SCOTLAND's most senior frontline police officer has criticised the national force for failing to explain itself to the public on controversial policies.
Niven Rennie, president of the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents, backs Chief Constable Sir Stephen House on decisions that have increased the visibility of officers with guns.
But Mr Rennie believes Police Scotland has not succeeded in communicating the reasons for gradual changes on this and other recent issues, such as the closure of control rooms or station counters.
He said: "My personal view is that the police could have dealt with it better. To take the public with us, we need to explain to them why we are doing certain things.
"Part of the problem is a particular newspaper might have a pop at the force and they don't tend to respond. Then the issue grows arms and legs.
"We have not done the explanation of the policy as well as we might have. This also applied to public counters and control room closures. The information has not been sold.
"The communications in Strathclyde used to be very good. But I don't think they have been so great in Police Scotland."
The single force has come in for sustained criticism over a number of tactical changes that mean Scotland's small number of armed police have their sidearms in holsters rather than in locked boxes in vehicles - and will attend routine calls.
The changes - some of which took place under the old system of eight territorial forces - are now being investigated by both main watchdogs for the force, the civilian Scottish Police Authority (SPA) and HM Inspectorate of Constabulary in Scotland (HMICS).
SPA chairman Vic Emery this week told parliament his board had not been consulted before some changes were made and he would now be working to identify exactly where operational independence for the chief constable lay.
Mr Rennie, however, said evidence given to the Holyrood justice sub-committee on policing by HM Inspector of Constabulary Derek Penman suggested that how officers carry their arms was a matter for Sir Stephen, and not for politicians or oversight committees.
He said: "Derek Penman was specifically asked if the chief constable had the right to make this decision. The answer is that he does. It makes clear that standing authorities to carry arms are based on risk assessment. HMICS will inspect that. Police Scotland have agreed to review the risk assessment quarterly. That is all they need to do, and they have done it."
Mr Rennie said he did not believe the chief constable should have had to consult the SPA before acting on standing authorities.
Some other officers have expressed frustration that chief officers have been reluctant to be dragged into a public defence of armed policing, especially, said one insider, as politics become increasingly shrill with the independence referendum looming.
The Herald understands some of Scotland's armed officers - there are fewer than 300 of them - have also felt uncomfortable that they were being portrayed as sinister in sections of the media.
Mr Rennie added: "The officers with guns put themselves in danger. When people are running away from a situation, [these officers] are running towards it.
"Nobody is mentioning their contribution to our society."
Former senior officer Graeme Pearson, now a Labour MSP, said: "Policing isn't a private affair we should be told about only when it suits. Though Mr Rennie is right about the need for better communication, the concept of governance is more than a committee merely receiving updates."
A Police Scotland spokesman said: "We are reviewing how we engage with communities in light of the issues raised regarding the standing firearms authority.
"There has been significant communication on the facts behind the decisions for both armed policing and control rooms and we welcome the forthcoming review by the SPA."
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