SCOTLAND'S human rights record is good by international standards, but a black spot is threatening to tarnish the country's reputation.
In common with police forces in England and Wales, Police Scotland's officers have powers, laid down in statute, to stop and search individuals if they are suspected of carrying illicit items.
It is a vital crime-fighting tool that has taken drugs, guns and knives off our streets.
However, unlike other parts of the UK, police officers north of the border carry out stop searches even if there is no reasonable suspicion.
These searches have no basis in law and are supposedly based on consent, despite it being highly questionable whether individuals feel able to refuse an officer's request.
In the first year of the single force, nearly 70% of the 600,000 or so searches were non-statutory - without suspicion.
Such powers were scrapped in England and Wales, but it bafflingly persists in Scotland.
Professor Alan Miller, the chair of the Scottish Human Rights Commission, is correct to sound the alarm on this worrying practice.
He fears these 'suspicionless' searches may breach Article 8 of the Human Rights convention, which was incorporated into Scots law, and could be defeated in court.
He believes Parliament should establish a clear legislative framework for searches and call time on so-called "consensual" frisks.
Officers must be able to search suspects, but the powers to do so should be set by Parliament and not allowed to grow by stealth at the choosing of the police.
The Scottish Liberal Democrats will soon lodge amendments banning non-statutory searches, a move the Scottish Government would be well-advised to support.
Failure to do so could result in the courts throwing a curve ball into the country's already fragile justice system.
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