If the Scottish Football Association is anxious regarding the latest, stinging criticism of its governance then such fear is well hidden. By close of business on another of Scottish football’s manic Mondays, focus had firmly shifted towards another of the game’s legislators.

The SFA’s chief executive, Stewart Regan, met the media in reply to an insistence from the Scottish Professional Football League that a “fully independent review” must be held to investigate football governance issues surrounding the 2012 liquidation of Rangers and the club’s use of Employee Benefit Trusts (EBT).

The issue has gained significant public traction as letters from Celtic’s chief executive, Peter Lawwell, urging the SFA to agree to such a review, entered the public domain. The undertone is that Scottish football’s ruling body was at best negligent as the Rangers saga played out.

Regan is adamant no such project need be undertaken. He looks and sounds comfortable with his position. The EBT issue flew back into public consciousness as a supreme court judgment assessed that tax was payable by those Rangers players and officials who earned via the scheme between 2001 and 2010. Regan believes any review would be pointless and that those with a grievance relating to the SFA’s handling of all things Rangers will never be placated.

“Since 2011 the board have relied heavily on advice from four QCs and three law lords, supporting us on that journey,” said Regan of legislative steps and punishments implemented in relation to Rangers. “We also have two independent directors on our board. Independence has been at the heart of everything we have done.

“I think it would be really difficult to convince those who believe in conspiracies that there isn’t a conspiracy at play. My pushback to them is do we really think that four QCs, three law lords, all the club execs, all the independent panel members are all part of some huge conspiracy?

“We have to be able to move on. We won’t get closure in the eyes of some parts of Scottish football – some fans, some stakeholders – we won’t ever get closure. This will be one of those topics that will be talked about for years and years to come. There isn’t a right or a wrong answer; it’s a judgment call and a group of guys around the boardroom table with independent legal scrutiny have come to the conclusion that this is where we draw a line.”

The SFA has, it must be noted, opted to take a closer look at the award of a European licence to Rangers in 2011 after information was revealed during the trial of the club’s former owner Craig Whyte. If it is proven that Rangers misled the SFA in an attempt to earn that Champions League qualifying place, the sanction should be serious. Should, though, is the operative term; the SFA did not even have it within its power to penalise clubs for a mass on-field riot at the conclusion of the 2016 Scottish Cup final.

Lawwell finds himself in an invidious position. A noisy element of the Celtic support refuse to let the issue of Rangers and their demise go away. That group, naturally, would be seriously disappointed if the chief executive of their own club refused to fight on their behalf. If Lawwell believes an investigation is now his best hope of delivering something, his attitude is understandable. He can at the very least say he tried.

“I have a lot of respect for Peter Lawwell,” Regan said. “I was with him at the Champions League draw a couple of weeks ago and we have a very good relationship. I’d do exactly the same in his position – he is looking out for the best interests of Celtic Football Club.”

The notion that fans across Scotland remain enraged by Rangers’ antics and by the approach of officialdom towards the club is continually overplayed. The reality, one people refuse to accept, is that a silent majority of those who attend matches week on week no longer care about this affair. They grew tired of it long ago, after chuckling as Rangers played domestic fixtures at Albion Rovers and Cowdenbeath. But dare to suggest this topic has little relevance in 2017 and you are accused of being part of the problem.

Rangers’ current fury is towards the SPFL’s chief executive, Neil Doncaster, who wrote a letter to the SFA under the title “Independent review of use of tax avoidance schemes at Rangers FC and actions of Scottish football authorities”.

The Ibrox club are adamant the SPFL board, upon which their managing director, Stewart Robertson, sits, agreed to undertake no such thing. A process of how circumstances even remotely similar to 2012 would be handled in future, yes, but not essentially another investigation into the EBT years. Semantics, perhaps, but important ones.

The SPFL’s 42 members were referenced in Lawwell’s correspondence; the 42 are also members of the SFA. Aberdeen’s chairman, Stewart Milne, has been consistently vocal with his belief that reviews would do more harm than good. Billy Bowie, Kilmarnock’s majority shareholder, has offered the same message. “We haven’t had a single email, phone call or letter – other than from Celtic – asking us to have a look at this,” added Regan. “I thought it would be worthwhile to go back out and ask our members: ‘Are you sure … is there anything you want looked at?’ I told them the rationale to our decision in a letter last week. I haven’t had a single response asking for clarification.”

Hibernian’s chairman, Rod Petrie, is also a vice-president of the SFA, which is perhaps pertinent in respect of its statement distancing themselves from the SPFL’s stance by Monday evening. That said, the basic notion of “independence” in the context of an inquiry is arguably undermined by Regan and Petrie – such prominent SFA figures – being in position to veto.

Suddenly, Doncaster’s letter looked a curious piece of work. Why on earth did the SPFL’s chief executive write it when member clubs, and prominent ones at that, would be immediately willing to take an alternative stance? In a statement on Monday evening the SPFL pointed only to its board approving the call for an inquiry. For such an important issue, surely all 42 clubs should have been consulted to avoid what has regressed into a public-relations disaster.

The SPFL itself did not reply to a direct question as to how many clubs actually support a call for a fully independent review. And yet it seems at best bizarre that Doncaster would approach the SFA without sufficient backing. Perhaps, given Celtic’s size and status, they have every right to push on their own. By very definition, they were the club most affected by Rangers’ EBT use. Maybe Doncaster was seeking to put the focus on the SFA when, in reality, the consequence has been altogether different.

On Tuesday evening Celtic will host Paris Saint-Germain against the inevitable backdrop of an almighty din. It is a noise matched elsewhere.