|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Apr 12, 2021 11:04:25 GMT
How crazy have previous BCS proposals been? I agree everybody here has ruled out a Drumochter seat, but if it was the BCE we were talking about then it certainly wouldn't be a surprising outcome for the initial proposals.
|
|
Eastwood
Non-Aligned
Politically restricted post
Posts: 2,085
|
Post by Eastwood on Apr 12, 2021 11:15:10 GMT
How crazy have previous BCS proposals been? I agree everybody here has ruled out a Drumochter seat, but if it was the BCE we were talking about then it certainly wouldn't be a surprising outcome for the initial proposals. There've been some odd seats proposed by BCS in the past. Drumochter is universally hated here but it doesn't break any rules so could be proposed. The reason I don't think we'll see Drumochter though is that it only really serves a purpose by avoiding a split of Moray. But to use it to avoid a Moray split you either have to create a Nairn - Perth leftovers seat monstrosity or you have to split Inverness. And both of those are pretty unarguably worse options than just splitting Moray anyway.
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Apr 12, 2021 11:37:05 GMT
I would agree, as would almost everybody. But Boundary Commissions can be weird about altering seats that don't mathematically require it, especially when they're co-extensive with a local authority.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,210
|
Post by YL on Apr 12, 2021 11:45:41 GMT
Surely it should be called "Straths of Tay and Spey".
|
|
|
Post by aidanthomson on Apr 12, 2021 14:57:32 GMT
The combined area of the Caithness seat and the Skye/Kintyre seat as drawn here is 28,705km2. So this combination isn't a runner. I was thinking that the Inverness seat could also help out by grabbing some of the less populated bits of Aird & Loch Ness, although in practice I think it'd be difficult to make it work unless you used the 12k rule for one of the seats. Without Aird & Loch Ness the combined area is 26,245km2 (and the electorate 130,715). So it would be a case of too much space and not enough people.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Apr 13, 2021 9:07:04 GMT
Looking at the various plans submitted here, I've been mulling over the question of grouping in Scotland. I know not everyone sees value in this approach, which is fine because we all have our own way of working, but personally I find it a very useful technique for ensuring that we get the right number of seats and don't end up overloaded or underloaded with electors in any particular area. As a preliminary observation, I think the acreage rule means it's effective unavoidable that A&B is linked with Highland; putting Ft William in with Argyll absorbs 2591 sq km that would otherwise have to be accommodated in a Highland seat, and a further 2064 if Caol is shifted as well. And even if both wards are included, the resulting Argyll-based seat is still below 12000 sq km and does not engage the acreage rule. I'd also suggest that WDuns be added to this mix, simply because its boundary with A&B is far more crossable (Helensburgh haircut notwithstanding) that its borders with Stirling, EDuns or Glasgow, or its riverine border with Renfs. If there is any way that the West Dunbartonshire/A&B link could be managed without a 'Helensburgh haircut' then I'd certainly take it. What's needed are the electorate figures for individual polling districts for Helensburgh and Lomond South. If the Cardross and Arden polling districts come to 1929 or more, then it's definitely doable. I had a look at census figures for the area, and the Cardross/Lomond area comes to slightly more than a third of the population of the area, which is roughly the number required. Unfortunately, the census districts for the area don't quite align with the ward boundaries, so it may not be enough. However, if it isn't, then the haircut could still be avoided if there's a further cut made in Lomond North along the west side of Loch Lomond, taking in Luss, which would certainly get Dunbartonshire West over the line. (I realise that a solution without unnecessary ward splits is usually preferable, but I'd say that splitting H&LS to avoid splitting Helensburgh counts as a necessary one.) You need at least two council boundary crossings: one between Dundee and Angus and one between P&K and Angus. (You'd also need two with a Dundee/Angus/Aberdeenshire link, of course.) And there's no obvious way of doing it with just two crossings without at least one ward split. Have you considered this arrangement? Two council boundary crossings, two split wards. 1) Dundee West: Strathmartine, Lochee, West End, Coldside, Maryfield; western parts of East End (c.75,004) 2) Dundee East and Arbroath: North East, The Ferry, Carnoustie, Arbroath x 2; eastern parts of East End, Monifieth and easternmost PD of Sidlaw (c.76,544) 3) Angus and East Perthshire: Kirriemuir, Forfar, Montrose, Carse of Gowrie, Strathtay, Blairgowrie; most of Sidlaw (c.74,980) It's certainly not perfect, but no solution in this area will be. And there is a precedent for the Angus/P&K cross in Tayside North (1983–2005). With the caveat that for many years the Clacks/Falkirk link is exactly what the Commission did, and no-one seemed that bothered by it. I imagine that that was probably because the fact that both areas had mining in common and that therefore there was a community of interest, which there isn't so much between Clackmannan and south Perthshire. I'd like to thank aidanthomson for taking so much trouble responding to my post. I've a couple of points in reply. - When I talk about a 'haircut' I mean that peripheral parts of a town, located in wards that largely consist of areas outside the town altogether, end up in a different constituency from the main body of the town. It is not a good outcome, I agree, but it is the sort of practical compromise that sometimes has to be made to achieve a satisfactory overall map and it is much less bad than separating a ward that is mainly or wholly composed of the town. In my plans a few other towns - Bridgwater, Wellingborough, Dumfries, &c - receive a similar 'haircut' to Helensburgh and while it's not an ideal solution, it's not so bad that I'd go to the length of splitting a ward to avoid it.
