|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Oct 15, 2021 9:29:32 GMT
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. Yes, and taking Lwr Deeside even allows you (to the extent that it matters, which is probably not much) to divide the rest of the city north and south without ward splits, thus: Aberdeen N - 69834 Aberdeen S - 71681 Kincardine and Deeside - 76034 (Or you could swap George Str and Tillydrone for Hilton and Midstocket for an alternative and equally legal N-S split.)
 Your alternative option is much better, although I would be tempted to split Midstocket/Rosemount anyway. Two options I can see for that: 1. George St/Harbour and Tillydrone/Seaton go into Nouth, Midstocket/Rosemount split more or less where it is now (numbers probably don't work for this, but it'd be neat) 2. Tillydrone/Seaton stays in North, Midstocket/Rosemount split roughly along Lang Stracht. The other option if you're removing territory from Aberdeen is to have Danestone in with the city seats, but remove Dyce and Bucksburn. I think taking out Lower Deeside works better, but that alternative would mean fewer changes to Gordon. |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,918
|
Post by YL on Oct 15, 2021 9:42:19 GMT
I think they've just preferred to follow the existing constituency boundaries than to align to the new wards. Indeed Edinburgh South West appears to be completely unchanged, and the boundary between East and North & Leith is too. The new boundary between East and South south of Holyrood Park does follow a ward boundary, and the new one between West and North & Leith does partially. Although the number of electors in Edinburgh SW is exactly the same, this appears to be a coincidence, as the map clearly shows it taking in part of Drum Brae and losing part of Sighthill. I think we must be looking at different maps... I'm looking at the interactive map on the consultation portal, with both "Existing constituencies" and "Initial proposals" ticked, and for Edinburgh SW the lines coincide entirely. The News Release also states that the constituency is unchanged. |
|
|
|
Post by afleitch on Oct 15, 2021 10:50:31 GMT
Although the number of electors in Edinburgh SW is exactly the same, this appears to be a coincidence, as the map clearly shows it taking in part of Drum Brae and losing part of Sighthill. I think we must be looking at different maps... I'm looking at the interactive map on the consultation portal, with both "Existing constituencies" and "Initial proposals" ticked, and for Edinburgh SW the lines coincide entirely. The News Release also states that the constituency is unchanged. You are correct. I think the Commission literally keeping some seats the same and following ward boundaries not used since 2007 is odd. Especially in Ayrshire. In Edinburgh you could still create five similar seats, but Edinburgh West retaining a random spur north of the railway at South Gyle seems excessive. |
|
|
|
Post by afleitch on Oct 15, 2021 11:21:46 GMT
I'm already making submissions. I've submitted a quite lengthy response to the North East in line with what I mentioned on here and your suggestions. I've commented on Angus and Dundee because, I think everyone should  I've suggested a rejig of seats in Inverclyde/Renfrewshire as I think Bridge of Weir, Houston etc should be linked with Paisley rather than Greenock, with Inverclyde spreading westwards along the Clyde A8/M8. And in Glasgow, merely that Glasgow Central and Glasgow East together should be divided into two seats running east/west rather than north/south in line with Holyrood and transport links. |
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Oct 15, 2021 12:08:08 GMT
Although the number of electors in Edinburgh SW is exactly the same, this appears to be a coincidence, as the map clearly shows it taking in part of Drum Brae and losing part of Sighthill. I think we must be looking at different maps... I'm looking at the interactive map on the consultation portal, with both "Existing constituencies" and "Initial proposals" ticked, and for Edinburgh SW the lines coincide entirely. The News Release also states that the constituency is unchanged. We are. I am using the maps in the Proposals document. Clearly the data published originally by the BCS showing where the electors in the existing seats came from was wrong. Thanks for the tip. I will have a look at the interactive. |
|
|
|
Post by aidanthomson on Oct 15, 2021 12:10:44 GMT
