It has been hard to be sure who is to blame for the paralysis at Glasgow Clyde College since the suspension of its principal Susan Walsh in February.

It is understood that allegations relating to a 'perceived culture' of bullying and fear were behind the action taken by the college board eight months ago, but Ms Walsh is known to have been unhappy about the board's actions in relation to complaints she herself had made.

Subsequently the Scottish Funding Council threw the board's actions into doubt, launching an investigation into the way the issue had been dealt with. Students at one stage passed a vote of no confidence in George Chalmers, chairman of the board.

The board itself sought legal help to dispute the SFC's right to intervene in a live employment issue, while unions also criticised the SFC's approach. Throughout all this the college has effectively been in limbo.

Now the Scottish Government appears to have picked a side, with Education Minister Angela Constance taking the unprecedented step of dismissing Glasgow Clyde's entire board and chairman, and parachuting in replacements.

Interestingly, she has not taken issue with the suspension itself. She justified the drastic action on the grounds that the board mismanaged its finances, by spending up to £200,000 on legal fees, and that its relationship with the student body had broken down. Mrs Constance wasn't finished there. She also accused the board of failing to investigate serious concerns raised by the suspended principal, operating without proper agendas and failing to minute important discussions and decisions, among a number of other procedural irregularities.

There may well be an element here of simply wanting to break the impasse - this dismal logjam plainly doesn't serve students, staff, or further education and Glasgow well. The Government may hope to improve its uncertain record on colleges.

But Mrs Constance's actions raise serious questions about the autonomy of higher education institutions, in particular in relation to internal policies such as the employment of senior officials. Removing the board may enable the college to move on, which can only be welcome. But should the SFC, or indeed the Government be able to intervene, in principle, in complex internal management issues? Were they right to do so in this case? These questions remain and they will not go away.