I refer to Harry Reid's column ("A single force could lose the local touch", The Herald, November 20).
I believe his fears arising from the creation of a national police force are exaggerated.
Let us consider another small country with history and traditions not unfamiliar to us in many respects and with a population not dissimilar to our own: New Zealand. I am not aware of claims New Zealand has assumed the form of some kind of police state.
The New Zealand Police is a department with 11,000 staff. It is also worth pointing out that the national organisation is divided into 12 districts and, as a result, local input and involvement have a significant role to play.
Most people would concede there are at present too many police forces in Scotland for a country of its size with an excessive number of higher-ranking officers. It was inevitable, in my view, that steps would be taken to address that situation.
Clearly there are those, some with vested interests and some without, who have been opposed to these moves.
In my opinion, the predictions that some kind of future we should be apprehensive of are overdone.
Ian W Thomson,
38 Kirkintilloch Road, Lenzie.
WHILE I agree with the concerns of Harry Reid regarding the future of policing in Scotland, I must point out that Stephen House demitted office as Chief Constable of Strathclyde Police four months ago when he was appointed by the Scottish Government to head the new single Scottish police force whose commencement date is April 1, 2013.
Until then Campbell Corrigan will hold the post of acting Chief Constable of Scotland's largest force.
Originally it was reported there would be 32 divisions (doubtless with 32 Commanders) operating within the boundaries of Scotland's 32 unitary authorities. Now we learn there will be 14 divisions whereby 18 councils will not enjoy the luxury of a dedicated divisional force.
Only time will tell if this one force, one chief political appointment and the attendant upheaval and redeployment, will benefit Scotland's diverse and distinctly different communities. I doubt it.
Allan C Steele, 22 Forres Avenue, Giffnock.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article