islington
Non-Aligned
Posts: 4,435
Member is Online
|
Post by islington on Oct 19, 2021 8:52:07 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?) Yes, but then you'd have to put Bute in with an Ayrshire seat, which doesn't make a lot of sense on the ground. I know there historic precedents for it, but they go back to the days when Bute and Arran (and Cumbrae) were a single county. On the other hand, if you put the whole of Helensburgh & Lomond S ward in with W Duns (73473) you can then unite the rest of Argyll & Bute with the two Highland wards (76897 and 11754 sq km). If you put Badenoch and Nairn in with Moray as suggested upthread, that leaves the rest of Highland with 143857 electors and 19048 sq km. This works out fine because you can take the Beauly area out of N Highland, leaving it with 71753 and Inverness 71834. QED. I know this reinstates the infamous Helensburgh haircut but that's no worse than what the BCS has done in Musselburgh and it solves a lot of problems elsewhere.
|
|
|
Post by MacShimidh on Oct 19, 2021 11:59:59 GMT
The more I think about it, the more I think the Highland constituencies actually aren't that bad (silly names aside).
Highland North is massive but I don't see any alternative if the area isn't being given any special considerations. And it's not like any of the new additions are incongruous with the rest of the seat - Dingwall is pretty similar to the towns around the Cromarty Firth, the Black Isle and Beauly aren't so different to the area around Tarbat and Dornoch, and Ullapool is basically a larger version of many towns on the west coast.
Highland Central is fine, I'm just glad Inverness hasn't been split (although it probably ensures I will end up with Ian Blackford as my MP...)
Putting Ardnamurchan and the area around Ballachulish into the Argyll seat is fine given that much of that area was historically part of Argyllshire anyway.
And putting Nairnshire in with Northern Moray makes a lot of sense given the demographic and political similarities between these areas. Badenoch and Strathspey feels a little tacked on, but I must admit I quite like the idea of having both the source and the mouth of the Spey in the same seat.
Just give them better names and there's nothing that objectionable about any of these imo. Tayside is where the real horrors of these proposals are.
|
|
iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 11,455
|
Post by iain on Oct 19, 2021 12:59:51 GMT
I agree - Highland North is far too big, but within the rules the boundary commission must follow, it's fairly sensible.
The real problem with the legislation (if not updated) will come in a few years, when the combination of the population and size limits will leave us with some sort of "Inverness North & Wick" mess.
|
|
islington
Non-Aligned
Posts: 4,435
Member is Online
|
Post by islington on Oct 19, 2021 13:19:05 GMT
I agree - Highland North is far too big, but within the rules the boundary commission must follow, it's fairly sensible. The real problem with the legislation (if not updated) will come in a few years, when the combination of the population and size limits will leave us with some sort of "Inverness North & Wick" mess. Is this area still losing population relative to the rest of the UK? Inverness itself certainly isn't - it must be one of the fastest-growing towns in the UK. But I don't know about the more rural areas.
|
|
Sandy
Forum Regular
Posts: 3,234
|
Post by Sandy on Oct 19, 2021 13:28:38 GMT
Highland Central is fine, I'm just glad Inverness hasn't been split (although it probably ensures I will end up with Ian Blackford as my MP...) You're welcome to him, we Highland Northers (ughh that sounds awful) don't want him
|
|
|
Post by afleitch on Oct 19, 2021 20:22:41 GMT
Inverness has stopped growing. It's estimated population is up by only about 400 this past decade. Glasgow has increased by one whole Inverness during the same period. So the pressure on the Highland quota might not be too much in the coming years.
