The argument about whether Scotland should be policed by eight forces has never been more relevant.
The argument about whether Scotland should be policed by eight forces has never been more relevant.
The chief inspector of constabulary is a well-known advocate of reform and the country's chief constables are concerned he may use his influence to push for change.
Almost five years ago, Paddy Tomkins, then chief constable of Lothian and Borders Police, suggested the country might be better served by a single nationwide service rather than eight. He stressed effective local policing was crucial, but said his own role could and perhaps should be made obsolete.
When he was appointed HMCIC, the other chiefs were concerned about how he might try to push his plans into the Justice Secretary's in-tray. At the time, England and Wales were looking at reducing their 43-force structure and amalgamating those of 4000 officers or fewer.
In Scotland, only Strathclyde - with some 7400 officers - sits comfortably above such a threshold.
The views of senior officers such as Tom Buchan, former president of the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents (Asps), fuelled the debate. It seemed the discussion was on the brink of becoming a reality when in 2006, Tom McCabe, the then finance minister, questioned whether Scotland was best served by eight forces as part of the ongoing Scottish Executive review of public services.
The eight chief constables publicly opposed the move and the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpos) gave Ian Latimer, Chief Constable of Northern Constabulary, the task of looking at the "capacity and capability" of the forces and how they could work together better to fight the rearguard action.
Then in September 2006 Graeme Pearson, head of Scotland's Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency, joined the fray. His comments, coming on the back of those made by others, caused the biggest splash. He said one force, headed by a single commissioner or chief constable, would provide an improved service to the public.
As the ripples spread outwards, Acpos suggested various ways in which greater joint working between forces would avoid the need for amalgamation.
Discussions about whether to merge Scotland's fire brigades then joined the debate.
While those such as Mr Pearson and Mr Tomkins have argued that one super force would lead to greater efficiency and parity in policing, there has consistently been strong opposition from the majority of the eight chief constables, and little or no political will to make the change.
"From the highest level chief constables are not going to tell their police boards that they want to make themselves obsolete by being part of a national system," said Dr Ken Scott, head of the centre for policing studies at the University of the West of Scotland. "This has always been a problem.
"At the moment, the anomaly is not that we have one big force with Strathclyde, but that we have seven forces which are so small and which, to differing extents, are unable to provide the same level of service and experience.
"Homicides are the classic example. It is a question of looking to see who has the best experience and can cope with major cases and big events. It is no surprise that some of the least successful homicide cases have related to smaller forces."
In response, the chief constables have come together to create a new centralised unit dealing with homicides and other major crimes in an attempt to avoid moves to merge the country's forces. The aim will be to ensure that all forces have access to a pool of highly skilled officers to cope with difficult cases or major events, such as the 2014 Commonwealth Games.
While the debate will be revisited and while there are senior officers who will posit a strong defence of such structural changes in both the police and fire service, it seems likely that the status quo will remain until there is far greater political will and gain to be garnered from such changes.
