I READ with interest the comments of Michael Greville (Letters, July 19) on the subject of standing authority for the wearing of firearms in Police Scotland.

As a retired police officer Mr Greville's contribution brought some balance and perspective to a debate which was in danger of becoming sensationalist and misleading.

You will recall that our association supported the creation of a national police service long before it became a political reality. One of the underlying principles of our position in this respect was the need to establish an equality of service delivery across the country which might ensure that members of the public did not face a higher level of risk merely due to the area of the country within which they chose to live.

The standing authority for firearms is now common across the vast majority of the United Kingdom. It enables the police to respond quickly and appropriately to any armed threat wherever it may occur. Indeed, Mr Greville rightly highlights the fact that the majority of the most infamous firearms incidents to have occurred in the UK have occurred in our more rural communities where suitably-armed officers may not have been readily available to protect their community.

In practice, an extremely small proportion of the police officers on patrol in Scotland on a daily basis are armed. Consequently, this policy does not threaten the unarmed nature of standard service delivery in this country, a traditional style which is widely respected and of which we are rightly proud.

Whilst the Chief Constable should always be prepared to explain his policies to the Scottish Police Authority or our elected politicians, we would defend his right to make operational decisions without interference. It is our belief that his stance on this matter is sensible and pragmatic and should therefore receive their full support .

Chief Supt Niven Rennie,

President, Association of Scottish Police Superintendents, Tulliallan Castle, Fife.

I NOTE with interest your report on Police Scotland's "doorstepping" proposal ("Police to doorstep sex crime suspects", The Herald, July 19). Let us think how this might play out:

First, malicious complaint is made by troublemaker. Secondly, police "doorstep" innocent man.Thirdly, neighbours see doorstepping. Fourthly, troublemaker joins dots. Fifthly, innocent man publicly branded as sex criminal.

One has to wonder whether whoever dreamed up these proposals is fit for office.

Brian D Finch,

64 Whitelaw Street,

Maryhill, Glasgow.