|
|
Post by finsobruce on Apr 16, 2024 11:43:15 GMT
So the chopping up of Eastwood has been abandoned? I should hope so too, he's a much loved member of the Forum! |
|
|
|
Post by yellowfox on Apr 16, 2024 12:21:47 GMT
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 I’m fairly local too, and I totally get the objections, particularly about the initial Renfrewshire South seat but I always felt that within the rules it was about as good a scheme as the commission could propose. The way I’m looking at it is that you pretty much have to add one of the following to Glasgow: a) Giffnock and Clarkston, b) Renfrew and Erskine, or c) Renfrew and some of Paisley. A) involves areas that are part of Glasgow’s continuous built up area (for example, the only thing highlighting the change of council area at the Sainsbury’s in Muirend is the “welcome to East Ren” sign), so are basically suburbs of Glasgow. B) involves some of that sort of area (Renfrew is split from Glasgow by the motorway) but, although undoubtedly a commuter town, Erskine isn’t part of the continuous built up area as a suburb in any way (it’s on the other side of the airport!) C) has the same issues as B with the added downside of splitting Paisley. In my mind, a) whilst having not great knock-on effects is probably the best of a bad bunch here. Additionally, the current scheme involving option b) has created a “Glasgow Southern” seat incorporating Carmunnock and Castlemilk into the same seat as Crookston and Priesthill, which to me seems just as bad as the initial Renfrewshire South. I might play around with the numbers a bit (there might be a method of adding Barrhead to a Glasgow seat and removing Erskine that might be better even though it means two cross-authority seats) before I make a submission but I can’t really see it right now |
|
|
|
Post by afleitch on Apr 16, 2024 13:06:02 GMT
Also local! (a bit weird this)
I think the knock on effects to protect the delicate denizens of East Ren from...Newlands, have absolutely screwed over Glasgow which will now have two cross Clyde seats as well as an unwieldy link with Erskine.
|
|
stb12
Top Poster
Posts: 8,409 
|
Post by stb12 on Apr 16, 2024 13:15:24 GMT
So the chopping up of Eastwood has been abandoned? I should hope so too, he's a much loved member of the Forum! On reflection it was a harsh idea |
|
stb12
Top Poster
Posts: 8,409
|
Post by stb12 on Apr 16, 2024 13:16:15 GMT
Also local! (a bit weird this) I think the knock on effects to protect the delicate denizens of East Ren from...Newlands, have absolutely screwed over Glasgow which will now have two cross Clyde seats as well as an unwieldy link with Erskine. Takeover by East Renfrewshire/Southside of Glasgow  |
|
Ports
Non-Aligned
Posts: 606
|
Post by Ports on Apr 16, 2024 13:22:39 GMT
Glasgow Southern is unusual. Who knew you could place such unconnected places in a seat of that size? Regardless of any similarities between the post-war estates at both ends.
|
|
stb12
Top Poster
Posts: 8,409
|
Post by stb12 on Apr 16, 2024 13:25:19 GMT
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 I’m fairly local too, and I totally get the objections, particularly about the initial Renfrewshire South seat but I always felt that within the rules it was about as good a scheme as the commission could propose. The way I’m looking at it is that you pretty much have to add one of the following to Glasgow: a) Giffnock and Clarkston, b) Renfrew and Erskine, or c) Renfrew and some of Paisley. A) involves areas that are part of Glasgow’s continuous built up area (for example, the only thing highlighting the change of council area at the Sainsbury’s in Muirend is the “welcome to East Ren” sign), so are basically suburbs of Glasgow. B) involves some of that sort of area (Renfrew is split from Glasgow by the motorway) but, although undoubtedly a commuter town, Erskine isn’t part of the continuous built up area as a suburb in any way (it’s on the other side of the airport!) C) has the same issues as B with the added downside of splitting Paisley. In my mind, a) whilst having not great knock-on effects is probably the best of a bad bunch here. Additionally, the current scheme involving option b) has created a “Glasgow Southern” seat incorporating Carmunnock and Castlemilk into the same seat as Crookston and Priesthill, which to me seems just as bad as the initial Renfrewshire South. I might play around with the numbers a bit (there might be a method of adding Barrhead to a Glasgow seat and removing Erskine that might be better even though it means two cross-authority seats) before I make a submission but I can’t really see it right now That’s a very helpful and useful summary especially if the rules are that strict? I don’t doubt also that there will be an element of politics and the Conservatives having made a big push to get local objections in, Eastwood/East Ren as it is now is their only realistic possibility of a constituency anywhere in Glasgow and the defacto suburbs |
|
|
|
Post by afleitch on Apr 16, 2024 14:20:00 GMT
Glasgow Southern is unusual. Who knew you could place such unconnected places in a seat of that size? Regardless of any similarities between the post-war estates at both ends. Every battle over Edinburgh comes down to polling districts and back gardens. Glasgow is always just whatever they can muster. But yes, well observed with the Southern seat! |
|
|
|
Post by afleitch on Apr 16, 2024 14:21:28 GMT
Anyway; submission made;
'In the published minutes the Assistant Commissioner noted there was 'unanimous opposition to the proposals in East Renfrewshire but some support in Glasgow although it was unclear how many from Glasgow may support the proposals.'