- If you have to cross the P&K/Angus border (for which I acknowledge there is a precedent), the map suggested by aidanthomson isn't an unreasonable way of doing it. But it's not great, either; and two ward splits for a not-great outcome isn't an attractive rate of exchange - especially since Scheme 2 means you don't have to cross this border and you can get a much better map in this area with only one ward split.
- Regarding Clacks, I accept that historically it was linked across the Forth with parts of what was then Stirlingshire. See seat no.13 on the map below (boundaries 1974-83). But there was far greater tolerance then than now for physically divided seats - note SF&G (no.65) and E Duns (no.20) as well. Times have changed. I'm not saying a cross-Forth seat is totally out of the question, but I think these days it would be a real stretch.
- So all in all, I'm still leaning to Scheme 2.
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,210
|
Post by YL on Apr 13, 2021 12:39:23 GMT
When I talk about a 'haircut' I mean that peripheral parts of a town, located in wards that largely consist of areas outside the town altogether, end up in a different constituency from the main body of the town. It is not a good outcome, I agree, but it is the sort of practical compromise that sometimes has to be made to achieve a satisfactory overall map and it is much less bad than separating a ward that is mainly or wholly composed of the town. In my plans a few other towns - Bridgwater, Wellingborough, Dumfries, &c - receive a similar 'haircut' to Helensburgh and while it's not an ideal solution, it's not so bad that I'd go to the length of splitting a ward to avoid it. Well, I don't really understand why you think that it is preferable to split a town like Dumfries than to split a ward like Lochar -- which like a lot of big wards is not a particularly coherent unit -- but more to the point I suspect that while the BCE may agree with you, so bad luck Bridgwater and Wellingborough, the BCS probably won't.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Apr 13, 2021 15:31:04 GMT
When I talk about a 'haircut' I mean that peripheral parts of a town, located in wards that largely consist of areas outside the town altogether, end up in a different constituency from the main body of the town. It is not a good outcome, I agree, but it is the sort of practical compromise that sometimes has to be made to achieve a satisfactory overall map and it is much less bad than separating a ward that is mainly or wholly composed of the town. In my plans a few other towns - Bridgwater, Wellingborough, Dumfries, &c - receive a similar 'haircut' to Helensburgh and while it's not an ideal solution, it's not so bad that I'd go to the length of splitting a ward to avoid it. Well, I don't really understand why you think that it is preferable to split a town like Dumfries than to split a ward like Lochar -- which like a lot of big wards is not a particularly coherent unit -- but more to the point I suspect that while the BCE may agree with you, so bad luck Bridgwater and Wellingborough, the BCS probably won't. Well, that's true; but then again, I'm not basing my approach on that of the BCS. If I were, I'd start by smashing wards to bits all over Scotland and then I'd recombine the shards in such a way as to drive constituency boundaries through the middle of as many towns as possible.
(Please see the BCS 2018 report for evidence of this approach.)
It's not because I think that wards are necessarily coherent units that I'm so reluctant to split them. I'm fully aware that many of them aren't - in all parts of the UK, not just in Scotland. It's (a) because they are local government boundaries as defined in the 1986 Act as amended (to provide for the use of prospective boundaries) by the 2020 Act; and (b) because I think it's important, so as to keep this process as accessible and easily understood as possible, and to avoid any move in the direction of the granularly-manipulated horror shows we see in the US, to define seats in terms of pre-existing boundaries - and wards are far and away the boundaries best suited for this purpose.
