Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,726
|
Post by Adrian on Sept 30, 2016 22:22:49 GMT
Quite a lot of good features in your plan. Some things we agree on, like Glasgow. I've got my main boundary in South Scotland between Ayrshire and Galloway, but if like you I had the main boundary between Dumfries and Borders, my plan wouldn't be much different I'm sure. But I still prefer my plan on balance, partly because it needs fewer ward splits, though ironically I guess that's of marginal importance in Scotland's case.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Oct 2, 2016 11:41:03 GMT
The rest remains largely the same. Split towns which can fit within one constituency : East Kilbride (East Kilbride and Rutherglen; Hamilton West and Uddingston) Hamilton (Hamilton East and Clydesdale; Hamilton West and Uddingston) Inverness (Inverness North, Caithness and Sutherland; Inverness South, Lochaber and Skye) Renfrew (Central Renfrewshire; Paisley and Barrhead) Ntyuk - Nice plans. I find them very instructive in the matter of the pros and cons of ward-splitting, an issue that is particularly acute in Scotland because of the large size of the STV-based wards. You've actually been quite sparing with the split wards, with (I think at a rapid count) about fifteen across Scotland (BCS will have considerably more, I suspect). And you've managed to avoid town-splitting with the few exceptions listed above (and also Bearsden, I believe). I think I'm right in saying you've also avoided three-area seats. A while ago I posted a plan that splits no wards at all and also eschews three-area seats. But it goes heavier (but still not overboard) on the town splits: - Ayr (C Ayrshire; S Ayrshire & Galloway)
- Bishopbriggs (Glasgow E; Glasgow N)
- Cambuslang (Glasgow SE; Hamilton)
- E KIlbride (E Kilbride; Hamilton)
- Helensburgh (Southern Highlands & Argyll; Dumbarton)
- Inverness (Central Highlands & Skye; Northern Highlands & Inverness)
- Livingston (Linlithgow; Livingston)
- Renfrew (Glasgow SW; Paisley)
In addition, I'm putting up my hand to separating Cumbernauld village from the new town, and Wishaw from Motherwell, but I don't think these strictly count as town splits. I'd also say, in extenuation of the splits of Bishopbriggs, Cambuslang and Renfrew, that these places are essentially suburbs of Glasgow and splitting them doesn't seem so bad as splitting a free-standing town. Elsewhere, it is at least clear in E Kilbride, Helensburgh, Inverness and Livingston which seat incorporates the bulk of the town including its central area; it's only outlying parts of the town that have been split off (I think my Inverness split is preferable to yours in this respect). And I'm pleased to have avoided the splits of other towns such as Irvine, Port Glasgow, Peebles and Arbroath that have been involved in some other schemes posted here; as well as of Hamilton and Kirkintilloch that seem to be almost de rigueur. The split that really rankles with me is Ayr. I tried hard to keep the town together and I did find a way, but It results in a terrible three-area seat consisting of Galloway and various random off-cuts of East and South Ayrshire; on the whole, the Ayr split seemed the less horrible solution. Even so, I feel that eight town splits across Scotland is a lot fewer than might be expected from a non-ward-split scheme, and on the whole I'm satisfied with it. And so we await the proposals of the BCS, whose motto, judging by the zombie, will be: 'Why decide between town splits and ward splits, when you can have both?'
|
|
|
Post by islington on Oct 2, 2016 13:04:10 GMT
Ntyuk -
Thanks for getting back on this and for providing a local perspective (which is obviously much more valuable than the north London perspective that I am supplying).
The three-area seat that my plan would need is actually even worse. It combines the westernmost five wards of D&G with the southernmost three of E Ayrshire, plus Kyle from S Ayrshire. If you can stomach this little combination, your reward is a quite pleasing seat consisting of the whole of S Ayrshire except Kyle, which keeps together the whole of Ayr, Prestwick and Troon together with the Carrick wards. I think there's a plausible case for this plan, but I balked at the Galloway/Cumnock/Kyle seat and I also wanted to be able to claim that I had no three-area seats, so in the end I settled for splitting Ayr.
(There is a much uglier (but legal) alternative, which is to combine the three Ayr wards and the two Carrick wards with the three eastern wards of D&G ('Ayr and Wigtown'?); this leaves Prestwick, Troon, Kyle, plus the three southern wards of E Ayrshire, plus Castle Douglas and Dee from D&G as - well, I don't know - 'Central Ayrshire and Kirkcudbright'?)
|
|
|
Post by islington on Oct 3, 2016 10:00:57 GMT
Ntyuk (or anyone else with an interest in this, as we mark time awaiting the BCS announcement) -
In dividing Ayr, I was essentially prioritizing the avoidance of three-area seats over the avoidance of town splits.