I think they've just preferred to follow the existing constituency boundaries than to align to the new wards. Indeed Edinburgh South West appears to be completely unchanged, and the boundary between East and North & Leith is too. The new boundary between East and South south of Holyrood Park does follow a ward boundary, and the new one between West and North & Leith does partially. Although the number of electors in Edinburgh SW is exactly the same, this appears to be a coincidence, as the map clearly shows it taking in part of Drum Brae and losing part of Sighthill. No, the previous boundaries between South West and West have been maintained. Part of Drum Brae/Gyle ward is currently in South West and part of Sighthill in West. It would obviously make sense for both wards to be unsplit, and I imagine that that's what will happen in the end. |
|
|
|
Post by aidanthomson on Oct 15, 2021 12:30:58 GMT
I'm already making submissions. I've submitted a quite lengthy response to the North East in line with what I mentioned on here and your suggestions. I've commented on Angus and Dundee because, I think everyone should I've suggested a rejig of seats in Inverclyde/Renfrewshire as I think Bridge of Weir, Houston etc should be linked with Paisley rather than Greenock, with Inverclyde spreading westwards along the Clyde A8/M8. And in Glasgow, merely that Glasgow Central and Glasgow East together should be divided into two seats running east/west rather than north/south in line with Holyrood and transport links. Agree absolutely re redrawing Glasgow Central and East on east/west lines, presumably renaming them East and North East. What about redrawing the other two north-side seats, so that there's a seat based on Knightswood (minus Yoker), Drumchapel, Maryhill and Canal, and one based on Victoria Park, Partick East/Kelvindale, Hillhead and Anderston - basically a bit like the second zombie review's North West and Central seats respectively? That way, the whole of the West End and the universities would all be in the one seat. Re Renfrewshire: I think the problem here may be that there aren't quite enough electors in Bishopton and Langbank to get Inverclyde into range, so you'd end up having to split Erskine. The simplest solution would be to include the whole Bishopton/Bridge of Weir ward, but given how tight the numbers are in Renfrewshire (a consequence of the groupings that they've chosen) that would have knock-on effects elsewhere. |
|
xenon
Forum Regular
Posts: 429
|
Post by xenon on Oct 15, 2021 12:47:22 GMT
Some suggestions:
Moray being split in three is silly, especially as it can be easily avoided (without ward splits no less), by putting Lower Deeside into the southern Aberdeenshire seat (and rejigging the two Aberdeen seats accordingly), as mentioned above.
The whole of Tayside looks awful. I would suggest a "Dundee" seat, taking in the west half of the city and as much of the east it can take without going over quota, and an "Angus Coast and Dundee East" seat talking in the remaining two-and-a-bit Dundee wards, as well as Carnoustie, both Arbroath wards, and the eastern half of the Monifieth ward.
The rest of Angus can join Blairgowrie, Strathmore and the Carse in an "Angus Glens and East Perthshire" seat, and the rest of Perthshire (less Kinross, which can be paired with Glenrothes as per the recommendations) can form a "Perth and West Perthshire" seat.
Forth Valley is also a mess. I think it would be better if Stirling (less Stirling East, Stirling West, and Bannockburn) was paired with Clackmannanshire (excepting the easternmost part around Dollar, which will have to be part of the Dunfermline seat) to make a "Stirlingshire North and Clackmannanshire" seat. The aforementioned three wards can be joined by Falkirk's northwestern-most three to form "Stirlingshire South".
The rest of Falkirk (except for some of the Bo'ness ward) can form its own constituency, with a suitably descriptive name (none of this "Forth Valley South" nonsense). West Lothian plus half of Bo'ness can form two seats with another ward split, although some of the margins will be quite tight.
Edinburgh looks a bit silly by taking a sliver of Musselburgh. This can be avoided by making the city self-contained, and putting all or most of the Dunbar and East Linton ward in with the Borders to make "Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Dunbar". This also had the happy consequence of eliminating the "C" from "DCT", becoming "East Dumfriesshire, Selkirk and Tweeddale". Dumfries and Galloway stays roughly the same, although I would prefer it to be renamed to "West Dumfriesshire and Galloway" as it's current name suggests that it covers the whole council area.