So I have only five ward splits in my thinking at the moment, all of them in Scotland. Four of them are mathematically unavoidable (so far as I can see); the fifth is because the non-split alternative appears to be to drive a boundary right through the middle of the town of Paisley, which is such a bad outcome that I feel a ward split is, exceptionally, justified in order to avoid it. If it were a case of just trimming some peripheral housing estates from Paisley, then I wouldn't split the ward.
(On the other hand, some posters seem to take the view that Paisley deserves whatever is coming to it; in which case we can get the ward splits down to four.)
|
|
|
Post by mattb on Apr 13, 2021 15:59:31 GMT
Sorry to trespass on No Offence Alan 's turf, but I couldn't resist having a go at it myself. I've indulged myself to the extent of steering clear of ward splits - not a single one, even in Dundee - and in order to do this I had to stray into Lanarks and spoil his Cumbernauld seat (but the rest of his Larnarks plan can remain as he has it). I've also gone for a (perhaps) less horrible non-split division of Livingston. There are some poor arrangements here, including Blairgowrie & Monifieth (or whatever you'd call it), plus I couldn't get rid of the split of Falkirk town. On the other hand, Stirling is now good for a seat identical to the district and I like the Perth and Angus seats too. And this approach helps a lot further north - see the next post. Not a serious suggestion (but just seeing what is possible without ward splits): this tidies up Falkirk and Cumbernauld and avoids the Blairgowrie-Broughty 3-LA seat for what it's worth (which isn't much!)
|
|
|
Post by islington on Apr 13, 2021 17:41:41 GMT
I hope mattb realizes that what he's done here means that if there were no such thing as the 13000 km2 limit, it would theoretically be possible to produce a legal plan for the whole of Scotland with only a single ward split (in Edinburgh, where so far as I can see the maths can't be overcome).
|
|
|
Post by aidanthomson on Apr 13, 2021 21:16:09 GMT
If there is any way that the West Dunbartonshire/A&B link could be managed without a 'Helensburgh haircut' then I'd certainly take it. What's needed are the electorate figures for individual polling districts for Helensburgh and Lomond South. If the Cardross and Arden polling districts come to 1929 or more, then it's definitely doable. I had a look at census figures for the area, and the Cardross/Lomond area comes to slightly more than a third of the population of the area, which is roughly the number required. Unfortunately, the census districts for the area don't quite align with the ward boundaries, so it may not be enough. However, if it isn't, then the haircut could still be avoided if there's a further cut made in Lomond North along the west side of Loch Lomond, taking in Luss, which would certainly get Dunbartonshire West over the line. (I realise that a solution without unnecessary ward splits is usually preferable, but I'd say that splitting H&LS to avoid splitting Helensburgh counts as a necessary one.) You need at least two council boundary crossings: one between Dundee and Angus and one between P&K and Angus. (You'd also need two with a Dundee/Angus/Aberdeenshire link, of course.) And there's no obvious way of doing it with just two crossings without at least one ward split. Have you considered this arrangement? Two council boundary crossings, two split wards. 1) Dundee West: Strathmartine, Lochee, West End, Coldside, Maryfield; western parts of East End (c.75,004) 2) Dundee East and Arbroath: North East, The Ferry, Carnoustie, Arbroath x 2; eastern parts of East End, Monifieth and easternmost PD of Sidlaw (c.76,544) 3) Angus and East Perthshire: Kirriemuir, Forfar, Montrose, Carse of Gowrie, Strathtay, Blairgowrie; most of Sidlaw (c.74,980) It's certainly not perfect, but no solution in this area will be. And there is a precedent for the Angus/P&K cross in Tayside North (1983–2005). With the caveat that for many years the Clacks/Falkirk link is exactly what the Commission did, and no-one seemed that bothered by it. I imagine that that was probably because the fact that both areas had mining in common and that therefore there was a community of interest, which there isn't so much between Clackmannan and south Perthshire. I'd like to thank aidanthomson for taking so much trouble responding to my post. I've a couple of points in reply. - When I talk about a 'haircut' I mean that peripheral parts of a town, located in wards that largely consist of areas outside the town altogether, end up in a different constituency from the main body of the town. It is not a good outcome, I agree, but it is the sort of practical compromise that sometimes has to be made to achieve a satisfactory overall map and it is much less bad than separating a ward that is mainly or wholly composed of the town. In my plans a few other towns - Bridgwater, Wellingborough, Dumfries, &c - receive a similar 'haircut' to Helensburgh and while it's not an ideal solution, it's not so bad that I'd go to the length of splitting a ward to avoid it.
