|
|
Post by islington on Oct 14, 2021 9:23:12 GMT
As an initial reaction, it's a big improvement on the 2018 zombie.
There are still ward splits all over the place. I'm less worried about that than I used to be, but some of the ones in Edinburgh look especially gratuitous.
But in terms of town splits it's a much better outcome - really only Paisley and Musselburgh.
I agree with the criticism of some of the names. I'd suggest Clackmannan & Stenhousemuir, East Dunbartonshire & Kilsyth, Falkirk, Hamilton & Lanark, Inverness, Kirkintilloch & Cumbernauld, Motherwell, and possibly Dunfermline rather than W Fife. But the boundaries themselves, most of them anyway, don't seem that bad.
|
|
|
|
Post by greyfriar on Oct 14, 2021 9:26:27 GMT
Moray looks like the standout ridiculous proposition, instead of remaining consistent with local authority boundaries and remaining within the electoral size, instead it would cede most of its geographical territory to Aberdeenshire seats and annexe vast tracts of Highland in return. The ultimate collateral solution to arithmetical problems in adjacent areas. You might be able to persuade me otherwise, but I think that in this case the alternatives are genuinely worse. I’m making a critical observation as opposed to pitching an alternative. It clearly solves the Highland issue, but carves up a perfectly good seat which mirrors local government boundaries to do so. |
|
|
|
Post by afleitch on Oct 14, 2021 10:05:53 GMT
At first glance, the proposals are inherently 'tweakable'. What they did to Dundee defies all logic and is unforgivable. Moray has been frankensteined. Greater Glasgow, South of Scotland and the Lothians aren't that objectionable.
EDIT; Arbitrarily retaining West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine unchanged was not helpful.
|
|
|
|
Post by afleitch on Oct 14, 2021 10:19:31 GMT
Ideally the legislation should have given Highland Council special status given it's unique size and rurality. But we have what we have.
|
|
stb12
Top Poster
Posts: 8,409 
|
Post by stb12 on Oct 14, 2021 11:19:56 GMT
My constituency changing to less of a mouthful name of East Kilbride and Strathaven
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Oct 14, 2021 11:39:19 GMT
Dundee and Angus looks reasonably easy to fix - Dundee West can stay entirely in the city, Dundee East can grab a bit more of the split wards and Angus can take Carse of Gowrie. It would be unlovely, but a definite improvement.
For Glasgow, putting Springburn/Robroyston into North and the city centre into Central seems really obvious. Optionally you might also consider exchanging Dennistoun and Hillhead if you wanted the abolished seat to be North rather than North East.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Oct 14, 2021 11:45:47 GMT
Seats in Scotland have been slashed reduced by two: Glasgow has lost one, obviously, but where is the other?
|
|
|
|
Post by bjornhattan on Oct 14, 2021 12:01:14 GMT
Seats in Scotland have been slashed reduced by two: Glasgow has lost one, obviously, but where is the other? Somewhere in the north of Scotland - Aberdeenshire, Argyll and Bute, Moray, and Highland previously had ten constituencies but under these plans would have nine. I think the abolished constituency is Ross, Skye, and Lochaber - since presumably Inverness contributes more electors to the new "Highland Central" than Skye and Lochalsh. |
|
|
|
Post by afleitch on Oct 14, 2021 12:27:00 GMT
You can tidy up the North East if you detach Kincorth/Nigg/Cove from Aberdeen (still giving the city two seats)  |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Oct 14, 2021 12:37:19 GMT
Predictable from the Nat onal grievance monkeys. Bloody idiots. Truthful headline would be: Scots refuse to breed as fast as English.
