A row has broken out after the head of the Scottish Police Federation attacked “point-scoring politicians” for interfering in the chief constable’s operational independence.
SPF chairman Brian Docherty said Sir Stephen House’s assessment of whether officers should be armed carried more weight “than NIMBY utopian views”.
His intervention follows the recent U-turn by the chief constable over allowing authorised firearms officers to openly carry weapons while on routine patrol.
Highland Council was one of the local authorities to lead the campaign against the policy which also fuelled criticism over Police Scotland’s lack of democratic accountability.
In a newspaper letter, Mr Docherty said Police Scotland had not dealt with the issue particularly well, but should be “applauded” for responding.
He said Sir Stephen was the right person to make decisions about policing and his approach should be “informed, but not determined by public opinion and certainly not by any point scoring politician”.
“The chief constable has access to the full risk and intelligence picture and is paid a lot of money to make difficult decisions,” Mr Docherty said.
“If all his information supports the need for a tiny proportion of officers to retain a standing firearms authority, this should carry greater weight than any NIMBY utopian view that gangsters and criminals don’t live in my area.”
Scottish Liberal Democrat justice spokeswoman Alison McInnes said the SPF should not set out to belittle local concerns over armed policing.
“It is false and demeans real local concerns to attempt to frame this as a debate between politicians and the chief constable,” the MSP for North-east Scotland said.
“This is a debate powered by local communities and their reasonable expectation of accountability in Scotland’s national police force.”
Scottish Labour justice spokesman Graeme Pearson said Mr Docherty appeared to approve “of policing by consent but apparently not if it means effective consultation and approval”.