Policing in Scotland has always relied on consent; the idea that the public should generally support the principles and aims of the police and the way they are implemented.

So it was troubling from the start when, in a culture that is not used to seeing officers with guns, armed policemen and women seemed to start to appear on regular patrols earlier this year. There was considerable public disquiet about the policy but Chief Constable Sir Stephen House remained firm: allowing armed officers to attend normal duties as and when required was the best use of resources and would not change.

Now Police Scotland has performed a U-turn on its gun policy and has announced that officers armed with firearms will now only respond to incidents where there is suspected to be another firearm involved or there is a direct threat to someone's life. In other words, no longer will there be the sight of armed officers patrolling the streets, albeit in very small numbers. It was when this happened in Inverness earlier this year that the public first became generally aware that there had been a change in the way armed officers were deployed. Concern was expressed in the Highlands, where this was seen to be a new policy.

In deciding to look again at its policy and limit the deployment of armed officers, Police Scotland deserves credit for listening to the public and politicians and responding. Sir Stephen was correct to try to secure the most out of his officers and the force's finite resources (its argument all along was that, if a swift response could be delivered to an incident, it should be delivered by armed officers if they happened to be nearest and available rather than having to wait for an unarmed officer to arrive from further away).

However, not only was the policy poorly explained to the public, the change in approach also meant that Scots were more likely to see armed officers in public, running counter to an important characteristic of British life: the absence, more or less, of guns on the street. It also gave credence to an impression that a one-size-fits-all solution was being imposed by Police Scotland across the country.

In response, the force was right to point out that, even when armed officers were on regular patrols, the numbers were still low (around 275 officers or some 2 per cent of the force). But the Chief Constable appears to have recognised public concerns and acted on them, which bodes well for the single force's willingness to listen to the citizens it protects.

Most of those citizens will surely recognise that, even in the most remote and seemingly most peaceful parts of the country, gun crime can happen and that there is a need for the police to have armed response vehicles available when required. Yesterday's decision changes none of that, but it does reimpose the assumption that armed officers will only appear in public when it is absolutely necessary.

Deputy Chief Constable Iain Livingstone said that, in making this decision, the force had balanced the duty to keep people safe with concern expressed by the public.

It has listened, thought hard and made the right choice.