The headline doesn’t make any reference to numbers, or reduction in numbers |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Oct 14, 2021 12:52:49 GMT
The map doesn’t show the boundaries clearly in the offshore and islandy bits. The name of the constituency has been changed from “Argyll and Bute” to “Argyll”, which implies that Bute has been put somewhere else. But I can’t find “Bute” as part of the name of anywhere else, so I’m not sure either way.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Oct 14, 2021 12:56:48 GMT
Generally, I like the reduction in the length of names, but perhaps some of the reductions go to far. I was a bit discombobulated to see two long countrysidey constituencies called “Kelvin” (I had thought that “Kelvin” was part of Glasgow (and now I realise it’s the name of a river)). But why have they abolished places like Falkirk and Milngavie?
|
|
|
|
Post by aidanthomson on Oct 14, 2021 13:30:39 GMT
You can tidy up the North East if you detach Kincorth/Nigg/Cove from Aberdeen (still giving the city two seats) Or Lower Deeside, all of which was in Kincardine and Deeside before 1997. I agree that maintaining the existing boundaries in West Aberdeenshire is a case of putting the cart before the horse, especially since it has resulted in splitting Moray between three seats rather than two. |
|
|
|
Post by islington on Oct 14, 2021 13:54:24 GMT
You can tidy up the North East if you detach Kincorth/Nigg/Cove from Aberdeen (still giving the city two seats) That looks very nice but I see that compared with the BCS scheme the whole of Culloden ward has to go into a Highland seat.
Doesn't that leave the Highland area with too many voters?
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Oct 14, 2021 14:09:02 GMT
If Nairn & Cawdor and Badenoch & Strathspey wards go with Elgin and Fort William & Ardnamurchan goes with Argyll, the remaining territory has 150361 electors, which is fine for two seats.
|
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Oct 14, 2021 14:41:31 GMT
The map doesn’t show the boundaries clearly in the offshore and islandy bits. The name of the constituency has been changed from “Argyll and Bute” to “Argyll”, which implies that Bute has been put somewhere else. But I can’t find “Bute” as part of the name of anywhere else, so I’m not sure either way. No, Bute stays in with Argyll. In theory it could have been moved to North Ayrshire and Arran (where it was before 1983). But they've just removed its name from a GB/UK Parliamentary constituency for the first time since 1707. |
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,114
|
Post by ilerda on Oct 14, 2021 15:17:12 GMT
The map doesn’t show the boundaries clearly in the offshore and islandy bits. The name of the constituency has been changed from “Argyll and Bute” to “Argyll”, which implies that Bute has been put somewhere else. But I can’t find “Bute” as part of the name of anywhere else, so I’m not sure either way. No, Bute stays in with Argyll. In theory it could have been moved to North Ayrshire and Arran (where it was before 1983). But they've just removed its name from a GB/UK Parliamentary constituency for the first time since 1707. Could removing Bute from the name be another example of that favourite Boundary Commission tactic of deliberately doing something that is both unpopular and unnecessary so that they can respond favourably to the resulting public outcry and thus claim at the next draft that they've listened to people's concerns? If you let people get angry about the name, they might pay less attention to any flaws in the composition. |
|
|
|
Post by aidanthomson on Oct 14, 2021 15:26:07 GMT
No, Bute stays in with Argyll. In theory it could have been moved to North Ayrshire and Arran (where it was before 1983). But they've just removed its name from a GB/UK Parliamentary constituency for the first time since 1707. Could removing Bute from the name be another example of that favourite Boundary Commission tactic of deliberately doing something that is both unpopular and unnecessary so that they can respond favourably to the resulting public outcry and thus claim at the next draft that they've listened to people's concerns? If you let people get angry about the name, they might pay less attention to any flaws in the composition. I reckon they did it to avoid either sharing a name with a local authority when it isn't coterminous with it, or sharing a name with a Holyrood seat that has different boundaries. That would explain some other places, too, though not Falkirk. |
|
|
|
Post by afleitch on Oct 14, 2021 15:58:11 GMT
Interesting that the proposed Argyllshire has a detached part as does the proposed Mid Forth Valley.
Also I do wonder what the legal implications would be if they don't share the electorate of whatever sub-ward units they have used? Without it you can't really make alternative proposals nor confirm that their understanding of certain legal requirements of electorate size are correct.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Oct 14, 2021 17:13:15 GMT
If Nairn & Cawdor and Badenoch & Strathspey wards go with Elgin and Fort William & Ardnamurchan goes with Argyll, the remaining territory has 150361 electors, which is fine for two seats. Yes, you're right, and an area of 21112 sq km. That means you can deduct the N Highland seat exactly as drawn by BCS (76654 and 12781 sq km), which leaves a seat (I'd call it Inverness) that is thus easily in range at 73707 electors and 8331 sq km. |
|