I may come back and tackle Strathclyde properly later, but from a quick play around on Boundary Assistant it seems that you can pair Fortissat and Murdostown with Clydesdale, Motherwell with Bellshill, Hamilton with Wishaw, East Kilbride with Strathaven, and Rutherglen with Uddingston, leaving space for a "Monklands" seat (Coatbridge and Airdrie for purists) and a "Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Chryston" one comprising the remainder of North Lanarkshire.
|
|
|
|
Post by afleitch on Oct 15, 2021 16:55:44 GMT
I may come back and tackle Strathclyde properly later, but from a quick play around on Boundary Assistant it seems that you can pair Fortissat and Murdostown with Clydesdale, Motherwell with Bellshill, Hamilton with Wishaw, East Kilbride with Strathaven, and Rutherglen with Uddingston, leaving space for a "Monklands" seat (Coatbridge and Airdrie for purists) and a "Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Chryston" one comprising the remainder of North Lanarkshire. On this, I disagree. The entire scheme from the south of Scotland right up to 'Strathclyde' and the Lothians, with a few tweaks is actually genius. Particularly the solutions for Hamilton and Motherwell. The two 'Kelvin' seats are actually really well designed with Kirkintilloch and Cumbernauld back in the same seat for the first time since 1983, with Stepps; this is part of the M80 commuter belt. Bearsden and Milngavie aren't awkwardly split and are kept together with Bishopbriggs. Fife is okay (the council just coming in under quote for 4 seats was a shame) as is Stirling, Clackmannan and Falkirk; the 'Mid Forth Valley' seat isn't that far removed from what existed prior to 1983; Polmont etc (which was at that time detached) is just swapped out for Denny. It's just everything north of that is a bit of a dog's breakfast for the reasons we've touched upon. |
|
|
|
Post by aidanthomson on Oct 15, 2021 18:45:32 GMT
I don't think we will see any notionals for a while as the Scottish Boundary Commission have NOT released a spreadsheet showing which wards are in which constituency (unlike England and Wales), in fact everything is PDF (and the main report maps are low res PDF in a PDF), but looking at the result from 2019 and this new map I believe that Labour will start off with Edinburgh South, the Lib Dems will start off with Orkney and Shetland, Edinburgh West, the Conservatives will start off with Dumfries and Galloway, Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale, West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine, and Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk with the SNP getting everything else but the constituencies of Banff and Buchan, Gordon and Moray South, North East Fife and Highland North are a bit questionable, so my belief is: Lab 1, Lib Dem no less than 2, Con no less than 4, and the SNP on 48 - 50. Using Ben Walker's figures for England and my calculations for Wales that brings the GB total to: Con 369 (min), Lab 198, SNP 48 (min), NI 18, Lib Dem 12 (min), Plaid 2, Green 1 meaning a starting Conservative majority of 88. They haven't, but I have. I've included population data from the 2011 census - it's obviously somewhat out of date but it's probably the best we have in lieu of more detailed electorate data. This is mainly to illustrate how the ward splits work - for example about 20% of Midstocket/Rosemount ward is in Aberdeen South (the area immediately north of Union Street) while 80% is in Aberdeen North (the rest of the ward).
They have now, though once again it's a PDF: www.bcomm-scotland.independent.gov.uk/sites/default/files/BCS_2023_Initial_Proposals_Electorate_by_Ward.pdf. I wrote to the BCS this afternoon asking about this, and also about their sub-ward postal code data. They have offered to send me the relevant file via WeTransfer. I can pass it on to anyone who is interested once I get it. |
|
stb12
Top Poster
Posts: 8,409 
|
Post by stb12 on Oct 17, 2021 16:10:30 GMT
|
|
piperdave
SNP
Dalkeith; Midlothian/North & Musselburgh
Posts: 911
|
Post by piperdave on Oct 17, 2021 17:47:59 GMT
He may well say that, and he may well be right, but there's no real alternative within the legislative rules. I'd like to know what he'd propose instead. Would there be some special rule for the north and west Highlands? |
|
stb12
Top Poster
Posts: 8,409
|
Post by stb12 on Oct 17, 2021 17:54:21 GMT
He may well say that, and he may well be right, but there's no real alternative within the legislative rules. I'd like to know what he'd propose instead. Would there be some special rule for the north and west Highlands? Sounds like he might want some exemption status for the Highlands like the islands get |
|
|
|
Post by andrewp on Oct 17, 2021 18:04:34 GMT
He may well say that, and he may well be right, but there's no real alternative within the legislative rules. I'd like to know what he'd propose instead. Would there be some special rule for the north and west Highlands? Within the current rules that proposed constituency is almost guaranteed |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Oct 17, 2021 19:06:30 GMT
It's only the name that is really objectionable and even there it is a reasonable description (Caithness, Sutherland, Ross & Cromarty, which is what it effectively is would be a fair old mouthful, though we've had worse and would still be preferable in my book). Nothing like as bad as Highland Central (which really should just be called Inverness)
|
|
|
|
Post by jollyroger93 on Oct 17, 2021 19:18:43 GMT
It's only the name that is really objectionable and even there it is a reasonable description (Caithness, Sutherland, Ross & Cromarty, which is what it effectively is would be a fair old mouthful, though we've had worse and would still be preferable in my book). Nothing like as bad as Highland Central (which really should just be called Inverness) Doesn’t compare to Inverness Nairn badenoch and strathspay. Sounds like some sort of bloody highland dance. |
|
|
|
Post by afleitch on Oct 18, 2021 12:03:00 GMT
So the Comission published some of it's workings.