But I've now had a quick look at what happens if you reverse this priority, and decide that three-area seats aren't that much of a problem. On this basis, and still completely eschewing ward splits, I can get rid of three of my eight town splits, including the really horrible one in Ayr. It does involve three three-area seats, however.
I'm not at my usual computer and can't easily post a map, but:
SOUTH AYRSHIRE (or 'Ayr and Carrick', possibly) - All of S Ayrshire area except Kyle, thus keeping Ayr undivided and in the same seat as Prestwick and Troon. 77352 EAST AYRSHIRE AND GALLOWAY - The western five wards of D&G plus E Ayrshire area except for Kilmarnock and Annick. In this configuration (i.e. with Irvine Valley and without Kyle) it's only a two-area seat, but it still looks pretty horrible to me (local eyes may see it differently, of course). 76181 KILMARNOCK AND IRVINE - The first three-area seat, drawing from E Ayrshire (the four Kilmarnock wards); N Ayrshire (the two Irvine wards); S Ayrshire (Kyle). But its three-area nature is really the only exception to what looks a comact and very reasonable seat. 78033 SOUTH RENFREWSHIRE AND STEWARTON - It's certainly better than this, the second three-area seat: E Ayrshire (Annick); Renfrewshire (the two Johnstone wards); and the whole of E Renfrewshire except Giffnock and Netherlee. 78042 GLASGOW SOUTH - Giffnock and the three Glasgow wards of Pollok, Newlands, Langside. This actually looks a very reasonable seat. 72670 GLASGOW SOUTH EAST - The third three-area seat: Glasgow (Linn and Southside); S Lanarkshire (the Rutherglen wards); E Renfrewshire (Netherlee). Considering its downright peculiar administrative geography (two non-contiguous Glasgow wards that contribute most of its numbers, plus three other wards from two different areas), this is a much better-looking seat than it has any right to be. 74702 EAST KILBRIDE - All five E Kilbride wards (!!! - this is a rarity), plus Avondale. 72689 HAMILTON (or 'Hamilton and Cambuslang') - The three Hamilton wards, both Cambuslang wards, and Blantyre. 77592
So this arrangement introduces no additional town splits and resolves the splits in Cambuslang, E Kilbride and (best of all) Ayr. But are the three three-area seats (and the Galloway / E Ayrshire mess) too high a price to pay?
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,726
|
Post by Adrian on Oct 3, 2016 20:58:53 GMT
Finalising my Scotland plan and noticed that I can tweak the North East to avoid splitting a ward, which would mean no splits north of the Forth. But it would mean a 3-district seat. How acceptable do you think it is? ukelect.files.wordpress.com/2016/07/scotlandne.png
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Inactivist
Posts: 5,551
|
Post by Foggy on Oct 3, 2016 21:56:31 GMT
Finalising my Scotland plan and noticed that I can tweak the North East to avoid splitting a ward, which would mean no splits north of the Forth. But it would mean a 3-district seat. How acceptable do you think it is? I was under the impression that there's no need for any untidiness north of Tayside and the Firth of Clyde, even without ward splits. It's the central belt where things really start to get tricky.
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,726
|
Post by Adrian on Oct 3, 2016 22:39:07 GMT
Ah but my plan respects the border between Argyll and Dunbartonshire, while most people's don't, afaiaa.
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Inactivist
Posts: 5,551
|
Post by Foggy on Oct 4, 2016 1:06:39 GMT
Fair enough. That would explain why the area immediately to the north of the Firth could end up looking less than neat on the map.
|
|
Eastwood
Non-Aligned
Politically restricted post
Posts: 2,087
|
Post by Eastwood on Oct 4, 2016 10:10:09 GMT
Ah but my plan respects the border between Argyll and Dunbartonshire, while most people's don't, afaiaa. Of all the borders to respect I wouldn't bother with that one. Of course Helensburgh is not and never has been part of Argyll. It has since 1975 been part of Argyll & Bute. Historically it was part of Dunbartonshire and today has many more practical links with Glasgow than it does with Lochgilphead. Come Scottish Local Government reorganisation I'd hope to see Helensburgh and Lomond separated from Argyllshire proper.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2016 14:14:44 GMT
Ah but my plan respects the border between Argyll and Dunbartonshire, while most people's don't, afaiaa. Of all the borders to respect I wouldn't bother with that one. Of course Helensburgh is not and never has been part of Argyll. It has since 1975 been part of Argyll & Bute. I thought it was only moved into Argyll & Bute in 1996.
