2023 Review - Scotland

[Deleted]

The BCS has a map on its website where you can select the boundaries from all its periodic reviews. Here I've selected the First and Fifth.

[edgbaston]

Jan 22, 2021 20:07:47 GMT doktorb🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️ said:

The BCS has a map on its website where you can select the boundaries from all its periodic reviews. Here I've selected the First and Fifth.

The size of those Glasgow seats!

[greenhert]

Jan 22, 2021 20:11:57 GMT edgbaston said:

Jan 22, 2021 20:07:47 GMT doktorb🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️ said:

The BCS has a map on its website where you can select the boundaries from all its periodic reviews. Here I've selected the First and Fifth.

The size of those Glasgow seats!

Or rather lack thereof given how small some of them became by the time they were abolished. The 1974-83 version of Glasgow Central had only less than 18,000 electors by the beginning of 1983!

[piperdave]

While we all wait for the Boundary Commission to publish the ward level data, I've had a stab at working out the local authority theoretical entitlements. It's nice and straightforward with existing constituencies that are a single seat themselves, or all with the same council. For the cross-border areas, I've apportioned them based on the local government electorates.

Local Authority	Entitlement		Local Authority	Entitlement
Aberdeen City	2.167		Highland	2.454
Aberdeenshire	2.620		Inverclyde	0.835
Angus	1.219		Midlothian	0.973
Argyll & Bute	0.924		Moray	0.978
Clackmannanshire	0.533		North Ayrshire	1.452
Dumfries & Galloway	1.615		North Lanarkshire	3.529
Dundee	1.487		Perth & Kinross	1.571
East Ayrshire	1.288		Renfrewshire	1.879
East Dunbartonshire	1.154		Scottish Borders	1.255
East Lothian	1.127		South Ayrshire	1.228
East Renfrewshire	0.997		South Lanarkshire	3.436
Edinburgh	4.952		Stirling	0.958
Falkirk	1.664		West Dunbartonshire	0.927
Fife	3.800		West Lothian	1.865
Glasgow	6.114

I would group those into the following review areas:

Review Area	Local Authorities	Area entitlement
Grampian & Highland	Aberdeen City, Aberdeenshire, Argyll & Bute, Highland, Moray	9.143
Tayside & Fife	Angus, Dundee, Fife, Perth & Kinross	8.077
Stirling	Stirling	0.958
Forth	Clackmannanshire, Falkirk, West Lothian	4.062
Edinburgh	Edinburgh	4.952
Midlothian	Midlothian	0.973
South	Dumfries & Galloway, East Lothian, Scottish Borders	3.997
Lanarkshire	North Lanarkshire, South Lanarkshire	6.965
Dunbartonshire	East Dunbartonshire, West Dunbartonshire	2.081
East Renfrewshire	East Renfrewshire	0.997
Glasgow & Renfrewshire	Glasgow, Inverclyde, Renfrewshire	8.828
Ayrshire	East Ayrshire, North Ayrshire, South Ayrshire	3.968

There are a few things that won't make me happy from this. I'll have to split Moray, both Dunbartonshire seats will be close to the maximum, and I'm not sure Clacks can legally be combined with Falkirk without going via Stirling.

I've used the fifth review areas to get the ratio of parliament to local electors and applied that to each ward so hopefully I'll be working with something close to the right numbers as I design some initial consitutencies.

[East Anglian Lefty]

Alternatively, looks like you could leave Moray alone, assign five seats to Aberdeen and the shire, put Argyll & Bute in with Dunbartonshire and group Highland with Perth, Angus, Dundee and Fife? I don't think anybody would like a Highland and north Perthshire seat, but at least it could follow the A9 and that way you'd minimise disruption to existing seats.

[piperdave]

A Highland and Perthshire seat would very likely stretch from Nairn to Scone. I'll put that one in the Pitchfork Bait thread.

[East Anglian Lefty]

You think that's pitchfork bait? For my next trick, I'm going to suggest that the numbers really work much better for East Dunbartonshire to go with your Glasgow group and for West Dunbartonshire to join with the Highland group.

[Deleted]

Jan 23, 2021 14:34:17 GMT piperdave said:

A Highland and Perthshire seat would very likely stretch from Nairn to Scone. I'll put that one in the Pitchfork Bait thread.

