Scotland's top policeman, Sir Stephen House, is to face opposition from council leaders over the controversial policy of officers carrying guns while on patrol.
A motion opposing the practice that has dogged the national police force for months is to be voted on by local authority leaders after a report presented today.
If passed by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (Cosla), the councils' umbrella body, further pressure will be placed on Sir Stephen, the Chief Constable of Police Scotland, to re-examine the policy.
The latest move in the long-running row comes against the backdrop of statements from Sir Stephen and his force that only 10 in every 1,000 officers are armed.
He has also denied that the policy will encourage more criminals to take up arms themselves, pointing out that officers carrying guns leaves communities better protected.
Members of Cosla will examine the report about the use of armed police at a meeting in Edinburgh.
The report invites the leadership to "agree to the principle that police officers should not carry firearms on regular duties ...
"Leaders may want to take a position on the principle of having armed officers on regular police duty, which may contribute to a perception of a heavy-handed approach to policing, when seen alongside, for example, the apparent increased use of stop and search tactics."
All councils accept the need to have an armed response capability. But the presence of armed police officers on Scotland's streets has become a matter of public concern particularly in rural areas, the report says.
Some councillors have spoken out about police appearing at inappropriate venues with sidearms, including shops and charity events.
Some councillors say they do not understand why the weapons cannot be kept safe in the boot of armed response vehicles, as was the practice in most areas until the creation of the single force.
The row escalated after officers were seen patrolling with guns in Inverness.
Some councillors do not understand why certain officers must be armed at all times.
The report says: "Failing to respond to local elected representatives' concerns threatens the notion of 'policing by consent'."
Sir Stephen has insisted that the decision to have a number of officers permanently armed was an operational matter for him which should not be subject to political interference.
He has pointed out that there are only 275 highly trained specialist armed response officers, fewer than two per cent of the entire police service.
As they work on a shift system, only a very small number of armed officers will be on duty at any one time.
The report suggests a legal opinion might be necessary to examine the parameters of the chief constable's operational independence if the deployment of armed officers fell outside the remit of operational matters.
The Police Scotland website states: "We have a small number of officers readily armed so the rest of our 17,000 plus officers don't need to be."
It also seeks to respond to concerns that the policy will mean more criminals carrying guns.
It states: "The standing [firearms] authority means our communities are in fact better protected.
"Officers are now able at the start of each shift to attach their weapons so that if an incident does require their support, they are already equipped and not working against time to arm themselves in a high-pressure situation.
"This reduces the risk of accidents and keeps themselves, their unarmed colleagues and the public safe."
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