|
|
|
Post by aidanthomson on Oct 19, 2021 22:11:21 GMT
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?) Yes, but then you'd have to put Bute in with an Ayrshire seat, which doesn't make a lot of sense on the ground. I know there historic precedents for it, but they go back to the days when Bute and Arran (and Cumbrae) were a single county. On the other hand, if you put the whole of Helensburgh & Lomond S ward in with W Duns (73473) you can then unite the rest of Argyll & Bute with the two Highland wards (76897 and 11754 sq km). If you put Badenoch and Nairn in with Moray as suggested upthread, that leaves the rest of Highland with 143857 electors and 19048 sq km. This works out fine because you can take the Beauly area out of N Highland, leaving it with 71753 and Inverness 71834. QED. I know this reinstates the infamous Helensburgh haircut but that's no worse than what the BCS has done in Musselburgh and it solves a lot of problems elsewhere. It certainly is possible to transfer the whole of Helensburgh and Lomond South into Dunbartonshire West; the numbers would work. But it would mean that about a third of Helensburgh would be in another seat, and that really isn't an option. I wondered whether moving the non-Helensburgh parts of H&LS (Cardross and Lomondside) into Dunbartonshire West would be enough to accommodate the area immediately round Caol (Caol, Corpach and Banavie). But the devil is in the detail: Argyll and Bute council (67,565) + Fort William and Ardnamurchan (8,326) = 75,891. Caol, Corpach and Banavie on their own I make as being 3,601. Cardross on its own I make as 2,094. Lomondside and the area between Lomondside and Helensburgh within the Helensburgh and Lomond South ward I make as 132. 75,891 + 3,601 - 2,094 - 132 = 77,266. So that seat would be too big by 204 electors. There are ways around this - at least in theory: a) Draw the boundary along the Caledonian Canal, which has the benefit of being a clear boundary. That would get Argyll into range even if Lomondside et al. remain in the seat (I make it 76,167). But it splits Banavie in two, and Caol and Corpach end up in separate seats. b) Transfer some of Lomond North into Dunbartonshire West in addition to Cardross and Lomondside. If there were enough electors in Luss, that would be OK. Unfortunately, there aren't (I make it 158), so you'd have to move Tarbet out as well, which would break community ties with Arrochar. c) Transfer Ardnamurchan and Morvern back into a Highland seat. This has about 1525 electors, so would be comfortably enough to make the figures fit. It would mean a lack of direct road access between Mallaig and Spean Bridge. d) Transfer Bute to an Ayrshire seat. It's quite hard to come up with a solution that doesn't split the three towns (Ardrossan, Saltcoats and Stevenston), and the existing Ayrshire seats are OK, though I'd make the odd tweak here and there. Out of that lot, c) is probably the least worst, and I don't really see it as a runner. a) is defensible only on the clarity of the boundary. d) is a non-starter. It's a pity that there aren't enough electors in Luss to make b) an option, but there aren't, so it isn't.
|
|
|
Post by aidanthomson on Oct 20, 2021 9:56:46 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. The plan for Lanarkshire is pretty good. The real challenge was knowing what to do with the town of Wishaw, which is covered by three wards (most of Wishaw, about half of Murdostoun, and about a quarter of Motherwell SE & Ravenscraig). Separating Wishaw from Motherwell was possible, but would have been impossible to achieve without splitting at least one of the above-named wards, and probably two. But given that Wishaw's links with Motherwell are close and longstanding, it was best to treat them as a single unit, which is what the BCS has done. It wasn't possible to combine them with all of Hamilton (too big), so the solution was to expand the seat up the east side of the Clyde valley (ditto for Hamilton on the west side). It makes sense on the ground, and the local authority boundary is crossed only once (as it had to be somewhere).
|
|
|
Post by aidanthomson on Feb 2, 2022 22:03:55 GMT
I've had a quick look through the submissions to the BCS. The largest number appear to be from Kinross-shire residents unhappy with the proposed link with Fife; in many cases, the split of the county between two seats was also mentioned; in some cases the contrast between rural Kinross-shire and industrial Glenrothes was mentioned explicitly. (The solution of what to do with Fife was conspicuous by its absence.) John Nicolson was diplomatic in noting his constituents' concerns but I suspect he realised that there's no obvious alternative to the link with Fife; Pete Wishart came up with a counterproposal that was based only on the existing Perth & North Perthshire and Ochil & South Perthshire seats, so ignored what to do with Fife entirely; Perth & Kinross Council objected to the area's being split among five constituencies.
Also in Perth & Kinross, there was some opposition to transferring the Carse of Gowrie (and specifically the West Carse) to Dundee West. But those living in the proposed Perth & Tay seat were all satisfied with the change - and also all requested that it be changed to Perth & West Perthshire.