 We're in the stage before the official provisional recommendations are released, technically you can go buck-wild with any combination you want until that happens. 

[East Anglian Lefty]

Another possible tweak on those numbers:

D&G and Borders could stand alone for three small seats, and you could stick East Lothian in with Edinburgh, as has been done previously.

[Eastwood]

The Legal definition of Scotch Whisky protected geographical areas are set out in The Scotch Whisky Regulations 2009 SI.
www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2009/2890/regulation/10/made

"Speyside”, comprising—

(i)the wards of Buckie, Elgin City North, Elgin City South, Fochabers Lhanbryde, Forres, Heldon and Laich, Keith and Cullen and Speyside Glenlivet of the Moray Council as those wards are constituted in the Moray (Electoral Arrangements) Order 2006(2); and

(ii)the Badenoch and Strathspey ward of the Highland Council as that ward is constituted in the Highland (Electoral Arrangements) Order 2006(3).

This would actually make a great constituency and the SI gives us a perfect one word name, a rarity for rural Scottish Constituencies. I'm sure the LGBCS would insist on calling it Moray and Badenoch instead but they should be told to just use Speyside! 

It may just be a touch too large sadly but would be worth considering a ward split and just putting Grantown on Spey in with Moray instead. This would be acceptable as a split as Grantown was in Elginshire prior to 1975 anyway. Speyside would still work as a name for a Moray and Grantown constituency.

[Deleted]

Jan 25, 2021 21:43:54 GMT Eastwood said:

The Legal definition of Scotch Whisky protected geographical areas are set out in The Scotch Whisky Regulations 2009 SI.
www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2009/2890/regulation/10/made

"Speyside”, comprising—

(i)the wards of Buckie, Elgin City North, Elgin City South, Fochabers Lhanbryde, Forres, Heldon and Laich, Keith and Cullen and Speyside Glenlivet of the Moray Council as those wards are constituted in the Moray (Electoral Arrangements) Order 2006(2); and

(ii)the Badenoch and Strathspey ward of the Highland Council as that ward is constituted in the Highland (Electoral Arrangements) Order 2006(3).

This would actually make a great constituency and the SI gives us a perfect one word name, a rarity for rural Scottish Constituencies. I'm sure the LGBCS would insist on calling it Moray and Badenoch instead but they should be told to just use Speyside! 

It may just be a touch too large sadly but would be worth considering a ward split and just putting Grantown on Spey in with Moray instead. This would be acceptable as a split as Grantown was in Elginshire prior to 1975 anyway. Speyside would still work as a name for a Moray and Grantown constituency.

 It's in quota on Boundary Assistant (for now!)

[piperdave]

I've got a Speyside & Nairn constituency which differs from "Speyside" by adding Nairn (obvs) and excluding Buckie and Keith & Cullen.

[carlton43]

Jan 25, 2021 22:55:41 GMT piperdave said:

I've got a Speyside & Nairn constituency which differs from "Speyside" by adding Nairn (obvs) and excluding Buckie and Keith & Cullen.

I think your plan skinks.

[piperdave]

Chegwinning here!

[aidanthomson]

Jan 23, 2021 13:57:20 GMT piperdave said:

While we all wait for the Boundary Commission to publish the ward level data, I've had a stab at working out the local authority theoretical entitlements. It's nice and straightforward with existing constituencies that are a single seat themselves, or all with the same council. For the cross-border areas, I've apportioned them based on the local government electorates.

Local Authority	Entitlement		Local Authority	Entitlement
Aberdeen City	2.167		Highland	2.454
Aberdeenshire	2.620		Inverclyde	0.835
Angus	1.219		Midlothian	0.973
Argyll & Bute	0.924		Moray	0.978
Clackmannanshire	0.533		North Ayrshire	1.452
Dumfries & Galloway	1.615		North Lanarkshire	3.529
Dundee	1.487		Perth & Kinross	1.571
East Ayrshire	1.288		Renfrewshire	1.879
East Dunbartonshire	1.154		Scottish Borders	1.255
East Lothian	1.127		South Ayrshire	1.228
East Renfrewshire	0.997		South Lanarkshire	3.436
Edinburgh	4.952		Stirling	0.958
Falkirk	1.664		West Dunbartonshire	0.927
Fife	3.800		West Lothian	1.865
Glasgow	6.114

