Monthly Archives: July 2016

Carry on Grazings Constable

Leave a Reply
Carry on Grazings Constable

You can carry on constable

I have blogged about the (illegal, in my opinion and the opinion of others) appointment of Grazings Constables by the Crofting Commission to replace the grazings committees that they have evicted from office.

In the case of Mangersta Common Grazings the original purported appointment of the Grazings Constable ran for six months from and after 6 December 2015. Thus it expired on 6 June 2016. However, just before the expiry thereof the Crofting Commission sought to extend the ‘appointment’ for a further six months from and after 6 June 2016.

When challenged about the legality of the original appointment, from 6 December 2015, the Crofting Commission responded:-

The Commission’s understanding is that this was a final decision and the Commission has no authority to revisit its own decisions in these circumstances.

Thus they appeared to be of the view that if they make any decision (including an illegal one) they cannot change that decision.

They also stated:-

once the appointment of the constable comes to an end, it will be for the shareholders to appoint a committee in the usual manner

However, they went onto compound that illegal decision by actually revisiting it (something they said they could not do) and purporting to extend the appointment of the Grazing Constable for a further period of six months allowing him to carry on in ‘office’!

Even if they did have the power to appoint a Grazing Constable in these circumstances (which is denied) then they certainly do not have the power to extend the appointment.

Section 47(7) of the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993 which provides for the term of office of Grazings Constables, appointed in circumstances where it is legitimate for the Commission to do so, states that:-

the term of office of a grazing constable… shall be such as may be specified in the instrument by which he is appointed.

Thus it is a one time appointment and cannot be extended.

Yet again the Crofting Commission simply ignore the law and flout the will of Parliament.

The Crofting Commission were called upon by me on 13 June 2016 to set out a detailed legal explanation with statutory and/or case law references if they disagreed with my interpretation of the law. The letter from my law firm, Inksters, to the Commission stated:-

In your said letter you state that “once the appointment of the constable comes to an end, it will be for the shareholders to appoint a committee in the usual manner”. However, that illegal appointment having come to an end we understand that the Commission have purported to extend it for another six months. Please provide us with a copy of the Order purporting to do so. Please confirm where you believe the power to do so in law exists. We can see no such power in law and therefore the extension like the original appointment is illegal and thus null and void. The shareholders are therefore at liberty to appoint a committee in the usual manner. If you disagree with our interpretation of the situation please set out a detailed legal explanation with statutory and/or case law references to back up your stance for our consideration. Your failure to do so may be founded upon.

To date my request has been ignored by them.

However, the recent massive U-turn by the Crofting Commission on Mangersta and the stepping down from ‘office’ of the ‘Grazings Constable’ is as good an admission as any that they did indeed get the law wrong.

That ‘Grazings Constable’ should never have been there in the first place and should not have been allowed to carry on, in any circumstances, beyond the initial ‘appointment’.

Brian Inkster

Image Credit: Carry on Constable © Anglo-Amalgamated Productions / StudioCanal

Grazings Constables Risk the Clink

Leave a Reply
Frank Serpico would never have accepted a job offer from the Crofting Commission

Frank Serpico would never have accepted a job offer from the Crofting Commission!

The Crofting Commission have, as part of the alleged abuse of power on their part over ‘The Common Clearances‘, been appointing Grazings Constables to replace the grazings committees that they have evicted from office.

I have blogged on the illegality of appointing Grazings Constables in such circumstances. This viewpoint has been backed up by Donald Rennie, an eminent expert in agricultural law and Honorary President of the European Council for Rural Law.

In a letter, that was published in both The Scottish Farmer and the West Highland Free Press last week, Donald Rennie highlights the potential difficulties for both the ‘Grazings Constables’ and the Crofting Commission of these illegal appointments.

With the kind permission of Donald Rennie, I now reproduce his letter here, in its entirety:-

I cannot allow the “Open Letter” from the Chief Executive of the Crofters Commission to pass unchallenged, especially as the Commission have exposed the unfortunates imposed as “Grazings Constables” to the risk of personal liability for tampering with the crofters’ money.

Ms MacLean says that there has been speculation about the interpretation of the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993 and that “The commission is confident that it is applying the law correctly but this can only be clarified by the Scottish Land Court.” Both of these statements are self evidently false.

It is clear from an honest reading of section 47 of the Act that the Commission has no power to appoint a grazings constable in the present situation.