- If you have to cross the P&K/Angus border (for which I acknowledge there is a precedent), the map suggested by aidanthomson isn't an unreasonable way of doing it. But it's not great, either; and two ward splits for a not-great outcome isn't an attractive rate of exchange - especially since Scheme 2 means you don't have to cross this border and you can get a much better map in this area with only one ward split.
Thank you, in turn, islington , for your thoughtful response. I always enjoy your contributions to this part of the site, and the ingenuity of the solutions you propose. I appreciate that, as far as Angus and Dundee is concerned, having multiple ward splits isn't great, and that, taken in isolation, what you suggest for that particular area works better. On the other hand, the flip side of the solution you propose for Angus and Dundee is a much weaker one for Aberdeenshire, its lack of ward splits notwithstanding. (A seat containing Braemar, Inverurie and Stonehaven but not Banchory isn't a runner.) On the whole, I would say that the flaws of my scheme(s) for Angus and Dundee are compensated for by my scheme for Aberdeenshire. But chacun à son goût. It's a hard one to call, certainly as far as local opinion is concerned. Clackmannan retained a degree of physical division even after the end of SF&G, and a direct road link was only established with the 1997 changes that added Bridge of Allan and Kinross. At the time there was also a counterproposal to add Dunblane as well and move the south-of-the-Forth territory to Stirling, but that went nowhere. Clackmannanshire and Dunblane was created at the first review of Holyrood constituencies, albeit—I think—with some resistance in Dunblane, but that was down to the fact that there were enough for two whole seats in Stirling and Clacks. The problem with Clackmannanshire is that Perthshire isn't that great a partner for it either, as the Ochil hills separate the two areas, and they don't have a great deal in common with each other. (Fife would be better, but that would end up with all sorts of horrors.)
I think I'm correct in saying that anyone travelling over the Clackmannanshire Bridge from the Falkirk side of the Forth would briefly enter Fife, but would be in Clackmannanshire by the time the first road junction is reached. But in terms of direct transport links that may be pushing it a bit!
|
|
Eastwood
Non-Aligned
Politically restricted post
Posts: 2,085
|
Post by Eastwood on Apr 13, 2021 22:04:32 GMT
I'd like to thank aidanthomson for taking so much trouble responding to my post. I've a couple of points in reply. - When I talk about a 'haircut' I mean that peripheral parts of a town, located in wards that largely consist of areas outside the town altogether, end up in a different constituency from the main body of the town. It is not a good outcome, I agree, but it is the sort of practical compromise that sometimes has to be made to achieve a satisfactory overall map and it is much less bad than separating a ward that is mainly or wholly composed of the town. In my plans a few other towns - Bridgwater, Wellingborough, Dumfries, &c - receive a similar 'haircut' to Helensburgh and while it's not an ideal solution, it's not so bad that I'd go to the length of splitting a ward to avoid it.
- If you have to cross the P&K/Angus border (for which I acknowledge there is a precedent), the map suggested by aidanthomson isn't an unreasonable way of doing it. But it's not great, either; and two ward splits for a not-great outcome isn't an attractive rate of exchange - especially since Scheme 2 means you don't have to cross this border and you can get a much better map in this area with only one ward split.
Thank you, in turn, islington , for your thoughtful response. I always enjoy your contributions to this part of the site, and the ingenuity of the solutions you propose. I appreciate that, as far as Angus and Dundee is concerned, having multiple ward splits isn't great, and that, taken in isolation, what you suggest for that particular area works better. On the other hand, the flip side of the solution you propose for Angus and Dundee is a much weaker one for Aberdeenshire, its lack of ward splits notwithstanding. (A seat containing Braemar, Inverurie and Stonehaven but not Banchory isn't a runner.) On the whole, I would say that the flaws of my scheme(s) for Angus and Dundee are compensated for by my scheme for Aberdeenshire. But chacun à son goût. It's a hard one to call, certainly as far as local opinion is concerned. Clackmannan retained a degree of physical division even after the end of SF&G, and a direct road link was only established with the 1997 changes that added Bridge of Allan and Kinross. At the time there was also a counterproposal to add Dunblane as well and move the south-of-the-Forth territory to Stirling, but that went nowhere. Clackmannanshire and Dunblane was created at the first review of Holyrood constituencies, albeit—I think—with some resistance in Dunblane, but that was down to the fact that there were enough for two whole seats in Stirling and Clacks. The problem with Clackmannanshire is that Perthshire isn't that great a partner for it either, as the Ochil hills separate the two areas, and they don't have a great deal in common with each other. (Fife would be better, but that would end up with all sorts of horrors.)
