Eastwood
Non-Aligned
Politically restricted post
Posts: 2,086
|
Post by Eastwood on May 18, 2023 18:07:54 GMT
Eastwood pretty much being destroyed in those proposals Well I stand with Eastwood at this difficult time and I expect everyone else on the Forum to do likewise. I refuse to change my name to Renfrewshire South albeit it’s a reasonable name for an abomination of a constituency. Described it to Dr Eastwood and her response was “I’ve never even heard of those places” (Kilbarchan, Lochwinnoch, Milliken Park etc).
|
|
|
Post by aidanthomson on May 20, 2023 11:58:50 GMT
Brief return from my sabbatical for comment. Not terrible, and they allow for needed variance blut some clunkers. I've submitted; A cross East Renfrewshire/Glasgow seat should take in Linn, not Pollok. You can then rework the adjoining two seats into configurations closer to the existing Pollok and Southside seats. Fix the three Renfrewshire seats. Paisley had been split to an EW not NS configuration and Johnstone has also been needlessly 'scissored'. Minor change to Clydebank etc. Currently they've taken out Dalmuir and the hospital into the Dumbarton seat when you can exchange it for Mountblow. Extending Clackmannanshire and Dunblane towards Callander is a bit excessive. Could be left below quota or take a chunk out of Bannockburn ward like Ochil used to. The seats around Edinburgh are fine. The seats in Edinburgh are badly drawn. Meeting Papers show an alternate configuration that follows the boundary the last time West Lothian hopped into Edinburgh from 1983 to 1997 placing all of Cramond and Muirhouse in an Edinburgh seat. That's a better suggestion. I've not submitted anything, and probably won't, but tried out various solutions for Glasgow/Renfrewshire that might retain Eastwood. I came up with: 1. Inverclyde: local authority 2. Renfrewshire West: Bridge of Weir/Bishopton, Houston/Linwood, Erskine/Inchinnan, Johnstone x2 3. Paisley North: Renfrew x2, Paisley NW, EC,and NE/Ralston 4. Paisley South and Nitshill: Paisley SE and SW, Barrhead, Greater Pollok 5. Eastwood: East Renfrewshire minus Barrhead 6. Glasgow Govan: Govan, Cardonald, Pollokshields 7. Glasgow Cathcart: Linn, Newlands/Auldburn, Langside (except for Toryglen) 8. Glasgow Bridgeton: Calton, Shettleston, Southside Central, Toryglen 9. Glasgow Provan: East Centre, Baillieston, Dennistoun south of the M8, North East (except for Blackhill/Hogganfield) 10. Glasgow Anniesland: Drumchapel/Anniesland, Garscadden/Scotstounhill, Victoria Park 11. Glasgow Hillhead: Partick East/Kelvindale, Hillhead, Anderston/City/Yorkhill 12. Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn: Maryhill, Canal, Springburn/Robroyston, Dennistoun north of the M8, Blackhill/Hogganfield I used Boundary Assistant electorates for Westminster elections (with a range of 10% from the mean), so they might require a bit of tweaking to make them work in a Holyrood context. Split ward electorates are approximate.
|
|
|
Post by stb12 on May 20, 2023 14:42:09 GMT
Well I stand with Eastwood at this difficult time and I expect everyone else on the Forum to do likewise. I refuse to change my name to Renfrewshire South albeit it’s a reasonable name for an abomination of a constituency. Described it to Dr Eastwood and her response was “I’ve never even heard of those places” (Kilbarchan, Lochwinnoch, Milliken Park etc). There just feels somrthing wrong with there not being an Eastwood/East Renfrewshire seat
|
|
xenon
Non-Aligned
Posts: 257
Member is Online
|
Post by xenon on May 21, 2023 10:00:12 GMT
Constituency names in Scotland have become increasingly lengthy and bland over the past couple of decades – there seems to be a lot of reliance on the same old "Unitary Authority-shire North/East/South/West" or "Large Town, Medium Town and Small Town" sorts of names. A lot of the old districts are the right sort of size (just like Eastwood), and provide both a shorter and a less generic alternative. Why not reprise "Nithsdale", "Monklands", "Strathkelvin" and so on?
|
|
piperdave
SNP
Dalkeith; Midlothian/North & Musselburgh
Posts: 909
Member is Online
|
Post by piperdave on May 31, 2023 21:33:16 GMT
Constituency names in Scotland have become increasingly lengthy and bland over the past couple of decades – there seems to be a lot of reliance on the same old "Unitary Authority-shire North/East/South/West" or "Large Town, Medium Town and Small Town" sorts of names. A lot of the old districts are the right sort of size (just like Eastwood), and provide both a shorter and a less generic alternative. Why not reprise "Nithsdale", "Monklands", "Strathkelvin" and so on? Probably because those districts haven't existed for approaching 30 years now so would be a bit meaningless. But your general point is right. I don't know whay the current Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse constituency isn't just Hamilton, which is what it would have been 30 years ago. Or get a bit more into vague geographical features for names.
|
|
Eastwood
Non-Aligned
Politically restricted post
Posts: 2,086
|
Post by Eastwood on Jun 15, 2023 7:50:47 GMT
I have been getting a series of different sponsored Facebook adverts from Jackson Carlaw about the boundary changes.