I would group those into the following review areas:

Review Area	Local Authorities	Area entitlement
Grampian & Highland	Aberdeen City, Aberdeenshire, Argyll & Bute, Highland, Moray	9.143
Tayside & Fife	Angus, Dundee, Fife, Perth & Kinross	8.077
Stirling	Stirling	0.958
Forth	Clackmannanshire, Falkirk, West Lothian	4.062
Edinburgh	Edinburgh	4.952
Midlothian	Midlothian	0.973
South	Dumfries & Galloway, East Lothian, Scottish Borders	3.997
Lanarkshire	North Lanarkshire, South Lanarkshire	6.965
Dunbartonshire	East Dunbartonshire, West Dunbartonshire	2.081
East Renfrewshire	East Renfrewshire	0.997
Glasgow & Renfrewshire	Glasgow, Inverclyde, Renfrewshire	8.828
Ayrshire	East Ayrshire, North Ayrshire, South Ayrshire	3.968

There are a few things that won't make me happy from this. I'll have to split Moray, both Dunbartonshire seats will be close to the maximum, and I'm not sure Clacks can legally be combined with Falkirk without going via Stirling.

I've used the fifth review areas to get the ratio of parliament to local electors and applied that to each ward so hopefully I'll be working with something close to the right numbers as I design some initial consitutencies.

Great work, piperdave ! This is excellent for getting us started, and I look forward to seeing the finalised electorates. A few thoughts:

1. Agree absolutely re the need to split Moray rather than have a 'Drumochter Pass' seat that crosses Highland and Perthshire & Kinross.

2. Your Forth grouping will probably have to include Stirling: say taking Bannockburn and a sliver of Stirling North to get a road crossing the Forth. The rest of Stirling would probably have to extend into Denny. It wouldn't be ideal, but the numbers fit.

3. Great that the three Ayrshire authorities can be kept together as a single unit.

4. Re Glasgow/Renfrewshire/Inverclyde: I don't suppose there's any way that East Renfrewshire could be included as well? Adding Barrhead and Neilston to Renfrewshire seats has precedence in the Scottish Parliament, while Newlands and Cathcart would be a logical addition to the Eastwood bits of East Renfrewshire. By contrast, a Paisley East & Craigton-type scenario would play havoc with the arrangement of seats in south Glasgow.

5. I'm not keen on a D&G/Borders link that doesn't include South Lanarkshire. DCT is a ragbag, but at least there's a communication link of sorts between Dumfriesshire and Clydesdale via the A74/M74, and between Tweeddale and Clydesdale via the Carluke-Biggar-Peebles road. I'm not convinced that the direct links between Dumfriesshire (aside from Langholm) and the Borders are anything like as good. Also, Peebles is a bit removed from the small rugby-playing towns of the Borders - it takes longer to travel by car from Peebles to Galashiels than from Peebles to Biggar (or from Peebles to the edge of Edinburgh, for that matter) - whereas a Dumfriesshire/Borders seat would probably mean having to remove one of those towns from BRS, probably Hawick. So, at the risk of putting the cart before the horse, I'd look for a way to retain the existing BRS, DCT (for all its faults) and D&G seats, with minor adjustments. That means a group of Dumfries & Galloway, the two Lanarkshires and the Borders in a single group, possibly the two Dunbartonshires as well. And, like @east Anglian Lefty, I'd link East Lothian and Edinburgh.

[piperdave]

Thanks aidanthomson. In the absence of official figures, gotta make your own fun! Just to respond briefly to your points:

1. There is precendent for breaking up Moray and linking different parts of it east and west. There is no precedent for a Highland/Perthshire constituency so I don't see the BC going for it.

2. I suspect you are right on Forth Valley and the numbers will be slightly better overall.

3. I was willing to break off the north coast to go in with Inverclyde but other options were available.

4. You can add East Ren if you like! As it is almost exactly on quota, it doesn't make any practical differece. But you risk the views of people who definitely don't want to be in Glasgow at your leisure.

5. I know it's not ideal but there will be a leftovers seat somewhere in the south and my first draft is Roxburgh & Annandale. Is that a mob of villagers I see before me?

[Eastwood]

Jan 25, 2021 22:55:41 GMT piperdave said:

I've got a Speyside & Nairn constituency which differs from "Speyside" by adding Nairn (obvs) and excluding Buckie and Keith & Cullen.