Their only power to appoint a grazings constable is to be found in section 47(3). That subsection applies where the crofters have not used the democratic provisions of the Act to appoint a grazings committee. In that case the Commission may step in and appoint either a grazings committee or a constable. That is not the situation here.

Under section 47(8), if the Commission are satisfied that the members of a grazings committee are not carrying out properly the duties imposed on them by the Act, the Commission may remove from office any or all such members and may appoint or provide for the appointment of other persons in their or his place. In other words, if the Commission remove one or more members of a committee they may appoint substitute members of the committee. They have no power conferred by this subsection to appoint a grazings constable.

The Commission was created by Act of Parliament. If the Act of Parliament does not give them the authority to do something then they cannot legally do it. subsection 8 is the only part of the legislation which permits the Commission to interfere in the democratic process of the operation of grazings committees. There is nothing in this subsection which permits the appointment of a grazings constable and therefore the actions of the Crofting Commission in purporting to appoint grazings constables are clearly illegal.

There is no point in applying to the Scottish Land Court for a ruling. It is a waste of time and money to seek a judgement to confirm the self evident.

Each purported grazings constable is in bad faith in the holding of his purported appointment. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. In addition it has been explained to the so called constables that their appointments are nullities. They cannot therefore claim ignorance of the illegality of their positions.

Section 47(7) is the only provision dealing with the constable’s right to remuneration. It provides that “The term of office of a grazings constable appointed by the Commission under subsection (3) above shall be such as may be specified in the instrument by which he is appointed, and he shall receive such annual remuneration as the Commission may determine; and such remuneration shall be defrayed by an assessment levied in such manner as the Commission may deem reasonable on the crofters who share in the common grazing.” Nothing is said in this subsection about appointment in terms of subsection 8 which reinforces the view that the appointment is illegal.

If a constable is validly appointed, this is the only provision allowing for his remuneration and it states clearly that the remuneration shall be paid by the crofters. The Commission has no power to use its own funds to remunerate the constable and if they purport to do so then it is a matter for Audit Scotland to investigate.

But these purported constables have not been appointed validly under subsection 3. Therefore there is no basis on which they are entitled to remuneration. From this it follows that if a purported constable takes as much a penny piece from the crofters sharing in the common grazing, with intent permanently to deprive them of that money, he is at serious risk.

Comment from the Crofting Law Blog:-

I wholeheartedly agree with everything Donald Rennie says in his letter. The law on the matter is simple and straightforward as set out clearly by him.

I have asked the Crofting Commission to explain where in law they have the power to appoint Grazings Constables in such circumstances. The only response to date has been:-

The Commission’s understanding is that this was a final decision and the Commission has no authority to revisit its own decisions in these circumstances.

This could imply (in the absence of any argument to the contrary) an acceptance on the part of the Commission that they couldn’t in law appoint a Grazings Constable but, having done so, they had no ability to revisit and reverse that decision. However, as Donald Rennie points out, there is no need for the Commission or anyone else to do so “to confirm the self evident”.

In my next blog post I will reveal the fact that, having stated that it has “no authority to revisit its own decisions in these circumstances“, the Crofting Commission went on to do just that and compounded their first illegal decision with yet another one (or maybe two)!

Brian Inkster

Image Credit: Serpico © Artists Entertainments Complex, Inc. Produzion De Laurentiis International Manufacturing Company S.P.A.

Back to the Future of Crofting

2 Replies
Back to the Future of Crofting

But Doc, nothing has changed in 10 years!

If you were to travel back in time 10 years ago to the day you would find a headline in The Scotsman that read ‘MSPs heap pressure on Crofters’ Commission with criticism of bill‘.

It was 5 July 2006 and on that day the Scottish Parliament’s Environment and Rural Affairs Committee released its findings on the Crofting Reform Bill after taking evidence at five meetings that year.

Some salient points from The Scotsman’s report from then:-

Critics of the commission during the evidence-gathering sessions included the National Trust for Scotland, which said the commission’s work is regarded as “inconsistent and ineffective”. The Scottish Crofting Foundation also gave an example of the “long-term regulatory failure” in one township where 11 out of 19 croft holders are absentees despite demand from prospective new entrants.

The report adds: “The committee was struck by the range of negative comments and the depth of frustration and long-standing dissatisfaction expressed by witnesses about the commission’s practice.”