It did toy with the North East redraw I had floated but rejected it. They also have a number of Dundee suggestions which are more compact than those proposed.
So they haven't 'not thought' of alternatives, they just didn't pick them. So they aren't closed off to alternatives.
|
|
xenon
Forum Regular
Posts: 429
|
Post by xenon on Oct 18, 2021 12:40:49 GMT
So the Comission published some of it's workings. It did toy with the North East redraw I had floated but rejected it. They also have a number of Dundee suggestions which are more compact than those proposed. So they haven't 'not thought' of alternatives, they just didn't pick them. So they aren't closed off to alternatives. Can I ask where you found these alternatives? EDIT: Nevermind, I've found them on the Commission's website. They are in the "Meetings and Minutes" section, if anyone else wants to have a look. |
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,918
|
Post by YL on Oct 19, 2021 7:56:26 GMT
He may well say that, and he may well be right, but there's no real alternative within the legislative rules. I'd like to know what he'd propose instead. Would there be some special rule for the north and west Highlands? Within the current rules that proposed constituency is almost guaranteed Well, it's towards the top end of the electorate range, so in principle could lose some of its southern areas, and they are thinly populated enough that could reduce the area considerably. But I think that would just cause trouble for the constituency to the south instead, and could well lead to an awkward boundary in the Lochaber area. I don't know whether it's viable to try to move both Fort William & Ardnamurchan and Caol & Mallaig wards into the Argyll seat. Argyll & Bute less Bute plus those two wards is 904 over quota, so I guess you'd have to move some areas south of Helensburgh into West Dunbartonshire. (But could that allow the breach of the Glasgow city boundary in the Yoker area to be avoided, if anyone cares about that?) |
|
xenon
Forum Regular
Posts: 429
|
Post by xenon on Oct 19, 2021 8:42:45 GMT
Within the current rules that proposed constituency is almost guaranteed Well, it's towards the top end of the electorate range, so in principle could lose some of its southern areas, and they are thinly populated enough that could reduce the area considerably. But I think that would just cause trouble for the constituency to the south instead, and could well lead to an awkward boundary in the Lochaber area. I don't know whether it's viable to try to move both Fort William & Ardnamurchan and Caol & Mallaig wards into the Argyll seat. Argyll & Bute less Bute plus those two wards is 904 over quota, so I guess you'd have to move some areas south of Helensburgh into West Dunbartonshire. (But could that allow the breach of the Glasgow city boundary in the Yoker area to be avoided, if anyone cares about that?) I think a better solution would be to move the whole of Fort William and Ardnamurchan, but only the area of Caol and Mallaig around Caol, Corpach and Benavie into Argyll (as suggested in the 2018 review), which removes the need to move Bute into Ayrshire. This also means that you can include the whole of Culloden and Ardersier in Highland Central, and allows Moray to be split over two instead of three seats. I don't know the exact numbers, but I would estimate that the Cardross area has about 2,000 electors that could be moved into West Dunbartonshire, negating the need as you say for a ward split at Yoker. |
|
