ONE thing is sure about the Scottish Parliament culture committee's medium-to-well done grilling of the leadership of Creative Scotland: it won't be the last.

The convenor of the committee, Joan McAlpine, and other members, in particular the persistent Ross Greer, are clearly not done in their examination of how Scotland's arts agency Creative Scotland has appeared to take a not inconsiderable gift - a fairly sizeable cash boost in the December budget - and turn it into a crisis.

Janet Archer, the chief executive, began by apologising fulsomely. And by the end of her opening statement it was clear that Creative Scotland acknowledges that something went very wrong with the decision making and presentation of the Regularly Funded Organisations (RFO) decisions in late January. Ben Thomson, the former interim chair, also apologised.

Mr Thomson also made a curious comment, later in the more than hour of questions and sometimes revealing answers, remarking on how other members of the board didn't step up to become chair following the death of the late Richard Findlay, who passed in July last year. It was perhaps a public sign of the private tension between Thomson - who has now been succeeded by Robert Wilson - and some of Creative Scotland's board members. Two, Ruth Wishart and Maggie Kinloch, of course resigned over the furore.

And it also emerged during the evidence that the RFO decisions had not, as previously reported by the body, been signed off 'unanimously' by the board, but by a majority. A clear difference.

What happens now? If anyone needed any more evidence, it seems the current RFO system - which puts artists, companies and the funding body itself through apparently unsustainable rigours every three years - will be discarded, and replaced with something else. That is 'under review'. The new system will still have to square the circle: how can limited cash support a nation's cultural talent?

And who will review what happened this winter? The committee pointedly asked whether an independent voice will look at how the RFO debacle happened. Perhaps Fiona Hyslop, culture secretary, may have a say on how that examination will be carried out.

At the core of the mess was the Touring Fund, and what Creative Scotland thought it meant, and what it meant to the companies involved. It seems clear that its introduction was not expected by many in the arts world to be a replacement for regular funding, and although the £2m pot has been agreed in principle by the board, its final cost has not. It still needs to be explained.

As Mr Greer pointed out whilst asking questions about the accuracy of the information that board members were working with, it seems there are internal as well as external communication problems.

Those who lost out in the RFO decision making, and didn't receive a reprieve in the U-turn a week later, will understandably still feel angry and aggrieved by the whole process. They may not have found any answers to their satisfaction yesterday. The story goes on.