Latest is “Less than a week to save Eastwood”.
General Facebook comments consensus seems to be that yes the boundaries are weird but Jackson’s motivation is purely self preservation so will be interesting to see if a groundswell of public objections is created from the Conservative Party advertising spending.
|
|
|
Post by therealriga on Jun 15, 2023 10:56:09 GMT
I have been getting a series of different sponsored Facebook adverts from Jackson Carlaw about the boundary changes. I envy you. My latest Facebook ads are for donating to Ukraine, flight companies and easy credit. (The latter case, for a service I never ever use, seems to be due to proofreading such a website recently.)
|
|
|
Post by afleitch on Dec 12, 2023 18:12:37 GMT
Slipped under the radar. Local enquiries already underway.
|
|
ntyuk1707
Conservative
Posts: 466
Member is Online
|
Post by ntyuk1707 on Dec 12, 2023 22:31:32 GMT
Brief return from my sabbatical for comment. Not terrible, and they allow for needed variance blut some clunkers. I've submitted; A cross East Renfrewshire/Glasgow seat should take in Linn, not Pollok. You can then rework the adjoining two seats into configurations closer to the existing Pollok and Southside seats. Fix the three Renfrewshire seats. Paisley had been split to an EW not NS configuration and Johnstone has also been needlessly 'scissored'. Minor change to Clydebank etc. Currently they've taken out Dalmuir and the hospital into the Dumbarton seat when you can exchange it for Mountblow. Extending Clackmannanshire and Dunblane towards Callander is a bit excessive. Could be left below quota or take a chunk out of Bannockburn ward like Ochil used to. The seats around Edinburgh are fine. The seats in Edinburgh are badly drawn. Meeting Papers show an alternate configuration that follows the boundary the last time West Lothian hopped into Edinburgh from 1983 to 1997 placing all of Cramond and Muirhouse in an Edinburgh seat. That's a better suggestion. I've not submitted anything, and probably won't, but tried out various solutions for Glasgow/Renfrewshire that might retain Eastwood. I came up with: 1. Inverclyde: local authority 2. Renfrewshire West: Bridge of Weir/Bishopton, Houston/Linwood, Erskine/Inchinnan, Johnstone x2 3. Paisley North: Renfrew x2, Paisley NW, EC,and NE/Ralston 4. Paisley South and Nitshill: Paisley SE and SW, Barrhead, Greater Pollok 5. Eastwood: East Renfrewshire minus Barrhead 6. Glasgow Govan: Govan, Cardonald, Pollokshields 7. Glasgow Cathcart: Linn, Newlands/Auldburn, Langside (except for Toryglen) 8. Glasgow Bridgeton: Calton, Shettleston, Southside Central, Toryglen 9. Glasgow Provan: East Centre, Baillieston, Dennistoun south of the M8, North East (except for Blackhill/Hogganfield) 10. Glasgow Anniesland: Drumchapel/Anniesland, Garscadden/Scotstounhill, Victoria Park 11. Glasgow Hillhead: Partick East/Kelvindale, Hillhead, Anderston/City/Yorkhill 12. Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn: Maryhill, Canal, Springburn/Robroyston, Dennistoun north of the M8, Blackhill/Hogganfield I used Boundary Assistant electorates for Westminster elections (with a range of 10% from the mean), so they might require a bit of tweaking to make them work in a Holyrood context. Split ward electorates are approximate. That Paisley South-Pollok-Liboside constituency is very weird. It can and should be avoided. Neilston should also be part of the same constituency as Uplawmoor and Barrhead if possible. If anything it would make more sense to chuck in a polling district from the Southside of Glasgow into Eastwood if necessary (probably Carmunnock or Newlands).
