The election of Scottish Parliament's Presiding Officer is a sham that must end

That moment will expose something that is rarely said out loud but widely understood inside Holyrood. The election of the Presiding Officer is not a genuine contest. It is, more often than not, settled in advance.

Everyone inside the building knows it. We just don’t say it. Party managers talk. Deals are done. Names are tested. A candidate emerges who is acceptable across the parties. By the time MSPs are asked to vote, the outcome has effectively been stitched up.

It is presented as a choice. It is nothing of the kind. And this time, the flaw will be even more obvious.

READ MORE: Scottish Parliament committee structure a 'joke' and debate quality 'woeful' – Alex Cole-Hamilton

The system assumes compliance

The next parliament will contain a large number of new members. Many will arrive with no prior parliamentary experience. They will not know the candidates. They will not have seen them operate in the chair. They will have no real sense of how they would exercise the authority of the office.

Yet they will be asked to vote. On what basis? On whose recommendation? In practice, many will rely on party briefings or quiet signals rather than any direct assessment of the candidates themselves. That is not a sound basis for a decision of this importance. It is a system that assumes compliance rather than judgment.

The idea that MSPs – particularly new MSPs – can responsibly elect one of the most important constitutional officeholders in Scotland without a campaign, without a prospectus and without hearing directly from the candidates is simply not credible.

For a parliament that claims to take its responsibilities seriously, that should be uncomfortable. After 25 years of devolution, it should be unacceptable.

READ MORE: Scottish Government special advisers 'must be brought out of the shadows and exposed to scrutiny'

Choreography, not democracy

There is no campaigning for the role. No hustings. No public case made by candidates. No published vision for how the parliament itself might be strengthened. Members are not asked to weigh competing approaches. They are expected to fall in behind a name.

That is not democracy. It is choreography. And it produces exactly the outcome you would expect. Candidates emerge not because they have set out a compelling case for leadership, but because they are the least objectionable option to the party machines.

That is not how a serious Parliament chooses one of its most important officeholders. Because the Presiding Officer is not just a chair keeping order. This is one of the great public offices in Scotland. The person in that role sets the tone for the entire institution.

The Presiding Officer decides whether backbenchers are heard or brushed aside. Whether ministers are pressed – or allowed to skate. Whether the parliament asserts itself or quietly steps back.

Those choices matter. They shape whether scrutiny is real or performative. They determine whether the chamber feels alive or managed. They define whether parliament sets the pace, or simply follows. That is not a passive role. It cannot be.

It requires judgment. Authority. And, at times, a willingness to make life uncomfortable for the government of the day. Too often, that edge has been missing.

Too easy for ministers

The Scottish Parliament has drifted into a position where it is too closely aligned with the government it is meant to scrutinise. The distance has narrowed. The edge has gone. Scrutiny is softened by party discipline. Challenge is treated as disruption.

It has become too easy for ministers to move through parliamentary business without being properly tested, without being forced to answer fully, and without being held to the standard the public expects.

Over time, this creates something more damaging – a culture of managed consent. The forms of accountability remain. The substance drains away.

Without strong, independent leadership from the chair, that is where the parliament will stay. That is why May 14 matters. If parliament’s seventh session is to mean anything, this is where it must start. There must be an open contest for Presiding Officer.

Once re-elected to parliament, candidates for the office should declare themselves in advance of the day of the vote. They should publish a clear prospectus – how they will strengthen scrutiny, rebalance the relationship with government and give the parliament its authority back.

There should be hustings. There should be speeches. Members should be able to test those seeking the role. That should be the bare minimum.

A real vote

Members should know who they are voting for, and what they are voting for. They should also be able to see how those candidates respond under pressure, how they think, and how they would act when the authority of the parliament is tested.

And then there should be a real vote. Not a managed outcome. Not something stitched up in advance. A decision. Nothing less is credible for a five-year constitutional office.

Scotland faces serious challenges in the years ahead. Public services are under strain. Economic pressure is real. And there is a growing sense that politics is not working as it should.

Strengthening parliament does not mean giving it new powers. It means using the powers it already has with purpose and resolve. That starts with who is in the chair.

If the next parliament cannot even change how it chooses its own Presiding Officer, it will struggle to change anything else.

The vote on May 14 is not a formality. It is a test. A test of whether Holyrood is prepared to loosen the grip of party control, trust its members, and act like the parliament Scotland was promised.

Stephen Kerr is a Scottish Conservative MSP for Central Scotland; Paul Sweeney is a Scottish Labour MSP for Glasgow; and Kenny Gibson is the SNP MSP for Cunninghame North