Why the row over arming police proves we’ve forgotten how to debate |
Last weekend, Neil Mackay reported on calls by the head of the Police Federation for greater access to firearms for officers. The response has been pitiful, he argues.
The debate around whether or not Scottish police officers should have greater access to firearms has been pitiful since the moment the story broke in the Herald last Sunday.
Those on the left immediately attacked the notion, while those on the right immediately lent their support. It was a case of ‘cops are baddies’ on one side, and ‘lets shoot some baddies’ on the other.
Neither side was interested in the substance of the debate. Each simply chose a preordained position which was the best fit for their own particular brand of siloed ideological purity.
The media response was no better. A discussion on BBC Radio Scotland on Sunday included the unedifying moment an alleged commentator said that the calls for greater access to firearms came with no context.
The Herald on Sunday carried a 4000 word in-depth report on the issue, as well as a shorter 1000 word news story to summarise the main talking points.
I’m not sure what greater context is required from a newspaper. A separate supplement, perhaps?
How culture war turned George Orwell into a disposable meme
Tarantino’s tirade and the death of criticism
Podcasts have become intolerable, ubiquitous and pointless
The joy of a great Scottish ghost story
The call for greater access to firearms emerged during lengthy discussions I had with David Kennedy, the head of the Scottish Police Federation (SPF), which represents 98% of serving officers.
Kennedy was discussing the SPF’s new manifesto for wide-ranging police reform ahead of the forthcoming Scottish elections.
Much of what he said was highly technical and focused on management and reorganisation.
However, the SPF is also worried about the level of violence officers face, and the level of violence on the streets.
Kennedy told me that “every single police officer” will suffer from PTSD at some point in their career.
We discussed police being chased by assailants wielding chainsaws, and youths roaming city streets with machetes.
We discussed how few officers are equipped with tasers to protect themselves and the public.
He made this comment: “If you walk out on the street in Scotland with a knife you should expect to be shot by police.”
Knives are lethal weapons, Kennedy made clear, and as such need to be met with potentially lethal force.
Kennedy advocates for what’s known as the New Zealand model. It sees firearms stored in every police car so officers have access to weapons in the event of a threat to life - either their life or the lives of citizens.
He insisted this wouldn't undermine the much-cherished principle of ‘policing by consent’, where officers are considered ‘citizens in uniform’ who uphold the law with the support of the people, rather than an armed organisation which enforces the law whether we like it or not.
David Kennedy, general secretary of the Scottish Police Federation. (Image: Colin Mearns)
My opinion mattered not a jot as I spoke to Kennedy. I was in the role of a reporter, and reporters should be invisible.
Today, in this column, it’s different. Here, I’m an opinion writer and it’s my job in this instance to tell you what I think, and engage in debate with readers.
When I report, I’m silent, I don’t exist. My personal beliefs are entirely irrelevant to my reporting and should play no part. When I’m an opinion writer I’m outspoken and my personal beliefs are the point.
So, as an opinion writer today, I want to share my thoughts on Kennedy’s suggestions. First, I respect his opinion. He has thought through his position, and what he offers for discussion is intelligent and worth considered debate - not knee-jerk partisanship.
I have family and friends in the police, so I’m aware of the crisis in Scottish policing, the pressures officers are under, and the risks they face. I wouldn’t be brave enough - or decent enough - to do the job.
I don’t see the police in binary black and white. The police, like all organisations, is a shade of grey. There are officers who would literally give their life for you. However, there are officers who abuse their power disgracefully.
The same holds true in education, the media, indeed all industries even the NHS. There are great teachers and there are rotten teachers.
Some clergy are like saints, others rape children. There are journalists working tirelessly to uncover the truth and others who lie. Some doctors and nurses are selfless heroes, some are unfit for the profession.
I understand why Kennedy wants greater access to weapons, and I empathise with his fears, but I don’t, on consideration, agree with him.
I fear there’s a slippery slope in play here: that increasing access to weapons would lead to guns being deployed more regularly. That clearly opens up a threat to policing by consent.
What I do favour, though, is every single officer being armed with tasers. That seems a suitable halfway house.
However, we aren’t having any sort of nuanced discussion about Kennedy’s suggestion.
The state of debate in Scotland on this issue has been shameful. The left simply hollers about how evil the police are, and the right seems to be salivating heartily at the thought of some criminals getting killed.
To the left, I would say: the police will not seem so evil when one day they save your life. To the right, I would say: you disgrace yourself and the police.
We have forgotten how to debate in this country. The response to Kennedy’s comments is a microcosm of every major societal and political issue which arises in Scotland.
From trans rights to bottle recycling, we find the position which suits our tribe and we dig in regardless.
We don’t even think. That’s what really gets me. Even if you are completely against arming the police, is it not good to debate?
If someone raises an issue - and does so in a respectful and intelligent fashion - should they not be treated to a hearing?
Do we not need to challenge our own beliefs - regularly and thoroughly? Today, we see the terminally online so unchanging and fixed in their opinions that they are like people made from concrete.
In truth, I feel sorry for such souls, whether on the left or right. To live with a mind so closed and inflexible must render them incapable of any real interior world. It must, in fact, be rather deadening.
Neither the police nor the public, nor indeed Scotland, deserves such intellectual failure.
Neil Mackay is The Herald’s Writer at Large. He’s a multi-award-winning investigative journalist, author of both fiction and non-fiction, and a filmmaker and broadcaster. He specialises in intelligence, security, extremism, crime, social affairs, cultural commentary, and foreign and domestic politics