It also said it was “astonished” a proper register of crofts has not been produced despite it being a statutory obligation on the commission for over 50 years.

Rob Gibson, the SNP’s land reform spokesman, said the bill offers no vision for the future of crofting and said successive governments had failed to ensure the commission does it job.

The report in The Scotsman also mentioned Brian Wilson, the former Government Minister, saying of the report:-

The whole thing has turned into an indictment of the Crofters’ Commission and its failure to implement its regulatory role. I think they [the commission board] should now consider their positions.

Fast forward 10 years and not much has changed. It is now called the Crofting Commission as opposed to the Crofters Commission. Similar but perhaps more acute criticism is being laid at its door. Indeed, I was speaking to a crofter just today who said that the Crofting Commission of 2016 is much worse than its predecessor, the Crofters Commission, was 10 years ago.

Headlines in the news over the past few weeks have included:-

Crofting Comission branded as ‘dictatorial, vindictive and unjustified’ by Upper Coll crofters

Row between national body and local crofters on Lewis deepens

Crofting Commission ‘flouting the will’ of Parliament

Crofting commissioner resigns in Lewis grazings row

Pressure grows on Crofting Commission as row over committees continues

Demands intensify for inquiry into operations of Crofting Commission

Crofting Commission “cover-up” blasted

Sleat storm surrounds Crofting Commission

Crofting Commission’s Mangersta U-turn welcomed, but calls for government investigation continue

It was in the wake of the near collapse of the Crofting Reform Bill in 2006 that pressure from the Scottish Crofting Federation led to Scottish Ministers commissioning a Committee of Inquiry on Crofting. This was chaired by Professor Mark Shucksmith. The Committee of Inquiry on Crofting undertook many community meetings throughout 2007 and delivered their final report in 2008.

The Shucksmith Report commented on the Governance of Crofting as follows:-

Crucial issues for the governance of crofting are transparency, source of legitimacy, accountability and the balance of central and local interests. Centralised arrangements,
together with a lack of clear functional boundaries between the key institutions, particularly
between the Crofters Commission and the Scottish Government, cloud the lines of public
accountability for the effective governance of crofting. Recurring themes in the evidence
were that the Commission should be more accountable; have greater area representation;
should enforce regulations more effectively; should be better aligned with other relevant partners; and should have closer communication with local people and Grazings Committees.

All issues that appear to remain today. Perhaps that is because in introducing the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 the then Scottish Parliament ignored many of the recommendations actually contained in the Shucksmith Report.

There is currently a major crisis in crofting. The consensus of opinion appears to be that the problems are caused by the Crofting Commission and the decisions taken by them and manner in which they execute those decisions.

A recent online poll conducted by The Scottish Farmer indicated that 96% of readers who took part considered that the Scottish Government should enact an independent inquiry into the workings of the Crofting Commission.

The Scottish Farmer in conducting this poll stated:-

The level of criticism has mounted so quickly that it is now incumbent on the Scottish Government to institute an independent external audit of the commission.

And, if the Crofting Commissioners feel the criticism to be unjust, they too should welcome independent scrutiny of their actions.

One thing is for sure, Scottish ministers cannot continue to sit on their hands on this one. Action must be taken swiftly and decisively!

I sincerely hope that in 10 years from now we don’t look back and say that nothing has really changed and indeed the situation at the Crofting Commission has got worse not better. The Scottish Government has the opportunity to change the future and must now do so.

Brian Inkster

Image Credit: Back to the Future © Amblin Entertainment

Dismissed before you can resign

Leave a Reply

As seen on Twitter today:-

Perhaps Torcuil meant the Crofting Commission 😉

You might think that, I couldn’t possibly comment

Leave a Reply
You might think that, I couldnt possibly comment - Common Grazings Crisis - Crofting Commission - Scottish Government

There comes a point where actions speak louder than words

To date the Cabinet Secretary for the Rural Economy and Connectivity with responsibility for Crofting, Fergus Ewing MSP, has not said much on the question of  ‘The Common Clearances‘.

Rhoda Grant MSP asked the Scottish Government:-

whether it is satisfied with how the Crofting Commission has acted in all matters relating to the dismissal of the Mangersta grazing committee.

