct” while chairing the meeting. It is unclear whether the complaints procedure involved was finalised/exhausted before the Crofting Commission removed the Grazings Committee from office.

The Crofting Commission gave the Grazings Committee three months to implement five main action points and a further month to get the last five years accounts externally audited.

All points requested of the Committee were dealt with including lodging timeously accounts prepared by external accountants. However, the issue appears to be the definition of “audited”. The grazings regulations of  Upper Coll Common Grazings state that the Clerk shall arrange to have the accounts “audited” annually. In normal parlance that might mean simply having financial statements prepared by an external accountant as indeed most businesses do. A detailed and forensic audit would arguably be completely out of proportion for any Grazings Committee to be expected to carry out given the time and expense of such procedure. Furthermore, you are perhaps unlikely to find a firm of accountants in Stornoway able or willing to undertake such a  task especially in the short time frame dictated by the Crofting Commission.

It is very interesting to note that in the Crofting Commission’s own Common Grazings Regulations Guidance [PDF] it is stated:-

A grazing committee shall undertake an annual independent scrutiny of their financial accounts. The committee should satisfy themselves that the level of scrutiny is proportionate to the value of monetary transactions.

Surely that means the preparation of external financial statements and not an expensive forensic audit? Furthermore the onus is on the committee to satisfy themselves not for the Crofting Commission to dictate.

However, the Common Grazings Regulations Template [PDF] provided by the Crofting Commission does not appear to even state the need therein for such an annual independent scrutiny.

The said Guidance on Common Grazings Regulations do make reference to the question of an audit. They state:-

Historically, the term ‘audit’ has been used loosely to describe any external scrutiny of accounts, however if the term ‘audit’ is used in the Grazings Regulations, the accounts must be audited by a registered auditor.

This appears to recognise the fact that ‘audit’ can mean “any external scrutiny of accounts” but then perhaps bizarrely states that “if the term ‘audit’ is used in the Grazings Regulations, the accounts must be audited by a registered auditor”. From what authority and on what basis can the Crofting Commission make such an assertion when at the same time recognising that ‘audit’ can mean “any external scrutiny of accounts”? Furthermore, why would they seek to insist upon this for historical Grazings Regulations using this term when their preferred template does not?

It is understood that the accountants acting for Upper Coll Common Grazings Committee sought guidance from the Crofting Commission as to what they wanted with regard to audited accounts. They were apparently advised that this was a matter between them and the Grazings Committee! With no guidance given as to what was expected how could they know what to produce to pass the muster of the Crofting Commission?

The Crofting Commission should perhaps have, at least, directed the accountants to their own Guidance on Common Grazings Regulations which state:-

… an auditor is required to build up a body of evidence and express an opinion on the accounts. The opinion given in an audit depends on the nature of the accounts that have been prepared.

• If receipts and payments accounts have been prepared, the opinion will state whether or not the accounts ‘properly present’ the receipts and payments for the common grazings for the financial year.

• If fully accrued accounts have been prepared, the opinion will state whether the accounts provide a ‘true and fair view’ of the financial affairs of the common grazings.

Surely, if Financial Statements prepared by accountants were produced that did not meet whatever requirements the Crofting Commission actually had with regard to an ‘audit’ they should have sought further information/detail as necessary rather than summarily removing the Grazings Committee from office?

It should also be noted that the said Guidance on Common Grazings Regulations states:-

The Commission will not get involved in any matter relating to alleged financial impropriety. This is potentially a civil and/or criminal matter and should be dealt with by the relevant authorities.

Thus if there is any question of alleged financial impropriety (and it is not clear that there even is) then it would be for any aggrieved shareholders to take civil and/or criminal action and perhaps only on the conclusion thereof, and depending upon the outcome, for the Crofting Commission to consider the removal of some or all of the committee and/or clerk.

On any view, therefore, the actions of the Crofting Commission in this instance are extraordinary.

Patrick Krause, Chief Executive of the Scottish Crofting Federation, has stated [PDF]:-

The press made us all aware of the grievance raised by the Lewis Upper Coll grazings committee against the convener of the commission, Colin Kennedy, a few weeks ago. On the face of it, this looks like an appalling attempt by the commission to nullify the complaint. Whatever is actually behind their decision, it is a staggeringly clumsy exercise in public relations. We are struggling to maintain, and to form new, grazings committees as it is.

Hopefully, this is not the reason behind the decision to remove the Grazings Committee from office. If it is then it is very worrying indeed. Whatever the thinking involved it does however remain worrying and should be of grave concern to all crofters and to the Scottish Government that the Crofting Regulator is behaving in this way.

The Crofting Commission’s ability under the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993 to remove a grazings committee involves “making such inquiry, if any, as they may deem necessary”. Not much process potentially involved there then! However, they must be “satisfied” that the members of the grazings committee “are not properly carrying out the duties imposed upon them”.

On any reading of the situation it would appear that, at least without further inquiry to satisfy themselves, the Crofting Commission in coming to the decision to remove the Upper Coll Common Grazings Committee from office arguably took a decision so unreasonable that no reasonable person acting reasonably could have made it. This is the Wednesbury test (Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation (1948) 1 KB 223) and that decision could therefore be open for judicial review.

If this decision was a correct and proper one to make there must be countless other grazings committees in breach of their own regulations whom the Crofting Commission should also now be seeking to remove from office.

I would strongly suggest therefore that the Crofting Commission should, in all the circumstances, review this extraordinary decision. If they fail to do so the Scottish Government should maybe question the behaviour involved and perhaps even consider removing the commissioners responsible as “unsuitable to continue” as members. A power that the Scottish Ministers have at their disposal under the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993. That may be seen by many as a more reasonable and justified use of power than that employed by the Crofting Commission.

Brian Inkster