The other main areas of contention included: * Glasgow: unhappiness from community councils about the proposed links with West Dunbartonshire and Renfrewshire, though without any specific alternative; also some objections to the proposed Glasgow Central seat * Renfrewshire/Inverclyde: opposition from Houston and Bridge of Weir residents about being moved into Inverclyde, again without any specific alternative (Skelmorlie was mentioned by some but that wouldn't get Inverclyde up to 69,724 on its own) * Musselburgh: opposition to the split in the town, again without an obvious alternative that was within the statutory limit * Moray: opposition to the council's being split between three seats was widespread, though there was little if any acknowledgement of the knock-on effects of this * Highland: opposition to the physical size of the proposed seats * Angus: quite a bit of opposition to the inclusion of Arbroath in a Dundee seat, though no clear workable alternative offered; Angus Council wanted an Angus seat based on the entire council minus Monifieth/Sidlaw, but their suggestion of Dundee making up its numbers by moving across the Tay was vague and surely a non-starter * West Lothian: the council proposed moving Whitburn to Linlithgow and Broxburn and Uphall to Livingston, something that reflected the small number of other submissions (I'd have proposed this had I made a submission) * Various seats' names: particularly the two Forth Valley and Kelvin seats
The Conservatives, Labour and the Lib Dems all made submissions. Labour took the line of being open to good alternatives for a number of areas if they presented themselves but didn't propose many themselves. The Lib Dems proposed changes to the Highland seats that kept the Wester Ross ward undivided but retained in Highland North the parts of the Aird that the Commission proposed (there were one or two other tweaks around Inverness as well); they accepted the changes (though not the names) in the East Dunbartonshire/Cumbernauld area.
The Tories' submission was much more extensive, and they make a handful of counterproposals. They aimed to solve the Kinross-shire question by linking all Kinross-shire with Dunfermline, moving most of Rosyth ward (including all the town) into Kirkcaldy along with the Wemyss villages, and creating a Glenrothes & Cowdenbeath division. I could see this being adopted: Kinross-shire really has to go in with Fife, whatever local opinion, but not splitting it would at least be a way of removing insult from injury. (An alternative, given the number of submissions that complained about Kinross-shire's rurality being at odds with industrial Glenrothes, would be for Kinross-shire to join an otherwise unchanged Fife North East, but that would mean maintaining the current split in Leven and still leave the question of how best to get Dunfermline, Rosyth and west Fife up to 69,724.)
The Tories also propose moving the western part of the Carse of Gowrie into Perth & West Perthshire, though that means the ward is split between three seats (they could get around that by putting all the rest of the Carse in Angus and Strathmore and making Dundee West a purely Dundee City seat). They divide the two Aberdeen seats differently, with Midstocket/Rosemount split along Westburn Road and the northern part of George Street/Harbour going into North (I think the Lib Dems also proposed this, or something like it, in one of the zombie reviews). And they propose a different split to Musselburgh in line with the 1997–2005 split of the town.
It's a little disappointing that there aren't more detailed counterproposals. There was one Scotland-wide submission from an individual elector (a Jonathan Stansby – one of this forum?) and another proposal that, among changes to names, proposed a few changes to seats. But that was about it, aside from the parties' submissions, and local changes that didn't take into account the bigger picture. More may come out in the local enquiries, of course.
|
|
xenon
Forum Regular
Posts: 429
Member is Online
|
Post by xenon on Feb 3, 2022 18:50:58 GMT
I've just spent an hour looking through the responses, and the main thing that jumps out is the sheer number of replies from disgruntled Kinross residents – they seem to comprise about half of the comments for the whole of Scotland.