Fergus Ewing MSP answered:-

The Crofting Commission is a non-departmental public body that takes regulatory decisions within the bounds of its duties and powers. Such decisions are taken independently and at arm’s length from Scottish Government.

Rhoda Grant MSP also asked the Scottish Government:-

whether it will establish an inquiry into the workings of the Crofting Commission.

Fergus Ewing MSP answered:-

The Scottish Government has no current plans to do so.

In addition Rhoda Grant MSP asked the Scottish Government:-

whether it has confidence in the convener of the Crofting Commission.

Fergus Ewing MSP answered:-

The Scottish Government is confident that the Crofting Commission board is able to deliver the functions of the commission.

That may have been the Scottish Government’s position on 27 June 2016. The massive U-turn taken by the Crofting Commission on 29 June 2016 should change that stance.

That U-turn and the manner in which it was executed demonstrates that the Crofting Commission got it wrong. They handled the whole Mangersta affair very badly indeed from start to finish. In light of this there can be no confidence that the board or their Convener is able to deliver the functions of the Commission.

The watershed moment was reached on 29 June. The Scottish Government can no longer sit on the fence. There has been as good an admission as any that the Crofting Commission failed the shareholders of Mangersta. In so doing they failed in their regulatory duties and should be made to account for those failings.

A day before the U-turn representatives of the Scottish Crofting Federation met with Fergus Ewing MSP. Commenting on that meeting the Chair of the Federation, Fiona Mandeville, said:-

We also had constructive discussion on the Crofting Commission crisis. We are very supportive of a majority elected Commission and fear that the common grazings debacle can jeopardise this. We therefore asked Mr Ewing to consider a procedural review of the Commission. At his request, we will send him a note outlining details of our recommendations forthwith.

In the wake of the U-turn, Fergus Ewing MSP should take heed of that request for a procedural review and actually now instigate it.

The Scottish Government can no longer hide behind suggestions that the Crofting Commission are at “arm’s length” from the Scottish Government.

The fact is that the Crofting Commission and their Commissioners are answerable to the Scottish Government.

Under and in terms of the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993:-

  • The Crofting Commission shall discharge their functions in accordance with such directions of a general or specific character as may from time to time be given to them in writing by the Scottish Ministers. [Section 1(3)]
  • The Scottish Ministers may (a) confer functions on; (b) remove functions from; (c) otherwise modify functions of, the Crofting Commission, where they consider it appropriate to do so to ensure that the Crofting Commission carry out their functions efficiently and effectively. [Section 2A(1) and (2)]
  • In so doing Scottish Ministers may modify any enactment (including the 1993 Act). [Section 2A(3)(b)]
  • The Scottish Ministers may remove a member of the Crofting Commission from office if satisfied that the member is unable or unfit to exercise the functions of a member or is unsuitable to continue as a member. [Paragraph 9(1)(e) of Schedule 1]
  • The Crofting Commission must provide the Scottish Ministers with such information in respect of the exercise, or proposed exercise, of the Crofting Commission’s functions as the Scottish Ministers may, from time to time, require. [Paragraph 20 of Schedule 1]

So, far from being a body that the Scottish Government should consider to be at arms length from it, the Crofting Commission is one that is directly accountable to and ultimately under the control of the Scottish Ministers.

That being the case the Scottish Government should not, like the Crofting Commission, ignore the law involved. They should apply the law, as set out above, as necessary to make the Crofting Commission accountable for their actions over the Mangersta debacle.

Following the U-turn by the Crofting Commission, former members of Mangersta Common Grazing Committee stated:-

We continue to believe that there should be an inquiry into the functioning of the Crofting Commission.

