Armed response needs scrutiny

POLICE Scotland’s reaction in the wake of the Westminster terror attack was understandable.

Deputy chief constable Johnny Gwynne said yesterday there was a “substantial armed presence” on our streets.

The force’s first responsibility is to keep the public safe and as informed professionals, they reacted accordingly.

The Daily Record has in the past strongly campaigned against armed police being routinely deployed in towns and cities. And that remains our position.

Politicians urge us to return to normal life as soon as possible in defiance of the terrorists.

It is not normal in Scotland to have a policeman with a gun on every corner. But we appreciate that in times of a terrorist threat, armed officers are necessary.

Who knows what further damage Khalid Masood could have caused had he not been stopped by deadly force?

We know our world has changed. Terrorists can cause carnage with little more than a car and a knife.

And while our civil liberties may be at risk, we have to acknowledge there is an argument for more armed police to keep the public safe.

But the decision as to the extent the police should carry guns must come after a robust public debate, including our elected representatives and the force.

If we are to have more armed officers patrolling our streets, it must be because they are deemed absolutely necessary.

This country’s long-standing principle of policing by consent must be maintained. If the people consent to arm all our officers, then so be it.

Anything else would hand the terrorists a victory, which is something we must never allow.