|
|
Eastwood
Non-Aligned
Politically restricted post
Posts: 2,087
|
Post by Eastwood on Oct 6, 2016 17:15:20 GMT
Of all the borders to respect I wouldn't bother with that one. Of course Helensburgh is not and never has been part of Argyll. It has since 1975 been part of Argyll & Bute. I thought it was only moved into Argyll & Bute in 1996. You're quite correct. Dumbarton district was cleaved in 2 in 1996. A daft border in my opinion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 6, 2016 17:25:40 GMT
I thought it was only moved into Argyll & Bute in 1996. You're quite correct. Dumbarton district was cleaved in 2 in 1996. A daft border in my opinion. Was it one of those (failed) Tory gerrymanders, or is that whole thing a bit of a myth?
|
|
Eastwood
Non-Aligned
Politically restricted post
Posts: 2,087
|
Post by Eastwood on Oct 6, 2016 18:55:56 GMT
You're quite correct. Dumbarton district was cleaved in 2 in 1996. A daft border in my opinion. Was it one of those (failed) Tory gerrymanders, or is that whole thing a bit of a myth? Clackmannanshire was very much a gerrymander to keep Stirling constituency as Conservative as possible for Michael Forsyth. Not sure how realistic anyone thought a Conservative win in Argyll and Bute was in 1997 so a different case there really. I think the Helensburgh mess happened for 2 main reasons. Firstly it made Argyll and Bute a bit larger and viable as a Unitary Authority. Secondly it kept Tory voting Helensburgh out of the Clydebank dominated West Dunbartonshire for low council tax purposes. Personally I think the better solution would have been to include Glencoe and Lochaber in Argyll and Bute to give it critical mass. That would have reduced the size of unwieldy Highland and Glencoe was formerly in Argyllshire until 1976 (it was moved a year after the main 1975 reorganisation).
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Oct 6, 2016 20:09:18 GMT
Let's take a moment to remember that, while in England the local government structure and boundary review process was handed over to an independent body, in Scotland it was down to the Scottish Office. There was a consultation paper published in October 1992 which gave several options:
1) 15 authorities 2) 24 authorities 3) 35 authorities 4) 51 authorities
The eventual boundaries were announced in a White Paper called 'Shaping the future - the New Councils' (Cm 2267) in July 1993.
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,726
|
Post by Adrian on Oct 7, 2016 4:45:35 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 7, 2016 7:25:32 GMT
Let's take a moment to remember that, while in England the local government structure and boundary review process was handed over to an independent body, in Scotland it was down to the Scottish Office. There was a consultation paper published in October 1992 which gave several options: 1) 15 authorities 2) 24 authorities 3) 35 authorities 4) 51 authorities The eventual boundaries were announced in a White Paper called 'Shaping the future - the New Councils' (Cm 2267) in July 1993. Do you know whether that consultation paper (or its content) is available online anywhere? I'd be interested to see the various options.
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Oct 7, 2016 8:13:04 GMT
Let's take a moment to remember that, while in England the local government structure and boundary review process was handed over to an independent body, in Scotland it was down to the Scottish Office. There was a consultation paper published in October 1992 which gave several options: 1) 15 authorities 2) 24 authorities 3) 35 authorities 4) 51 authorities The eventual boundaries were announced in a White Paper called 'Shaping the future - the New Councils' (Cm 2267) in July 1993. Do you know whether that consultation paper (or its content) is available online anywhere? I'd be interested to see the various options. The consultation paper was a departmental publication, not a Command Paper, which means it's less available than it might be. But if I can get round to it, I'll produce a pdf.
|
|
Eastwood
Non-Aligned
Politically restricted post
Posts: 2,087
|
Post by Eastwood on Oct 7, 2016 8:58:37 GMT
Do you know whether that consultation paper (or its content) is available online anywhere? I'd be interested to see the various options. The consultation paper was a departmental publication, not a Command Paper, which means it's less available than it might be. But if I can get round to it, I'll produce a pdf. There was certainly a copy in the University of Edinburgh library. I would imagine there is also one in the National Library of Scotland. Not seen an online copy.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,371
Member is Online
|
Post by YL on Oct 8, 2016 18:21:08 GMT
Can't you avoid splitting Inverness by tweaking the zombie review's proposals? You also don't then need to take a bit off Moray. As for the names of the Highland seats, I can't really think of anything better than "Northern Highlands", but "Highlands South" is not a good name as that area doesn't contain any of what I'd think of as the southern Highlands. (Highland council area is not the same as "the Highlands".) "Inverness-shire" isn't too cumbersome and isn't terribly inaccurate, though some people in Nairn and Wester Ross might complain.
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Oct 8, 2016 19:54:40 GMT
|
|