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?

"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?"

I'm a bit late to this discussion, but firearms were never held at the base until there was a call. What possible use would the firearms be in a base? Either your officers sit at base all day twiddling their thumbs, or if you send them out to earn their pay, then on getting a firearms shout they would have to hare back, get their gear, and THEN go out.

Firearm crews have modified cars, which depending on force areas have lockers either fitted in the cabin or the boot which contained the sidearms (pistols). The guns are always in the car. Locked up, but with them. In the unlikely but serious event that you get a report of an active shooter in the vein of the Cumbrian Shootings, you need to go straight there - not via a half-hour detour (if you're lucky) back to base. That's what they're basing this on - the once-in-a-decade occasion when you wish every single officer was armed.
On being called out to a shout, they would - as standard practice - open that locker and equip themselves with their sidearms, because presumably if they were being called on at all, it was for a suspected firearms shout. They never needed higher authority to get their sidearms out - they were being sent to a job because they were armed. That's the entire point.

Opening the big box in the boot that held their MP5/G36 rifles (depending on force area and roles) would be following approval by head shed on a case by case basis, although exact procedure may vary force-to-force.

All the new practice says is they carry their sidearms as standard practice, even if they're assisting a non-firearms shout. Nothing more. It's not more guns on the street, more armed officers, nor anything else. They're just carrying them routinely instead of leaving them in the car. And they were always in the car, never back at base.

Scotland IS NOT going from a scenario where guns were solely held in an armoury to where they are being routinely carried on the streets. You've got it into your head that they're making a much larger policy change than they actually are.

If you go to pretty much any other country in the world, all Police carry sidearms all the time. A minor change in when the small number of armed response units do and don't carry their guns is of no real consequence whatsoever. Just because the Daily Record wanted to hype it doesn't make it significant...

Hunton my concern was not based on an article in the Daily Record. Perhaps you missed my earlier post outlining where I'd obtained information?
I'm not sure whether you deliberately missed my other point or just chose to ignore it or if you're questioning the veracity of the information issued by both politicians and former police about the chain of command ie an armed response had to be authorised. Now there are police carrying sidearms who are carrying out regular duties.

I don't care what police carry in other countries. I've worked in parts of the world where security is provided by the army carrying AK47s and their equivalent. That doesn't change the fact that I do not want a decision about police in Scotland carrying side arms to be made without adequate public and political scrutiny.

And if there is confusion about the exact nature of the changes (as is blatantly obvious from this thread) then that could have been avoided by transparency on the part of Police Scotland and the Justice Minister.

Agree, APlaceInTheWinter.

The point is that most of us thought the police weren't armed. Now we find out that some of them are, some of the time, and when we ask why, we are told that nothing has changed, there have always been armed police on the streets. That is my point. This is not something that should happen like this.

We need to have a discussion about why officers now feel it is necessary to carry arms rather than leave them in the car, or, better, back at base.

I think the media is blowing this out of proportion. There is definitely a need for some officers to be readily armed. There is a significant number of Scottish residents who own and can readily access firearms along with all the illegal ones. Any situation can escalate quickly and officers should be able to call for back up or be able to deal with dangerous situations quickly and safely - let's remember police officers are only people, they are putting their lives at risk for the benefit of the rest if us so they should be offered better protection as should the victims of crime and the general public.

Uk policing is policing by consent and it is a misconception that officers are mostly armed, it is just not the case. Use and deployment of armed police is closely monitored and scrutinised, and only used in rare situations. Again you should raise concerns with your MSP but your concerns will be balanced against those who have benefited from armed police deployments.

If an officer is carrying a taser this will be counted as an armed officer which again skews figures.

I am not sure how people did not think some police were routinely armed? The horrific incident at Woolwich barracks where Lee Rigby was murdered showed armed police deployment within seven minutes of the call to police albeit to late to save his life very sadly.

peskyginge I think you're confusing the situation across the UK. The incident at Woolwich barracks was in England. Their police force has a different policy from Scotland.

And even in Scotland, the policy used to vary across the country with some cities/regions having a different approach to others.

It's a bit of a straw man to imply this is an argument about police being better protected. It is actually about a change in policy being made by an unelected official (head of Police Scotland) and bypassing the usual channels for such a change (cross-party group on justice).

It is also about removing a step in the chain of authority for deploying armed officers. In the past as Hunton said someone called them out on a shout . That someone made the decision that the situation needed an armed tactical response. And at that stage, the officers accessed their weapons. Now, they have access to their weapons on standard patrols, it is a substantial difference.

If it had been discussed through the usual, government channels then not only would those interested have been aware of the difference but the electorate would also have been aware of any party political differences on the subject. Bypassing the usual channels has meant this decision has suffered from a lack of transparency and accountability. Both of which are cornerstones of democracy.

To think that an incident similar to Woolwich could not or would not happen in Scotland is very naive.

How do you know that this decision did not involve public consultation? And there are areas of Scotland that are very violent and involve organised criminals. Now policing has been centralised it will be a difficult job to manage the areas of risk across such a large physical area and of varying levels of demand. Again I think it is the media sensationalising something that inherently hasn't changed.

I do not believe that firearms were stored in a building and if they were needed officers had to go and get them, I think this is misinformation. It is true that if any incident is declared a firearms incident then highly trained high ranking officers take command however they can do this remotely.

The reality is that there are aspects of our society who don't respond to pink and fluffy so in order to protect ourselves and those protecting us there has unfortunately got to be contingencies to cover all possibilities. And you do get a voice, it is through your elected parliament. All officers carrying firearms in the uk have been authorised by the home office.

I don't want to give the impression that I'm in any way antidemocratic, but I would much rather the decision to arm police or not (which I know is not what has happened here) is one taken by people who know about the need, protocols and day to day realities than the sort of frankly insane people who think this is some massive conspiracy to shoot civilians after a 'No' vote in a referendum

Seriously? At the risk of repeating myself because obviously it wasn't clear all the other times I posted it : the politicians on the cross - party group were not involved in this decision. It was brought to their attention when their constituents questioned why they had armed police at the supermarket and at a nightclub. It was then raised by various MSPs who were informed the Justice Minister made the decision with the head of Police Scotland. This is what concerns me . Our elected representatives who are supposed to be involved in discussions and decisions about justice were not consulted.

peskyginge please point me to the posts that say either that Woolwich couldn't happen in Scotland or that criminals should be dealt with in a 'pink and fluffy' manner. They're not on this thread.

Obviously there are people who are quite happy for the policy to have changed because of centralisation or/and because they think the police should be trusted to police themselves. You're entitled to think that. I'm entitled to think it should have been discussed beforehand and that, politically, it sets a precedent that makes me very uncomfortable.

Oh, is that me, Sparechange?

I think that the people who live in the 'day to day realities' should have a lot of say in how we are policed. But there should be checks and limits, and any policy changes should be discussed.

I don't think that sounds insane. It's not even particularly extreme.

And yes, I would imagine there are contingency plans in place to calm any disgruntled voters after the referendum - whatever the result.