My favourite comment is probably this:
"Fife is an utter disgrace! the politicians who look after fife are all an utter disgrace the snp are destroying scotland with their BS fife council are a shower of snakes nhs fife have many questions to answer I did care but now i dont give a dam" [sic]
|
|
piperdave
SNP
Dalkeith; Midlothian/North & Musselburgh
Posts: 911
|
Post by piperdave on Feb 3, 2022 19:25:55 GMT
The Tories' submission was much more extensive, and they make a handful of counterproposals. They aimed to solve the Kinross-shire question by linking all Kinross-shire with Dunfermline, moving most of Rosyth ward (including all the town) into Kirkcaldy along with the Wemyss villages, and creating a Glenrothes & Cowdenbeath division. I could see this being adopted: Kinross-shire really has to go in with Fife, whatever local opinion, but not splitting it would at least be a way of removing insult from injury. (An alternative, given the number of submissions that complained about Kinross-shire's rurality being at odds with industrial Glenrothes, would be for Kinross-shire to join an otherwise unchanged Fife North East, but that would mean maintaining the current split in Leven and still leave the question of how best to get Dunfermline, Rosyth and west Fife up to 69,724.) One option I had considered for Kinross would be to add it to the existing North East Fife. There is a reasonable road connection that way and has a similar rural/small town nature to the east of the Kingdom. I think you'd need to keep Lundin Links and Upper Largo in but not sure if it would be better for Leven to go into a Glenrothes constituency (unchanged other than extending to cover all of the component wards) without the precise figures. Ideally you'd be looking for about 5,000 voters from Leven, Kennoway and Largo to be in North Fife & Kinross to balance the electorates.
|
|
|
Post by aidanthomson on Feb 3, 2022 21:47:01 GMT
The Tories' submission was much more extensive, and they make a handful of counterproposals. They aimed to solve the Kinross-shire question by linking all Kinross-shire with Dunfermline, moving most of Rosyth ward (including all the town) into Kirkcaldy along with the Wemyss villages, and creating a Glenrothes & Cowdenbeath division. I could see this being adopted: Kinross-shire really has to go in with Fife, whatever local opinion, but not splitting it would at least be a way of removing insult from injury. (An alternative, given the number of submissions that complained about Kinross-shire's rurality being at odds with industrial Glenrothes, would be for Kinross-shire to join an otherwise unchanged Fife North East, but that would mean maintaining the current split in Leven and still leave the question of how best to get Dunfermline, Rosyth and west Fife up to 69,724.) One option I had considered for Kinross would be to add it to the existing North East Fife. There is a reasonable road connection that way and has a similar rural/small town nature to the east of the Kingdom. I think you'd need to keep Lundin Links and Upper Largo in but not sure if it would be better for Leven to go into a Glenrothes constituency (unchanged other than extending to cover all of the component wards) without the precise figures. Ideally you'd be looking for about 5,000 voters from Leven, Kennoway and Largo to be in North Fife & Kinross to balance the electorates. I'd tried to get the existing NE Fife plus Kinross-shire minus Leven East. The numbers don't work, though; Largo/Lundin Links on their own are several hundred short. It might work if parts of Almond/Earn were added, though if Kinross is anything to go by pitchfork sales there would go through the roof.
|
|
|
Post by bjornhattan on Feb 3, 2022 23:05:36 GMT
One option I had considered for Kinross would be to add it to the existing North East Fife. There is a reasonable road connection that way and has a similar rural/small town nature to the east of the Kingdom. I think you'd need to keep Lundin Links and Upper Largo in but not sure if it would be better for Leven to go into a Glenrothes constituency (unchanged other than extending to cover all of the component wards) without the precise figures. Ideally you'd be looking for about 5,000 voters from Leven, Kennoway and Largo to be in North Fife & Kinross to balance the electorates. I'd tried to get the existing NE Fife plus Kinross-shire minus Leven East. The numbers don't work, though; Largo/Lundin Links on their own are several hundred short. It might work if parts of Almond/Earn were added, though if Kinross is anything to go by pitchfork sales there would go through the roof. Would this work if instead of just removing Leven East, you swapped it for Kennoway? That would unify the urban area around Leven and Methil all in one seat, and also puts the village of Kennoway in a predominantely vilage/small town seat rather than in the more urban Glenrothes.
