To no one's surprise, the First Minister has voiced her confidence in Chief Constable Sir Stephen House.

Given that Police Scotland is perceived by her opponents as the sole creation of an SNP government, Nicola Sturgeon could hardly do otherwise. Amid controversy, the reputations of the force, its boss, and the party in power are intertwined.

Yesterday, nevertheless, the First Minister's endorsement of Scotland's top police officer fell a little short of wholehearted. In observing that "no chief constable is or ever can be allowed to be a law unto themselves", Ms Sturgeon was echoing numerous critics of Sir Stephen. Willie Rennie of the Liberal Democrats - opponents of a single force from the beginning - is not alone in calling on the Chief Constable to change his behaviour or step down.

Sir Stephen does not have his problems to seek, then. Yet how many are of his own making? Substantial budget cuts were certainly no choice of Police Scotland. The public habit of holding the top man solely accountable for an organisation's failings is neither new nor easily avoidable. But the question remains: does the Chief Constable have a grip on his job and the practices of his force?

The issue of routinely (or inappropriately) arming officers can perhaps be described as a communications failure. Had Sir Stephen and his managers explained at the outset the difficulties involved in having trained personnel doing next to nothing for much of the time there might - just might - have been less of an outcry. The stop-and-search controversy cannot be rationalised so easily.

It is a power that can never be abused. If officers become heavy-handed, if they overstep their bounds, policing by consent is put at risk. When children are involved, the entire practice becomes questionable. But when HM Inspectorate of Constabulary Scotland (HMICS) finds fully 23 reasons for Police Scotland to improve its culture, its behaviour, its attitudes and even its understanding of the law governing stop-and-search, serious questions land on Sir Stephen's desk.

The Chief Constable has accepted every one of the HMICS recommendations. To those who deem Police Scotland's handling of the issue "a fiasco", that in itself counts as an admission of failure. Is the practice effective? Do officers understand what is involved? Is there a "targets culture" distorting police work? Has the creation of a unitary force with a single individual in charge contributed to this lamentable state of affairs?

With some reservations, this newspaper supported the creation of Police Scotland. In part, those reservations had to do with the loss of local accountability. There might be a tenuous connection between that argument and Sir Stephen's difficulties, but a lack of oversight might explain the difficulties in which the force now finds itself.

The Scottish Police Authority (SPA), supposedly the responsible body, has won very few admirers since force reorganisation. That hardly counts as an accident, yet it is for the SPA to ensure that Sir Stephen does not become "a law unto himself". If the authority needs to be strengthened, so be it. With more budget cuts inevitable, proper oversight is more important than ever.