Given Buckie, Keith and Cullen are all Banffshire add ons to Moray post 1975 your Speyside and Nairn is actually not a million miles off returning to the traditional pre 1918 Elginshire and Nairnshire constituency albeit with added Badenoch and Strathspey bits. I think that works pretty well and if you're going to split Moray its the logical way to do it. 

[therealriga]

Jan 22, 2021 20:07:47 GMT doktorb🏳️‍🌈🏳️‍⚧️ said:

The BCS has a map on its website where you can select the boundaries from all its periodic reviews. Here I've selected the First and Fifth.

The Scottish boundary commission site is an excellent resource for previous reviews, it's a shame that the other 3 commissions don't follow their lead and put previous reviews on their sites. Looking over previous reviews one interesting one stuck out to me. In the third review, Glasgow had an entitlement to 11.38 seats and the commission recommended giving it 10 (!) I've never seen any commission ever recommend giving fewer seats than the whole number it was entitled to. They justified this on the grounds that they were trying to keep the numbers to 71 seats*** (Lothians had an entitlement to 10.60 and got 10) and that Glasgow's electorate was falling. Their projections were spot on as Glasgow did lose a seat in the following review, but it seems a really radical departure from their usual practice.

[***Of course, this problem was a consequence of them awarding two whole seats to the outer isles, without adjusting the quota accordingly as they do now.] 

[🏴‍☠️ Neath West 🏴‍☠️]

Jan 30, 2021 10:52:41 GMT therealriga said:

The Scottish boundary commission site is an excellent resource for previous reviews, it's a shame that the other 3 commissions don't follow their lead and put previous reviews on their sites.

The Welsh Commission at one time put up PDFs of all of its previous reviews. I stupidly did not download them. Did anyone else?

Looking over previous reviews one interesting one stuck out to me. In the third review, Glasgow had an entitlement to 11.38 seats and the commission recommended giving it 10 (!) I've never seen any commission ever recommend giving fewer seats than the whole number it was entitled to. They justified this on the grounds that they were trying to keep the numbers to 71 seats*** (Lothians had an entitlement to 10.60 and got 10) and that Glasgow's electorate was falling. Their projections were spot on as Glasgow did lose a seat in the following review, but it seems a really radical departure from their usual practice.

The Welsh Commission did something similar in not giving South Glamorgan the extra constituency it was entitled to. It's in those PDFs I didn't download.

[aidanthomson]

Jan 27, 2021 22:13:15 GMT piperdave said:

Thanks aidanthomson. In the absence of official figures, gotta make your own fun! Just to respond briefly to your points:

1. There is precendent for breaking up Moray and linking different parts of it east and west. There is no precedent for a Highland/Perthshire constituency so I don't see the BC going for it.

Yes, depending on how the numbers fall there will probably be a Moray & Nairn, or Moray, Nairn and Badenoch (or Moray and Strathspey), along with a Banffshire or Banff & Buchan Coast, or something like that.

2. I suspect you are right on Forth Valley and the numbers will be slightly better overall.

A return, perhaps, of Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire, at least as a name. Also, Bo'ness, historically in West Lothian, may end up as the only bit of Falkirk in a West Lothian seat, depending on how the numbers fall.

3. I was willing to break off the north coast to go in with Inverclyde but other options were available.

4. You can add East Ren if you like! As it is almost exactly on quota, it doesn't make any practical differece. But you risk the views of people who definitely don't want to be in Glasgow at your leisure.

The East Ren/Cathcart seat would probably be about 70% East Ren, which might sugar the pill a bit. Also, for a lot of Eastwood Tories, Cathcart and Newlands would probably be more attractive partners than Barrhead. But I take your point!

Re Inverclyde: surely the whole council plus Bridge of Weir/Bishopton is most likely?

5. I know it's not ideal but there will be a leftovers seat somewhere in the south and my first draft is Roxburgh & Annandale. Is that a mob of villagers I see before me?

It's a Common Riding, probably several!

How have you done the south: Mid and Upper Nithsdale in with Dumfries and Galloway; Lochar, the three Annandale wards and the four Roxburgh wards in R&A; the remaining seven Borders wards plus Dunbar; and then the remaining East Lothian wards? I can see how that would make dividing up Lanarkshire a whole lot easier.