No-one would dispute that Police Scotland has faced a challenge in bringing together the work of eight regional police forces into one national body.

So it is possible to argue that public relations might not have not been and indeed should not have been a priority of those in charge of the new police force.

However, that is not to suggest it is unimportant. Subsequent evidence would appear to reinforce this. Police Scotland has faced a number of internal and external communications challenges since it was set up in April last year and has contrived to handle many of them poorly.

The controversy about target-setting and the criticism of stop-and-search policy have prompted negative headlines and difficult relations with police officers and other staff.

Budget-led decision such as the closure of control rooms and the reduction in the number of manned police stations have also been unpopular. There have been the raids on Edinburgh saunas, which provoked various responses. In practice, these raids were not handled as well as they could have been, as the force has acknowledged.

More recently, Police Scotland's Chief Constable, Sir Stephen House, has seemed unwilling to address legitimate concerns about the policy of allowing armed police to take part in more day-to-day patrol duties.

While the policy might not have been new, and is not the equivalent of an increase in the number of officers carrying firearms, it has given the impression that police officers with guns have become more common. The policy has not been well communicated and there was a sense of resentment that senior officers were required to explain themselves.

All of this would be less of a problem if the force were more open to criticism. Sir Stephen has insisted he takes genuine criticism very seriously. We would not, of course, want a police force that did not respond to legitimate concerns.

However, the head of the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents, Niven Rennie, is concerned about the manner in which Police Scotland has communicated with the public on controversial policies. In relation to the issue of armed officers, he supports the policy, which is based on specific risk assessments and is mirrored south of the Border. However, he insists Police Scotland needs to make a more sustained effort to explain itself.

He has a point. Policing by consent is a fundamental principle of our society and that is an ongoing process, not something to be agreed then left behind. It is more important than ever that we have a national force that it is outward-facing and engaged with the public.

A willingness to engage in public debate and be open with both staff and the public is a sign of maturity in any public body.

If Police Scotland can address a perceived weakness in this area, it will be a true sign that the force has established itself and become a body that is confident in itself and the important role it plays in Scottish life.