I think I'm correct in saying that anyone travelling over the Clackmannanshire Bridge from the Falkirk side of the Forth would briefly enter Fife, but would be in Clackmannanshire by the time the first road junction is reached. But in terms of direct transport links that may be pushing it a bit!
You could reinstate the South Alloa ferry! collections.falkirk.gov.uk/objects/19690/south-alloa-ferry-hope-at-bremners-pier-north-alloa
|
|
|
Post by emidsanorak on Apr 14, 2021 12:55:04 GMT
Glasgow is good for six seats and East Renfrewshire for one. But, if you do both, you cannot treat Ayrshire as a sub-region. It is possible however to treat East Ayrshire, Inverclyde, North Ayrshire, Renfrewshire, South Ayrshire, and South Lanarkshire as a sub-region for ten seats. It has the added bonus that you don't need to divide Paisley. You can, if you are prepared to be extremely pitchforky, do it without a single split ward: Ayr (76948) East Kilbride (75161) Greenock (74527) Hamilton (72256) Irvine (76239) Johnstone (71158) Kilmarnock & Arran (74772) Lanark & Cumnock (73949) Paisley (75014) Rutherglen (71612)
|
|
|
Post by kevinlarkin on Jun 10, 2021 11:03:17 GMT
Added an area totaliser for Scotland. This is approximate when wards are split manually. The ward split function has been modified to better handle non-contiguous wards (like Fort William & Ardnamurchan) and offshore islands.
|
|
cogload
Lib Dem
I jumped in the river and what did I see...
Posts: 7,950
|
Post by cogload on Jun 10, 2021 17:42:25 GMT
Just divide it up into Clan areas. If antecedents are doubtful then football club names should suffice....Glasgow Rangers would surely be a shoo in for somebody... ;-)
|
|
piperdave
SNP
Dalkeith; Midlothian/North & Musselburgh
Posts: 906
|
Post by piperdave on Jun 13, 2021 21:03:24 GMT
Glasgow is good for six seats and East Renfrewshire for one. But, if you do both, you cannot treat Ayrshire as a sub-region. It is possible however to treat East Ayrshire, Inverclyde, North Ayrshire, Renfrewshire, South Ayrshire, and South Lanarkshire as a sub-region for ten seats. It has the added bonus that you don't need to divide Paisley. You can, if you are prepared to be extremely pitchforky, do it without a single split ward: Ayr (76948) East Kilbride (75161) Greenock (74527) Hamilton (72256) Irvine (76239) Johnstone (71158) Kilmarnock & Arran (74772) Lanark & Cumnock (73949) Paisley (75014) Rutherglen (71612) In a word, no.
|
|
|
Post by robert1 on Sept 29, 2021 14:30:20 GMT
Initial Proposals for Scotland to be published at 00.01 Thursday 14th October.
I am assuming that MPs, MSPs, parties and journalists will receive (embargoed) details sometime on 13th but don't know for certain as yet.
|
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,737
Member is Online
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Oct 13, 2021 7:21:05 GMT
Initial Proposals for Scotland to be published at 00.01 Thursday 14th October. I am assuming that MPs, MSPs, parties and journalists will receive (embargoed) details sometime on 13th but don't know for certain as yet. So presumably therefore we can expect "leaks" / "rumours" from lunchtime today?
|
|
piperdave
SNP
Dalkeith; Midlothian/North & Musselburgh
Posts: 906
|
Post by piperdave on Oct 13, 2021 18:13:05 GMT
|
|
Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,737
Member is Online
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Oct 13, 2021 21:02:54 GMT
I don't think I shall be able to stay up to see the commission's recommendations come in live, mainly due to the fact that I have been TOLD to attend a "claimants commitments" meeting tomorrow in Aberystwyth for which I have been told "DO NOT ARRIVE LATE!" which means that I have to catch the bus two hours earlier than normal (the normal bus has been cancelled due to lack of drivers) and means I will get into Aberystwyth 90 minutes before I have to, therefore could I ask if people could offer their opinions on the replacements for:
Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross; Moray; Angus; Dumfries and Galloway; Dumfriesshire; and Edinburgh West
|
|