Writing in The Herald yesterday, Graeme Pearson, founding director of the Scottish Crime and Drug Enforcement Agency (SCDEA), identified the question around which all others revolve in the debate about the future of policing in this country. Which model will deliver the best police services for the public and for Scotland's economic advancement? Much is up for grabs. Should there still be eight forces, or fewer? How will their responsibilities change? Should they change?

Change is already under way, with the recently-created Scottish Police Services Authority (SPSA), originally established as an organisation largely undertaking back-office functions, taking on a more interventionist role, possibly including serious fraud investigations and terrorism. Change seems to be occurring against the backdrop of the lack of an explicit political strategy for the future direction of policing. The situation has led some senior officers to complain about a creeping centralisation of the police. Any review of policing must examine whether we require, and can justify, the existing model of eight forces. Could the job be done with fewer forces sharing a greater number of common services?

If there is a vested interest to protect, armour will be donned. The police are no different from any other organisation in looking out for their own. But when Steve House, the chief constable of Strathclyde, warns that transferring key functions to the SPSA would harm his force's frontline policing, it becomes a much bigger matter than protecting turf. The SCDEA has had notable success in the battle against drug dealing and trafficking, and other major crimes. What will be its future role in relation to the SPSA and will the success rate be maintained in any new landscape? If there is a drive towards centralisation, what will that mean for local accountability? Successful forces enjoy the confidence and the support of local communities. Can these links be maintained under centralisation? There are plenty of questions, and Scotland's chief constables, by and large, want them to be raised and debated in public. Does the public not fund the police? Does it not depend on forces to keep communities safe and secure?

Does it not, then, have a right to participate fully in the debate? We believe it does. However, Bridget Campbell, the Holyrood civil servant in charge of police and public safety, has told chief constables and police boards that further public debate about the role of the SPSA and other policing matters is unhelpful. It is, perhaps, from her perspective and that of the SPSA, but it is not from the view of the forces and the public. The debate should be up front and out in the open. There is absolutely no case for stifling future discourse on this vital topic. Ms Campbell's advice should be ignored.