After the difficulties identifying a willing candidate to serve as Presiding Officer across a number of sessions, is there an argument for making Holyrood's PO a directly-elected, non-party political position? (The argument might be: nooooooo don't do this.)
Counterarguments? The PO is Holyrood's servant, not its master. A separate mandate might confuse issues. MSPs also have the chance to express their view of the candidate's temperament and behaviour towards colleagues - which the voting public wouldn't necessarily know about.
If anyone *did* want to do anything about this - you could. The legal provisions on the appoiment of the Presiding Officer in s.19 of the Scotland Act is one of those bits of the Act which Holyrood has the legislative competence to change under Schedule 4. legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/46/…
Political arguments against too? Setting up powerful figures with independent mandates risks creating alternative centres of power in a way which tends to make politicians queasy - hence why some republics don't directly elect even figurehead presidents with limited powers.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