An inquiry is necessary to answer questions such as:-

  • Why did the Crofting Commission reopen a case investigated, resolved and closed by the Crofters Commission?
  • On whose insistence and on what evidence was the case reopened?
  • Was there undeclared conflicts of interest by Crofting Commissioners involved in the matter?
  • What legal advice was sought by the Crofting Commission on the matter? From whom, when, on whose insistence and on what basis? Was such legal advice followed?
  • Why were inconsistencies applied by the Crofting Commission to the handling of this case compared to others being dealt with contemporaneously?
  • Why was the removal from office of the Grazings Committee at the time deemed justifiable and necessary?
  • Why did the Crofting Commission ignore and not respond to the legal position put forward on behalf of members of the dismissed Grazings Committee?
  • Why did the Crofting Commission refuse to revisit their decision (saying that they could not in law do so) but ultimately did just that?
  • Why did the Crofting Commission ignore their own guidelines on the investigation of questions of financial impropriety which they had stated were a matter for the civil or criminal courts?
  • Why did the Crofting Commission purport to appoint a Grazings Constable when there is no basis in law to do so and then sought to extend that appointment, again when there is no basis in law to do so?
  • Why was the particular Grazings Constable in question appointed, on what basis and was a conflict of interest declared by any Commissioners relative to that appointment?
  • Was the Grazings Constable really independent and impartial or was he provided with instructions for the discharge of his appointment by the Crofting Commission?
  • Why did the Convener of the Crofting Commission, Colin Kennedy, attend a meeting of the shareholders of the Mangersta Common Grazings and refuse to leave when a conflict of interest had been declared by him?
  • Why and on what basis in law, when shareholders questioned the legality of the Commissioners proposals at that meeting, were they told that if all shareholders did not accept them, the Commission would not allow shareholders to reform a committee?
  • Did the Crofting Commission’s handling of the matter result in the resignation of William Swann as a Commissioner?
  • Why did the Crofting Commission issue guidelines on the management of grazings funds, then delete those guidelines and claim that they had never said what they had said in them?
  • Why did the Crofting Commission insist that funds had to be paid out by Grazings Clerks to shareholders “immediately” when Roseanna Cunningham MSP, on behalf of the Scottish Government, clarified on 21 June 2016 that “the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993 does not require the immediate disbursement of funds by a grazings committee”?
  • Why did the Crofting Commission insist on common grazings funds being managed in a way that defied logic and was not set out anywhere in law?
  • Why did the Crofting Commission not take cognisance of the statement by Minister of State for Scotland, Lord Kirkhill, in the House of Lords on 6 April 1976 regarding the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Bill that “there would seem to be nothing [in the bill] to prevent a voluntary arrangement being made whereby any crofter’s share would be diverted to the grazings committee”?

These are questions that the Scottish Ministers can no longer ignore following the recent U-turn by the Crofting Commission. The Scottish Ministers must comment properly on them and, if necessary, take appropriate action under and in terms of the Crofters (Scotland) Act 1993.

The only way that they will be able to properly pass such comment and take such action is following a focused and detailed investigation into how and why the Crofting Commission handled the Mangersta situation in the manner that they did.

That case is no longer ongoing and is not subject to court proceedings. The Crofting Commission therefore cannot hide from, prevent or delay an investigation specifically focussed thereon. Fergus Ewing MSP must now instigate just such an investigation for the future stability, survival and sustainability of crofting in Scotland.

Brian Inkster

Image Credit: House of Cards © BBC

Ignore the law and the lawyers

3 Replies
Ignore the Law and the Lawyers

Hear no crofting law, See no crofting law and Speak no crofting law

I have been blogging for some time about the Crofting Commission ignoring the law.

They have done so in relation to, amongst other things:-

They have, however, this past week made a massive U-turn which could just mean they now actually accept that they did in fact completely ignore the law.

It also, unfortunately, transpired at the meeting of the Cross Party Group on Crofting on Wednesday that they are now simply ignoring lawyers who take a different viewpoint from them and/or represent crofters challenging their stance.

When Commissioner Murdo Maclennan announced that he “thought we have a conclusion” on Mangersta and there was “no grazing constable in place at the moment“, I asked how this could be when I thought that the Commission had purported to extend the appointment of the Grazing Constable (illegally appointed in my opinion and in the opinion of others) for a further six months from and after 6 June 2016.

Chief Executive of the Crofting Commission, Catriona Maclean, interjected that:-

there is no constable at present, the case is over and the people of Mangersta will be advised.

I questioned why they had not advised the solicitor acting of this (i.e. me) and she responded:-

We have been in correspondence with the people of Mangersta and that is who we will respond to.

I pointed out that they had been in correspondence with a solicitor representing former members of the (unlawfully in my opinion) removed grazings committee and they should be responding to that solicitor.

There then appeared to be a reluctant acceptance that I might hear from them!

Astounding.

The Crofting Commission appear to think they can simply bury their ignorance of the law by taking a U-turn and not responding to questions raised by a solicitor concerning that ignorance of the law. The fact that they have acted contrary to the law remains and they do require to answer outstanding points in correspondence that sits unanswered on the desk of their Chief Executive.