|
|
|
Post by aidanthomson on Feb 6, 2022 13:10:50 GMT
I'd tried to get the existing NE Fife plus Kinross-shire minus Leven East. The numbers don't work, though; Largo/Lundin Links on their own are several hundred short. It might work if parts of Almond/Earn were added, though if Kinross is anything to go by pitchfork sales there would go through the roof. Would this work if instead of just removing Leven East, you swapped it for Kennoway? That would unify the urban area around Leven and Methil all in one seat, and also puts the village of Kennoway in a predominantely vilage/small town seat rather than in the more urban Glenrothes. The numbers work for NE Fife, though you'd split Kennoway from Windygates. The issue then is what to do with Dunfermline. The three Dunfermline wards, rural west Fife and Rosyth are too small to be a seat on their own. The neatest solution in terms of constituency shapes is to add Kelty community council, but that narrowly gets Kirkcaldy & Cowdenbeath under the minimum threshold. It's possible to make up those numbers by adding the three Wemyss community councils to the north-east of Kirkcaldy, and you get something like this: Alternatively, you can go for something closer to a minimum change option for Dunfermline and include Crossgates and Hill of Beath. That way, you can keep Kelty in Kirkcaldy & Cowdenbeath and the Wemyss villages in Glenrothes, thereby avoiding a ward split in Buckhaven, Methil and Wemyss Villages. It looks something like this: The electorate figures that I have for the sub-ward community council areas are: Within Leven, Kennoway and Largo: Kennoway 3750, Largo 2354 (I've also trimmed 20 electors off the northern rural bit of Leven, but nothing within the built-up area) Within Buckhaven, Methil and Wemyss villages: East Wemyss 1515, Coaltown of Wemyss 657, West Wemyss 202 Within Cowdenbeath: Kelty 5051, Crossgates 2360, Hill of Beath 787
|
|
|
Post by bjornhattan on Feb 6, 2022 13:44:13 GMT
I like those maps a lot, but the only issue I can see is that they both split the Cowdenbeath area too much. From Lochgelly to Hill of Beath is essentially one continuous urban area, yet your second map splits this into three different seats. The first map isn't so bad for that, but Kelty is similar to Cowdenbeath demographically and they share the same school catchment, so ideally they would be in the same constituency.
Currently Dunfermline contains Inverkeithing, and that's only being lost because of ward boundary changes. Would splitting the current Inverkeithing and Dalgety Bay ward to retain the old constituency boundary be an option?
|
|
islington
Non-Aligned
Posts: 4,435
Member is Online
|
Post by islington on Feb 6, 2022 14:57:26 GMT
Here's a plan that allocates four seats to Fife + Kinross, puts Kinross in a seat that doesn't include any large towns, keeps each of Dunfermline, Kirkcaldy and Glenrothes undivided, and doesn't even involve a ward split.
There might be one or two grumbles from St Andrews, but you can't have everything.
(You'll be pleased to hear that this is not a 100% serious suggestion, but it ticks all the boxes.)
As a matter of fact the numbers still work if you swap the three north Fife wards into the yellow seat with the Glenrothes wards going the other way. This is actually quite a sensible solution: admittedly it lumps Kinross in with Glenrothes but at least it doesn't divide it. In fact I think I'll do numbers for the latter arrangement:
East Fife - 70452. I think this is identical to the BCS proposal.
West Fife and Kinross - 75636. Note that I've tactfully omitted 'Glenrothes' from the name.
Dunfermline - 71723. Kirkcaldy - 71444.
|
|
|
Post by mattb on Feb 6, 2022 15:45:09 GMT
"one or two grumbles from St Andrews" Really ?!
|
|
|
Post by aidanthomson on Feb 6, 2022 16:40:17 GMT
I like those maps a lot, but the only issue I can see is that they both split the Cowdenbeath area too much. From Lochgelly to Hill of Beath is essentially one continuous urban area, yet your second map splits this into three different seats. The first map isn't so bad for that, but Kelty is similar to Cowdenbeath demographically and they share the same school catchment, so ideally they would be in the same constituency. Currently Dunfermline contains Inverkeithing, and that's only being lost because of ward boundary changes. Would splitting the current Inverkeithing and Dalgety Bay ward to retain the old constituency boundary be an option? It would. I had thought that it wouldn't because I thought Inverkeithing was a lot larger than it actually is, which is why I didn't try it until now. But the electorates for Inverkeithing and North Queensferry are, respectively, 3709 and 858, and that means that you don't need any other ward splits except for the one in Kennoway/Leven/Largo. So here's a solution that looks much neater. It's a pity that Lochgelly and Lumphinnans are split from the rest of the Fife ex-coalfield, but you can't have everything:
|
|
piperdave
SNP
Dalkeith; Midlothian/North & Musselburgh
Posts: 911
|
Post by piperdave on Feb 6, 2022 21:56:33 GMT
I think that would be my preferred configuration.
