EXPLANATIONS from the Bank of Scotland as to exactly when and how its venture with Pat Robertson became a bad business deal left more than a few journalists scratching their heads yesterday.

On one hand, the bank still insists the drawbacks from the Robertson affiliation were more than outweighed by the group's broader business advances. As Peter Burt and others were quick to point out, Bank of Scotland opened 40 times more new accounts than the 500 that were lost as a direct result of the Robertson venture.

Yet at the same time, there is also the admission that Robertson's now-famous comments about homosexuals in Scotland posed a ''serious risk'' of damaging the core banking business.

This, like the bank's apology to shareholders, didn't ring entirely true.

Even if the rate of account losses had soared a few multiples as a result of those remarks, this would still amount to small beer for an organisation with annual profits of more than #1bn.

In all honesty, a lot of customers would have to get extremely irate before seriously hampering the most profitable business in Scotland.

Then there is the question of the 12 months the board of directors spent examining the deal. Despite that length of time and what was described as the full participation and agreement of the 20-strong board, it apparently never occurred to anyone that Robertson's strident views might affect the Bank of Scotland's reputation.

Sir John Shaw and his colleagues were understandably impatient - and at times gruff - about the continued media focus on the Pat Robertson venture. With such important questions still unanswered, they are understandably eager to shift the spotlight of scrutiny.