They still need to answer, amongst other things:-

  • Where in law it is stated that the Crofting Commission cannot revisit its own decisions.
  • Where in law it is stated that the Crofting Commission has the power to appoint a Grazings Constable when they remove members of a grazing committee from office.
  • Where in law it is stated that the Crofting Commission can extend the appointment of a Grazings Constable.
  • Why the Crofting Commission is ignoring its own guidelines on the investigation of financial irregularities.

Perhaps they do now accept, given that U-turn, that nowhere in law is any of this stated and therefore they are unable to answer my questions. They should, if that is the case, at least have the dignity to say so.

I will let you know if and when the Crofting Commission deign to respond to me.

Brian Inkster

Yes Crofting Minister

Leave a Reply
Yes Crofting Minister

James Hacker: You said yourself how important these select committees are. I cannot be seen to mislead them.
Sir Humphrey Appleby: You will not be SEEN to mislead them.

How the Crofting Commission played out their sudden and surprise U-turn on the question of ‘The Common Clearances‘ would not have been out of place in an episode of Yes Minister. Sir Humphrey Appleby would have delighted in the obfuscation and manipulation displayed by the Crofting Commission in Holyrood on Wednesday night. However, like Sir Humphrey, the Crofting Commission is not immune to making miscalculations or outright blunders.

It was the first meeting, since the latest Scottish Government was formed, of the Cross Party Group on Crofting within the Scottish Parliament.

It was the first time, since allegations of abuse of power within the Crofting Commission over ‘The Common Clearances‘ were made, that the Crofting Commission would meet eye to eye with politicians and other crofting stakeholders in a public forum.

In the preceding week or two damning revelations had been made of historical revisionism and flouting the will of Parliament on the part of the Crofting Commission. This was on top of votes of no confidence against them, the Convener of the Crofting Commission attending meetings despite a clear conflict of interest,  a Crofting Commissioner resigning and calls for the Scottish Government to investigate the whole matter.

It looked like the Commission would be in for a very rough time at the Cross Party Group meeting.

They knew that and had to do something quick and decisive to limit the damage being caused to them and that could be wrought on them at that meeting.

Nothing like a massive U-turn, with an attempt to dress it up in other ways, to achieve that.

So Crofting Commissioner, Murdo Maclennan (the Convener, Colin Kennedy, was conspicuous by his absence), announced to the Cross Party Group that he “thought we have a conclusion” on Mangersta and there was “no grazing constable in place at the moment“.

On being pressed for clarification on certain elements of this the Chief Executive of the Crofting Commission, Catriona Maclean, elaborated that:-

there is no constable at present, the case is over and the people of Mangersta will be advised.

So case closed and no further discussion on that then. Please move along ladies and gentlemen.

When the removal of the Upper Coll common grazings committee from office was mentioned that, of course, could not be discussed as it was subject to on going proceedings in the Scottish Land Court.

The third committee that the Crofting Commission have evicted from office was not mentioned at all, other than briefly by me when Commissioner Murdo Maclennan insisted that I declare my interests. I think that perhaps backfired on him as the Commission would rather pretend that episode never happened as there has, to date, been no publicity surrounding it.

So one case conveniently closed, one sub judice and one we can simply forget about. Thus nothing really to talk about.

The extra gloss on this being that new guidelines were being produced by the Commission and all would be well when these were issued and followed. My criticism of this approach is already well known. You have to get the law right first before you write guidelines about how to follow that law. The Commission’s viewpoint is that their interpretation of the law will follow “in due course”. Perhaps this is because their latest massive U-turn means they actually now accept the law to be as I have been setting it out to be on this blog for some time!

The U-turn is great news for the shareholders in the Mangersta Common Grazings and the former members of their grazings committee. It is a vindication of the position correctly maintained by them throughout.

It leaves the Crofting Commission with egg on their face however they try to dress it up. The Emperor’s New Clothes remains a theme, in so far as the Commission is concerned, post the Cross Party Group meeting.

In my next blog post I will reveal how the Crofting Commission not only ignore the law but lawyers who write to them concerning it. In a subsequent blog post I will explore the significance of the latest U-turn by the Crofting Commission and the possible repercussions thereof.

Brian Inkster

Image Credit: Yes Minister © BBC

Update – 2 July 2016: Ignore the law and the lawyers