Edinburgh officials and Reform Party lawmakers spar over new face‑covering bans, raising questions about security, religion and community cohesion in Scotland.
In recent months a noticeable rise in masked youths has been reported across several UK cities. In Edinburgh, cyclists and skateboarders appearing in balaclavas have become a familiar sight on the High Street, prompting local politicians to label the phenomenon an “epidemic” of antisocial behaviour.
At the same time, a motion tabled in the Scottish Parliament to restrict religious face coverings has ignited a heated debate about the balance between public safety and individual liberty.
The issue is no longer confined to anecdotal complaints; it now sits at the centre of policy discussions in both local government and Holyrood.
While some authorities cite the success of similar rules in English cities, others warn that blanket bans could alienate minority communities and fuel accusations of discrimination.
Edinburgh councillors press for balaclava restriction
Conservative MSP Miles Briggs and City Centre councillor Jo Mowat have urged Edinburgh City Council to introduce a by-law targeting individuals who wear balaclavas or other face coverings while engaging in disruptive conduct.
They argue that the anonymity provided by such garments emboldens a segment of young men to vandalise shops, harass pedestrians, and even ride quad-bikes through the pedestrian zone. Briggs recalls frequent calls from shop owners who say that assaults often involve masked perpetrators, stressing that “the sight of a masked group can be genuinely threatening”.
The duo points to Nottingham’s recent pilot scheme as a model. Since mid-September, Nottingham police and council officers have been empowered to demand the removal of face coverings in designated city-centre zones when there is a suspicion of criminal activity. Offenders can receive an on-the-spot fine of £70, have the garment seized, or be referred to an Immediate Justice programme that includes community work. Persistent violators may be served with a Criminal Behaviour Order, which can ban them from the city centre indefinitely. Briggs and Mowat contend that Edinburgh should adopt a comparable framework to restore confidence among shoppers and residents.
Holyrood debate pits Reform party against accusations of racism
Across the aisle, Reform Party deputy leader in Scotland Thomas Kerr tabled a motion calling for a ban on all face coverings—both criminally motivated balaclavas and religious garments such as the burka and niqab. In his speech, Kerr described the burka as “oppressive” and argued that modern Scotland “should not tolerate medieval clothing in public spaces”. The motion referenced bans already in place in several European nations, urging the Scottish Government to weigh the “potential benefits” for public safety, individual liberty, and community cohesion.
The proposal was met with swift condemnation from First Minister John Swinney who labelled the initiative as an attempt to “divide communities”. Swinney highlighted that in an open society, the choice of attire rests with the individual, especially women, and warned that targeting the burka could inflame tensions. Protesters outside Holyrood, including anti-racism activist Fatma El Araby argued that the Parliament should not police women’s religious dress. Conservative justice spokesman Stephen Kerr added an amendment insisting on a clear distinction between peaceful religious wear and masks used to conceal identity during criminal acts, reiterating that Reform had “wrongly conflated” the two issues.
Legal backdrop and wider UK context
Scotland already possesses limited powers to intervene when a face covering masks a suspect’s identity. Under Section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 senior police officers may authorize a stop-and-search in a designated area if they believe serious violence could occur or weapons are being carried. While the legislation does not expressly require the removal of a mask, the authority to search can lead to confiscation if the garment is deemed linked to criminal activity. In England and Wales, officers can declare “mask-free zones” for up to 24 hours during protests, imposing fines of up to £1,000 for non-compliance. Police Scotland has indicated it is monitoring the impact of similar powers elsewhere, but has not yet extended them to cover balaclavas or religious veils.
Both the Edinburgh initiative and the Reform motion reflect a broader UK trend of employing facial-covering bans as a tool against antisocial behaviour and perceived security threats. Nottingham’s experience shows that targeted, area-specific rules can be enforced with fines and community-service orders, yet critics argue that such measures risk criminalising ordinary citizens who wear masks for cultural or health reasons. As the Scottish debate continues, policymakers must navigate the fine line between protecting public spaces and respecting the diverse fabric of Scotland’s population.
