The Holyrood Revolution: Why Doubling FMQs Might Be a Game-Changer (or a Total Distraction)
If you’ve been following Scottish politics lately, you’ve probably heard the buzz about Holyrood’s latest shake-up. Kenneth Gibson, the new Presiding Officer, has just announced that First Minister’s Questions (FMQs) will now take place twice a week. On the surface, it sounds like a procedural tweak. But personally, I think this is far more significant than it seems. It’s not just about more questions; it’s about reshaping how accountability works in Scottish politics—or at least, that’s the hope.
The Mechanics of the Change (and Why They Matter)
Here’s the gist: backbenchers get 30 minutes on Tuesdays, and party leaders get the same on Thursdays. Anas Sarwar and Malcolm Offord will alternate who goes first, with a cheeky twist: Gibson might occasionally let smaller parties like the Lib Dems or Greens kick things off. What makes this particularly fascinating is the unpredictability it introduces. Politics thrives on routine, but Gibson’s “devilment” could inject a much-needed dose of spontaneity.
But let’s dig deeper. One thing that immediately stands out is the decision to stop publishing backbenchers’ questions in advance. From my perspective, this is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it could make ministers sweat a bit more, forcing them to think on their feet. On the other, it risks turning FMQs into a gotcha game rather than a serious policy debate. What many people don’t realize is that transparency in questioning can actually elevate the discourse—when everyone knows what’s coming, there’s less room for evasion.
The Broader Implications: Is This a Power Grab or a Power Shift?
Gibson claims these changes will make parliament “more official, topical, and effective.” I’m skeptical. While doubling FMQs could theoretically increase scrutiny, it also risks diluting the impact of each session. If you take a step back and think about it, the real test isn’t the frequency of questions but the quality of answers. Will John Swinney, the First Minister, feel more pressure with two sessions a week? Or will this just become a twice-weekly PR exercise?
What this really suggests is that Holyrood is trying to redefine its relationship with the Scottish government. Gibson’s mandate to “make government more accountable” is ambitious, but accountability isn’t just about asking more questions—it’s about getting meaningful responses. In my opinion, the success of this reform hinges on whether MSPs can use the extra time to dig deeper into issues rather than just score political points.
The Hidden Details That Could Change Everything
A detail that I find especially interesting is the increase in general questions to ministers—from 8 to 18 per week. This could be a game-changer for backbenchers, giving them more opportunities to challenge the government. But here’s the catch: more questions don’t automatically mean better scrutiny. If MSPs aren’t prepared or if the questions are superficial, this could just become noise.
Another subtle change is the adjustment to debate times. Gibson wants interventions to be “short and sharp,” with the time added to the speaker’s allocation. Personally, I think this is a smart move. It encourages engagement without derailing the debate. But it also raises a deeper question: are MSPs ready to adapt to this faster-paced, more interactive style?
The Cultural Shift: Is Holyrood Ready for a New Era?
What’s most intriguing about these reforms is the cultural shift they imply. Gibson is clearly trying to move Holyrood away from its traditional, somewhat staid approach. His clampdown on points of order—which he calls an “abuse of procedure”—shows he’s serious about efficiency. But here’s the thing: politics is as much about culture as it is about rules. Will MSPs embrace this new, more dynamic style, or will they resist it?
From my perspective, the success of these reforms depends on whether Holyrood can balance tradition with innovation. Gibson’s vision is bold, but it’s also risky. If MSPs see this as an opportunity to elevate their game, it could transform Scottish politics. If they treat it as just another procedural change, it’ll be a missed opportunity.
The Future: Will This Be a Turning Point or a Footnote?
So, is this the beginning of a new era for Holyrood, or just a temporary distraction? Personally, I’m cautiously optimistic. Doubling FMQs could be the catalyst Holyrood needs to become more vibrant and responsive. But it’s not enough on its own. What’s needed is a fundamental shift in how MSPs approach their roles—less grandstanding, more substance.
If you ask me, the real test will come in six months. Will these changes have made a tangible difference in how the Scottish government is held to account? Or will they just be another footnote in Holyrood’s history? Only time will tell. But one thing’s for sure: Kenneth Gibson has just thrown down the gauntlet. Now it’s up to everyone else to pick it up.
Final Thought
As John Swinney quipped when asked about the changes, “Bring it on.” I couldn’t agree more. But let’s be clear: doubling FMQs isn’t just about bringing more questions—it’s about bringing more depth, more rigor, and more accountability. Whether Holyrood rises to the challenge remains to be seen. But one thing’s certain: Scottish politics just got a lot more interesting.
