Want accountability? Then first you have to have countability.
As Police Scotland ends its second year, watchdogs - in Holyrood and beyond - are eager to show their teeth.
But to do so, to really hold the force to account, these watchdogs need hard numbers.
And, with Scottish policing coming together from nine different law enforcement agencies with nine different IT systems, such data is far from easy to find.
Take the row over stop-and-searches. The sheer volume of these interactions with the public - usually understood as frisking - has soared in recent years - even if it is currently subsiding dramatically.
That must be straightforward to count? No. Chief Constable Sir Stephen House has admitted the numbers could be out by "several hundred thousand" a year. That is a big deal.
To give a sense of scale, there were around half a million recorded in the first nine months of Police Scotland, during the period from January-December 2013, close to the peak of recording.
Understandably, real concern was raised over what impact these searches, two-thirds of which were officially deemed as voluntary or "consensual", were having on police relations with the public, especially teenage boys mostly likely to be stopped.
However, police insiders have always doubted the figures.
Glasgow's traditional "booze blitzes" - when drink is taken off kids in the streets - were counted as stop-searches, even though bottles and cans confiscated were in plain sight.
The Scottish Police Federation has long argued that the figures were somehow inflated by the drive to meet performance indicators.
The force says it has no targets for number of searches - but it does for what proportion of searches are "positive". This, say its critics, resulted in police declaring drink they found as a positive search. Police HQ disputes this.
But rank-and-file officers are not impressed. "The numbers are guff," declared an exasperated spokesman for the SPF after hearing Sir Stephen's admissions.
One of the big worries over stop-and-search was that youngsters under 12 were being frisked "consensually" despite widespread acknowledgement that were too young to be able to give consent.
This police agrees with this. This summer, said such stop and searches would stop. Cue more bad numbers.
The BBC used Freedom of Information laws to find out how many children of 11 or under were searched using a consensual search. The force refused to say, arguing its data were corrupted. But it was obliged to reveal its iffy figures, 365 in total.
The BBC published them in, admits the force, good faith. The result? A political row. On Friday, the force reported how many under-12s had in fact been frisked potentially in breach of its own policy. It was 18. That fact is now being independently checked.
When challenged at his main watchdog, the Scottish Police Authority (SPA), Sir Stephen, among other things, blamed the "clunkiness" of his IT systems, which are currently being revamped.
The police hadn't felt the need to tell the SPA about the BBC information request - or emerging numbers, even wrong numbers, on stop and search of children. Members of the authority grumbled; they should have been kept informed, they said. Sorry, said Sir Stephen.
Now the force has said Scotland should consider new police powers to search children for alcohol, making up for a "gap" left by their not being able to carry out consensual ones.
Sound reasonable? Maybe. But with numbers - and even the very definition of a stop-search, in such a mess, how can anyone be sure that such a move would be evidence-based?
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