The SFA’s “independent” review panel is still a cause for concern for everybody at Celtic.

The news last night about the SFA’s review panel and their decision on Celtic’s penalty appeal at Fir Park was eye-opening, though not surprising.

The panel concluded in a 4-1 majority that Celtic should indeed have had a penalty – something anyone who saw the game could tell. The only exceptions? The match officials, despite the benefit of slow-motion replays and every available tool at their disposal.

But apparently, it’s not just them; there’s also one other person out there who didn’t think it was a penalty. This minority vote on the panel raises questions about their perspective, understanding, and, frankly, their qualifications.

What logic are they using, exactly? And who, in God’s name, let them in the room?

Other cases were reviewed as well, including incidents from the game between the Ibrox club and St Mirren. St Mirren should have had a penalty, and Connor Barron’s dangerous challenge went unpunished – it could easily have been a red. The panel decided unanimously that it wasn’t a red-card offence but seemed to think it warranted a yellow. There’s no indication of the actual numbers on that call, which adds to the mystery.

Yet, here’s the kicker: the decision not to award St Mirren a penalty was backed by a narrow 3-2 majority. So, alongside the person who thinks Celtic didn’t deserve a penalty, there are three people on this panel who reckon St Mirren didn’t deserve one either.

Did our dissenter dissent on that too? And if so, what’s the basis of their reasoning? Because frankly, if one person’s consistent voting pattern suggests a certain club bias, they shouldn’t be anywhere near decisions involving Celtic or the Ibrox club.

Let me explain why I have this concern.

This is how it works: this isn’t the old “independent” review process, where contentious incidents were discussed every few months and then buried in a report.

No, that system was superseded by the “Key Match Incident Review Panel” which meets weekly, and its structure is supposed to look impartial.

Each review panel consists of five members: three so-called independent figures, one SFA representative, and one SPFL representative. The SPFL rep should be a red flag. Sure they probably won’t be from one of the clubs whose games are being looked at but how do we know what other conflicts there might be here? And the “independent” members … what exactly makes them “independent”? Because, according to the SFA website, it means people with “established careers within Scottish football” – including former players, coaches, and media figures.

So, to put it bluntly, it’s a panel of insiders.

A so-called “independent” group made up of the usual faces: if this seems to you like something that sounds an awful lot like the composition of BBC Sports Scotland you aren’t alone.

It’s hardly a secret that certain media outlets are populated with people who’ve had ties with Ibrox – so how “independent” are they, really? It’s a sad joke if anyone believes these people could be truly unbiased. And ex-players? Ex coaches? Does John Brown find himself regularly around that table? Good god, we could have Martindale there most weeks.

The sheer lack of transparency leaves a lot to be desired.

And here’s the critical point: are there records of how each person votes?

I’m not suggesting people be publicly named and shamed – that’s counterproductive; I’ll leave that to dog whistlers like McCoist.

But if we can’t see the patterns in how these individuals vote, then what “independent scrutiny” do we really have? Are we seeing the influence of figures like Kris Boyd who would never give Celtic a fair decision or someone else who is a cheerleader for the Ibrox club? These people have no business deciding contentious calls involving either Glasgow side.

In addition to this, we already know that too many Scottish media figures have a shoddy grasp of football regulations. They lack the insight, and too often, they lack the integrity.

Many of them don’t seem to understand the offside or handball rules, let alone more nuanced calls. But all of them seem to understand the unspoken rule that Ibrox’s star players get a free pass.

The SFA’s weekly updates, with their flashy review videos, have brought some improvement. But have things truly changed? Are we actually witnessing more accountability and transparency? Or is it the same old deflection tactics with a shiny new coat of paint?

Scottish football still operates like an insular old club.

It’s a web of relationships, favours, and cover-ups. And until real, independent scrutiny is brought in – people from outside the bubble who are actually qualified to make these calls – things will remain the same. The SFA may bring in another outsider here and there – and I congratulate them on bringing in another head of VAR from outside Scotland – but without genuine independence and transparency, the same old rottenness is still at the core.