|
|
|
Post by aidanthomson on Feb 13, 2022 20:21:43 GMT
I've had a go at putting together a Perth and Kinross-based seat to see if there is a possible counterproposal to allay the concerns of the Kinross residents who opposed the Fife link. Here's what it looks like: Close up: So this means: Perth and Kinross (77,005): Perth x 3, Strathallan, Strathearn, Almond & Earn, part of Strathmore (Scone community council), part of Strathtay (Huntingtower, etc.), part of Carse of Gowrie (St Maddoes community council) Tayside North (71,036): rest of Strathmore and Strathtay, plus Highland, Blairgowrie, Kirriemuir, Forfar, Brechin, and parts of Monifieth/Sidlaw and Arbroath West that BCS had in proposed Angus & Strathmore seat Dundee West (75710): rest of Carse of Gowrie, plus West End, Lochee, Coldside, Strathmartine and Maryfield Dundee East and Arbroath (76,742): The Ferry, East End, North East, Carnoustie (all of it), Arbroath East, and parts of Monifieth/Sidlaw and Arbroath West in BCS seat of that name Fife North East (70,452): as BCS proposal Glenrothes and Cowdenbeath (69,733): Glenrothes x 3, Lochgelly, Cowdenbeath, and small parts of West Fife/Coastal Villages (part of Kelty community council that isn't in Cowdenbeath ward, small part of Saline/Steelend community council) and Dunfermline North (Kingseat and Townhill community councils) Kirkcaldy (71,444): Buckhaven, Kirkcaldy x 3, Burntisland, Inverkeithing Dunfermline and Dollar (73,218): rest of West Fife/Coastal Villages and Dunfermline North, plus other Dunfermline wards, Rosyth, and Clackmannanshire East Stirling (70,085): as per BCS Falkirk (72,574): Falkirk x 2, Braes x 2, Grangemouth, southern half of Bonnybridge/Larbert as per BCS proposal for Forth Valley South Alloa and Larbert (71,151): Clackmannanshire minus Clacks East, plus Carse, Denny/Banknock and northern half of Bonnybridge/Larbert Aberdeenshire West and Montrose (75,958): Montrose, Mearns, Stonehaven, North Kincardine, Banchory, Aboyne, Westhill Aberdeen North and South: not marked on this map, but as per BCS or however you want to split up the city into two seats Gordon (75,497): Huntly, Garioch x 2, Inverurie, Mid Formartine, Ellon, Turriff Banff and Buchan (75,774): Banff, Troup, Fraserburgh, Central Buchan, Peterhead x 2, Buckie, Keith/Cullen, Fochabers Lhanbryde east of the river Spey Moray and Nairn (76,265): Fochabers Lhanbryde west of the Spey, plus Elgin x 2, Heldon/Lauch, Speyside Glenlivet, Forres, Badenoch/Strathspey, Nairn/Cawdor, and eastern part of Culloden etc. as per BCS's current split Highland North, Highland Central, Argyll: as per BCS's current proposals, though I've renamed them, respectively: Caithness, Sutherland and Ross-shire; Inverness, Skye and Lochaber; and Argyll and Bute. So a solution can be found, but it's not great: the splits in north Dunfermline, Clackmannanshire and Bonnybridge (from Banknock) are all poor, and Alloa and Larbert is really horrible (the Clackmannan Bridge runs into the ward that has been moved to Dunfermline). I actually prefer the arrangement for Moray (it splits the council into only two seats), but that's neither here nor there!
|
|