The First Minister's intervention last week on stop and search, which forced Police Scotland to review its flagship crime policy, was welcome but long overdue.
Over the last twelve months, this newspaper has published over twenty articles on this flawed anti-crime initiative.
First police officers said that 'bogus' searches were recorded to inflate the numbers, followed by controversies about babies and toddlers being frisked.
However, the biggest problem was Police Scotland's reliance on non-statutory searches, which are voluntary and based on "consent".
Of the 600,000 searches recorded in the single force's first year, around 70% fell into this category.
Although England and Wales abolished this practice years ago, Police Scotland clings to non-statutory as the basis of its search policy.
Nicola Sturgeon's announcement that a Police Scotland review would likely end "consensual" frisks was a good day for civil liberty campaigners and the wider population.
However, it is another blow for a national police force set up by the Scottish Government.
After the old territorial forces made way for Police Scotland, Edinburgh's distinctive policy of regulating brothels was shattered by the force's heavy-handed approach.
Chief Constable Stephen House was then humiliated after he had to abandon his policy on armed police officers.
The stop and search rethink is yet another reminder that the governance structures for the single force are inadequate.
Although the focus this week has been on Police Scotland, the stop and search controversy reflects just as badly on the Scottish Police Authority.
After all, when the SPA reviewed the frisk policy last year, it censored parts of its own report and buried the damning statistic that Scotland searched nine times as many people as the New York Police Department.
The media and the Scottish Liberal Democrats have scrutinised the single force, not the body specifically set up to monitor Police Scotland.
Perhaps it is time for the First Minister to consider a wider review of the policing landscape, including the effectiveness of a watchdog that bears the hallmarks of a poodle.
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