Not to want armed police on the streets of Scotland.

[Solopower1]

I heard on the News yesterday that Scotland Police have been increasing the number of armed officers on the streets. I get the impression that this is being spread out quite widely over the whole of Scotland.

How did this happen? How come it wasn't discussed by politicians. Why wasn't there an open debate about it? I think they said on the programme that 60% of the public wanted the police to be armed. Where do those figures come from? Does anyone know anything more about this?

Where have police Scotland said they need more armed officers? We have explained, there isn't more officers. They are just more visible.

On the News they didn't say 'And by the way, everything is exactly the same as it was as far as the number of armed police is concerned.'

In fact, iirc, they said the change had happened after Police Scotland was formed, ie that there are now more armed police on the streets than there were.

But presumably these officers weren't sitting at the station painting their fingernails and waiting for the telephone to ring before all the police forces were merged?

In her first post Shesparkles said they are being deployed more often.

You say police Scotland have said they need more. Where have you read that?

Do you really think there have been more officer trained in the last 13 months? These departments are not being expanded.

To be honest, there hasn't been a massive day to day difference since the forces were joined. That's certainly the case in the old strathclyde.

"More often" doesn't mean there is more of them.

These officers were on the street they just didn't have as easy (quick, fastidious?) access to weapons.

As I said earlier it's a media campaign to knock the Scottish Government.

YANBU. there are articles and statements from politicians saying the firearms are visible in holsters not safely locked in vehicles.

Now if the articles and politicians are wrong then Police Scotland should have made that clear. However if there had been greater transparency in the first place then there wouldn't have been the opportunity for such confusion.

Having visibly armed police responding to routine calls is a major change in policy and isn't a decision that should be made just by the police. They are unelected. There are both politicians and former police calling for a debate in parliament about this.

By Christ I wish there was more of them. The amount of times I have been sent to a firearms incident but been told "be careful"........then over an hour later arv's arrive!

APlaceInTheWinter - agree. I hope they do have a debate about it.

Growl - I don't really see that. The media drawing attention to something that is happening now while Scotland is still part of the Union is more likely to provide the Yes campaign with an opportunity to say they would change things if Scotland was independent.

But Nicky the issue isn't whether there are more of them, the issue is that police wearing holstered firearms on routine calls represents a major change in policy and as such should have been debated. The lack of consultation in parliament is ridiculous. We simply should not be in a situation where even politicians who sit on justice/policing committee were not even aware of this change.

Sorry should have said Nick not Nicky .

This isn't about the independence debate. One of the first politicians to raise the issue is pro-independence. Plus some of the regions in England have a similar policy so the independence debate doesn't really impact on it or vice versa.

The article is incredibly misleading as was the photo. There have always been armed officers on duty. Your average police car crew arent armed. Its still a specialised unit but now unlike the 'old days' they carry their weapons as routine. it means they're a faster response.

If you phone the police to report a 'regular' crime you're not going to have an armed officer attending.

Typical media put a dramatic slant on it

I did not see the report.

But............ back in the early 1990s there were 'routine' armed officers patrolling in Manchester.

But 'routine' does not mean 24 hours a day.

Redglitter I'm unsure which article you are talking about. The reports I've read have come from Police Scotland, politicians, both broadsheet and tabloid press. The comments/statements I've read are from politicians across the political spectrum and former police.
You may not share the OP's concerns but it is rather patronising to base your response on one article you have read especially since your understanding of the situation seems to contradict the many other sources I've outlined above.
Personally I put more weight in official statements from the police and politicians than I put in media articles and strangers on the internet.

531 officers trained in the use of firearms and 275 dedicated firearms officers

source here which also outlines Police Scotland's response to the MSPs

Eurotrashgirl, all police in Northern Ireland carry guns. Solopower1 - the PSNI are, I think, the most calm, controlled, professional police in the world. They have to be as every summer they have to stand still in a line in their riot gear under a hail of breeze blocks, petrol bombs and worse, and if one of the howling mob of rioters so much as breaks their own fingernail whilst ripping a wall apart to throw bits of it at the police line, the police will be accused of brutality etc. Same goes for house searches and all the rest- nobody knows their rights like the good people of Belfast. Any cops I have seen here are very calm and steady at dealing with the run-of-the-mill obnoxious drunks and defusing situations using just words, I have never seen one touch the gun on their hip - they wear them pretty unobtrusively.
I know that the debate or lack thereof about whether the police should be armed is a major big deal and is a different argument, but the actual reality of armed police is OK from what I've seen.

Thanks for the link, Wilson.

Without getting into the politics, policing under the circumstances you describe, Noddingoff, must be horrendous. It's hard to imagine what it's like to get up and go to work knowing that the people you are supposed to be protecting hate you and want to attack you. It must make you very nervous and angry and resentful - and your training would have to be extremely rigorous to make sure you can overcome your natural response to hit back. I can't imagine why anyone would do that job.

It's equally hard to imagine what it must be like to have massive numbers of armed police on the streets. I have great respect for the police, but if I knew they were carrying guns, I would resent them. I would feel as if I was being occupied by a foreign army. The sight of a uniform would not make me feel protected but threatened, resentful and angry.

A government that has to enforce its will by using an armed police force is a government that has failed to persuade people that it is better for them to obey the law. That might mean that the laws are undemocratic or unfair.

After the Referendum in September, 30 - 40% of the people in Scotland are going to be angry, disappointed and rebellious, whoever wins. Are we going to need the police to be armed then - is that what this is all about or am I being ridiculously paranoid?

That's why I think we need to get this out in the open. Debate it. If there are good reasons for arming the police - even if it's only a tiny number of them - then let's hear the arguments.

Am I following you correctly? You think police in Scotland are being armed by stealth in order to shoot its citizens when they rise up in protest after a no vote in September?

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I hope not!

Maybe it's more to do with the rise of UKIP. But then why isn't it happening in England?

Until we know why they are doing it, our imaginations are free to run wild ...

Solo. How many times do I need to say it? There have always been armed police on duty, nothing has altered apart from they are more proactive in patrol, and at the same time will try not to become too involved in arrests etc in order to be deployed for their primary function.

And yes, I think you are being totally paranoid to think this has anything to do with the referendum.

Have a look about this weekend and let me know if you see any of the armed police that you think are patrolling the streets of Scotland. You may see their vehicle, perhaps en route to an incident, but I doubt you see any on foot patrol. I bet my pension you will see regular, unarmed officers.

I hope so, Nicknacky.

One of the media headlines was "children searched by armed officers". No further details were given buy I would love to know the real story behind that dramatic attention-grabbing headline.

Take the media with a pinch of salt, anything to have a go at the police.

Nicknacky I really don't think this is about having a go at the police. It's the decision making process and the dissemination of information that is being criticised. That's the responsibility of the Justice Minister, parliament and then possibly the police.

I'm also unclear why it matters if Solo sees an armed office this weekend? Members of the electorate in the Highlands and Islands complained to their MSP about armed police near/in a supermarket and near/in a nightclub. They weren't responding to armed incidents just helping with routine patrols, whilst armed.

My issue with this is that there was no cross-party consultation and that the situation has changed from weapons being held at a base with the need for authorisation from a senior officer, to weapons being carried on regular patrols which means the chain of authorisation has been removed. Can you genuinely not see how that is different and why it raises concerns for some people?

As to why this isn't happening in England, Nottingham has had armed police patrols for years, it's already happened.