|
|
|
Post by aidanthomson on Dec 13, 2023 11:35:17 GMT
I've not submitted anything, and probably won't, but tried out various solutions for Glasgow/Renfrewshire that might retain Eastwood. I came up with: 1. Inverclyde: local authority 2. Renfrewshire West: Bridge of Weir/Bishopton, Houston/Linwood, Erskine/Inchinnan, Johnstone x2 3. Paisley North: Renfrew x2, Paisley NW, EC,and NE/Ralston 4. Paisley South and Nitshill: Paisley SE and SW, Barrhead, Greater Pollok 5. Eastwood: East Renfrewshire minus Barrhead 6. Glasgow Govan: Govan, Cardonald, Pollokshields 7. Glasgow Cathcart: Linn, Newlands/Auldburn, Langside (except for Toryglen) 8. Glasgow Bridgeton: Calton, Shettleston, Southside Central, Toryglen 9. Glasgow Provan: East Centre, Baillieston, Dennistoun south of the M8, North East (except for Blackhill/Hogganfield) 10. Glasgow Anniesland: Drumchapel/Anniesland, Garscadden/Scotstounhill, Victoria Park 11. Glasgow Hillhead: Partick East/Kelvindale, Hillhead, Anderston/City/Yorkhill 12. Glasgow Maryhill and Springburn: Maryhill, Canal, Springburn/Robroyston, Dennistoun north of the M8, Blackhill/Hogganfield I used Boundary Assistant electorates for Westminster elections (with a range of 10% from the mean), so they might require a bit of tweaking to make them work in a Holyrood context. Split ward electorates are approximate. That Paisley South-Pollok-Liboside constituency is very weird. It can and should be avoided. Neilston should also be part of the same constituency as Uplawmoor and Barrhead if possible. If anything it would make more sense to chuck in a polling district from the Southside of Glasgow into Eastwood if necessary (probably Carmunnock or Newlands). Although Paisley South/Pollok/Liboside means a three-council seat, it avoids splitting Eastwood, and the Renfrewshire West seat that results is also more logical than the Commission's Renfrewshire South. But I take your point about Neilston, and I'd be happy to move it into Paisley South etc. and move Carmunnock in to Eastwood if the numbers work. I'd also be happy to move the north-east boundary of Paisley South etc. north to the White Cart Water, so that the rest of the Pollok scheme is included as well. Paisley South etc. would then be too big (about 65,000), but conversely Paisley North would be too small, so some more polling districts from Paisley SW (e.g., the old Stanely ward) would need to be transferred.
|
|
|
Post by stb12 on Dec 13, 2023 15:59:35 GMT
Carmunnock would fit in well demographically with Eastwood and is literally next to Busby
|
|
ntyuk1707
Conservative
Posts: 466
Member is Online
|
Post by ntyuk1707 on Dec 14, 2023 9:57:14 GMT
Carmunnock would fit in well demographically with Eastwood and is literally next to Busby Carmunnock and Newlands pass the Eastwood smell check - more so than Neilston anyway...
|
|
|
Post by yellowfox on Dec 30, 2023 21:06:59 GMT
My view is that, as Rutherglen etc can be a self-contained seat, that the way that they have expanded Glasgow into East Ren is the best of the possible options. In pretty much the entire bit of the local authority boundary that’s being crossed, the only time that you really feel like you’ve crossed between communities is when you see the “Welcome to East Ren/Glasgow” signs.
The knock-on South Renfrewshire seat isn’t great, admittedly, but idk what else they could do. Further expansion of Glasgow around the Renfrew area, and protecting Eastwood, would imo still just create a not very nice seat somewhere in Renfrewshire. And Glasgow can’t have 8 seats on its own.
Edit: and needless to say, the creation of a seat across 3 local authorities should be avoided.
|
|
carolus
Lib Dem
Posts: 4,613
Member is Online
|
Post by carolus on Apr 16, 2024 9:04:46 GMT
|
|
|
Post by doktorb🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ on Apr 16, 2024 10:05:28 GMT
Some of those names! "Edinburgh Eastern, Musselburgh and Tranent" "Erskine and Cardonald" "Lothian Eastern"
|
|
iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 10,726
Member is Online
|
Post by iain on Apr 16, 2024 10:19:39 GMT
First the UK review, now this one. Are the boundary commission unaware that 'East Lothian' is the name of a county?
|
|
|
Post by stb12 on Apr 16, 2024 11:16:14 GMT
So the chopping up of Eastwood has been abandoned?
|
|
|
Post by yellowfox on Apr 16, 2024 11:20:25 GMT
So the chopping up of Eastwood has been abandoned? Seems so for the moment, but I’m not sure Erskine and Cardonald is any better. Edit: and just as I post this, BallotBoxScotland tweets pretty much the exact same thing. I don’t know what Boundaries Scotland can do, the initial proposals definitely seemed neater from a regional point of view. Any other addition of Renfrewshire into a Glasgow seat would needlessly split Paisley which is even worse than these 2 proposals.
|
|
edgbaston
Labour
Posts: 3,674
Member is Online
|
Post by edgbaston on Apr 16, 2024 11:31:02 GMT
Some of those names! "Edinburgh Eastern, Musselburgh and Tranent" "Erskine and Cardonald" "Lothian Eastern" I assumed the whole rational for renaming the Westminster seat was so the Scottish parl seat could have the normal name
|
|
|
Post by stb12 on Apr 16, 2024 11:34:52 GMT
So the chopping up of Eastwood has been abandoned? Seems so for the moment, but I’m not sure Erskine and Cardonald is any better. Edit: and just as I post this, BallotBoxScotland tweets pretty much the exact same thing. I don’t know what Boundaries Scotland can do, the initial proposals definitely seemed neater from a regional point of view. Any other addition of Renfrewshire into a Glasgow seat would needlessly split Paisley which is even worse than these 2 proposals. I’m local to the southside and East Renfrewshire so the objections certainly made sense to me there, don’t know that much locally about Erskine and the side of Glasgow that Cardonald is in albeit I’ve been in both at times
|
|