Kenneth Gibson has opened a path toward a livelier and more accountable Scottish Parliament, but practical next steps are needed to make scrutiny real and backbench voices stronger.
The Scottish Parliament has long promised to distribute power and sharpen scrutiny. Recently, the new Presiding Officer made a series of practical moves that challenge the stage-managed tendencies which had crept into Holyrood. These changes aim to make parliamentary proceedings less predictable and more responsive to events, instead of rehearsed exchanges read from prepared notes.
The early measures deserve attention because they demonstrate intent: reform is being attempted, not merely discussed.
What matters now is whether these initial steps become part of a sustained programme to restore spontaneity, accountability and public interest to the chamber.
Reform is a process, not a single announcement. Achieving lasting change will require practical adjustments to how questions, debates and interventions are organised, and a willingness to shift power away from party managers toward individual Members of the Scottish Parliament.
Early changes that shift the parliamentary rhythm
Among the reforms introduced, one of the most consequential removes advance publication of the First Minister’s Questions. This move reduces the rehearsal effect and increases the likelihood of genuine scrutiny by forcing ministers to respond to immediate lines of inquiry rather than pre-notified prompts. Complementing that, tighter and more focused exchanges are being encouraged so that more MSPs can contribute. Shorter turns at questioning can make the chamber feel more dynamic and allow previously sidelined voices to engage with pressing issues.
Another practical adjustment is the restoration of time for interventions during debates. Previously, many Members avoided inviting interventions because they feared losing precious speaking time. Automatically restoring intervention slots fosters real-time challenge, turning scripted monologues into interactive discussions. When interventions are normalised, debate becomes more probing and less one-way, which improves scrutiny and makes proceedings more interesting for observers.
Making events work alongside chamber business
Holyrood has also reconsidered how it schedules parliamentary-related events. Too often organisations and visitors found their plans disrupted by shifting timetables. Allowing external events to proceed while chamber business continues recognises that Members are capable of choosing where their presence is most valuable. This change treats MSPs as trusted decision-makers and prevents unnecessary frustration for civic groups who travel to participate in parliamentary life.
Where further reform can deepen accountability
The changes so far are promising, but they leave important gaps. One area that needs attention is the structure and duration of Portfolio Questions. Large government departments bearing significant budgets and policy responsibilities should not be constrained to rushed half-hour sessions with limited follow-up. Extending these sessions to nearer an hour, while reserving a final segment for genuinely topical, unrehearsed questioning, would create greater pressure on ministers to account for unfolding events.
Accountability also depends on physical presence and timely debate. Ministers answering on-screen weaken the sense of direct responsibility; face-to-face responses in the chamber strengthen the link between decision and accountability. Similarly, Urgent Questions should be scheduled earlier in the day so that Parliament can address sudden developments while the public and media are still actively engaged.
Empowering backbenchers and reducing party gatekeeping
Another important reform direction is reducing party manager control over who speaks. Parliament should not be controlled by an internal gatekeeping system that limits contributions to those cleared by party offices. Introducing mechanisms that allow MSPs to apply directly to the Presiding Officer for speaking slots, along with a permanent Backbench Business Committee modelled on systems elsewhere, would let constituency issues and minority concerns reach the floor without being filtered through party hierarchy. This would restore a core principle: Parliament belongs to all its Members.
From initial steps to institutional culture change
The current programme of reform demonstrates leadership and a willingness to challenge institutional habits. For these adjustments to have lasting impact, they must be followed by cultural change within Holyrood: a shift toward embracing unpredictability, encouraging interventions, and accepting that robust scrutiny sometimes means uncomfortable or unscripted exchanges. If Session 7 evolves beyond cosmetic tweaks and becomes noticeably more responsive and engaging, Scottish democracy will be strengthened.
These proposals are not remedies in themselves but a roadmap. The immediate reforms are worthwhile because they reduce theatricality and increase the chance of real accountability. The next phase should expand scrutiny time, restore ministerial presence in the chamber, and empower backbenchers. If pursued seriously, these measures can make the Scottish Parliament less choreographed and more effective at serving the people it represents.