As a resident of Glasgow it seems extraordinary that so much weight has therefore been given to retain Eastwood, as opposed to the knock on effect that this has had on Glasgow which has created a 'snake' like seat to the south, two (!) cross River Clyde seats and a link with Erskine; a town completely outside the Glasgow conurbation which itself has to cross the mouth of the River Cart.
The reality on the ground is that the East Renfrewshire/Glasgow boundary at Giffnock and Clarkston is one of streets and back gardens. It is continuous conurbation. There is no discernable difference between Newlands in Glasgow and Clarkston in East Renfrewshire other than what council each was arbitrarily placed in.
No consideration has been made to community links in and around Glasgow. Assumptions are made about connectivity that do not exist in reality.'
|
|
stb12
Top Poster
Posts: 8,409
|
Post by stb12 on Apr 16, 2024 14:48:48 GMT
I pretty much straddle Glasgow, East Renfrewshire and East Kilbride (house is very marginally in the East Kilbride seat), so I don’t know that I’d specifically define myself residential wise
However I imagine in these things everyone believes that their community cohesion concerns are more important or valid than someone else’s
|
|
|
|
Post by afleitch on Apr 16, 2024 15:23:46 GMT
I pretty much straddle Glasgow, East Renfrewshire and East Kilbride (house is very marginally in the East Kilbride seat), so I don’t know that I’d specifically define myself residential wise However I imagine in these things everyone believes that their community cohesion concerns are more important or valid than someone else’s What annoys me is that while Glasgow has a lot of overlapping communities, the Commissions have absolutely no idea about how they connect and how they don't. It's an afterthought and an apparent one. Based on the minutes I think I might be responsible for Glasgow NE and Glasgow E at the last Westminster review, rather than the alternative because I highlighted that in that part of the city transport links from bus, to rail, to road, run west to east. The computer system that is used clearly doesn't understand connectivity; only areas. As I type, it takes 40 minutes to an hour by public transport to get from Cathcart to Celtic Park which will now be in the same seat. From Mosspark to Erskine, also now in the same seat, it's an hour and a half. Boundaries Scotland is also a bit too 'quota' obsessed when the rules don't have to be as strict as at Westminster because Regions balance out representation. |
|
stb12
Top Poster
Posts: 8,409
|
Post by stb12 on Apr 16, 2024 15:32:30 GMT
I pretty much straddle Glasgow, East Renfrewshire and East Kilbride (house is very marginally in the East Kilbride seat), so I don’t know that I’d specifically define myself residential wise However I imagine in these things everyone believes that their community cohesion concerns are more important or valid than someone else’s What annoys me is that while Glasgow has a lot of overlapping communities, the Commissions have absolutely no idea about how they connect and how they don't. It's an afterthought and an apparent one. Based on the minutes I think I might be responsible for Glasgow NE and Glasgow E at the last Westminster review, rather than the alternative because I highlighted that in that part of the city transport links from bus, to rail, to road, run west to east. The computer system that is used clearly doesn't understand connectivity; only areas. As I type, it takes 40 minutes to an hour by public transport to get from Cathcart to Celtic Park which will now be in the same seat. From Mosspark to Erskine, also now in the same seat, it's an hour and a half. Boundaries Scotland is also a bit too 'quota' obsessed when the rules don't have to be as strict as at Westminster because Regions balance out representation. Is it possibly a case at times of sticking something into google maps and looking at the driving distance? I drive myself and never have been a big public transport user for a few reasons but of course that isn’t the same for everyone and public transport can make a journey much longer if you don’t drive depending on the set-up Even with that I’d have to say Cathcart and Parkhead in the same constituency seems pretty strange |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Apr 16, 2024 15:46:13 GMT
I tend to assume with most commissions the first attempt is what they think is a good idea, and the second idea is what they think will stop people shouting at them. Given the demographics of the people most likely to respond to consultations, this has somewhat predictable effects.
|
|
|
|
Post by afleitch on Apr 16, 2024 16:17:25 GMT
I do appreciate Boundaries Scotland accepting a large deviation from the quota for Argyll and Bute due to it's rural/island prevalence. Something that should (with the Highlands) be in the legislation.
|
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on Apr 17, 2024 23:17:46 GMT
Some Scottish Lib Dems are getting excited about the new Edinburgh Northern seat, based on 2022 local election results.
|
|
|
|
Post by ntyuk1707 on Apr 17, 2024 23:44:40 GMT
Some Scottish Lib Dems are getting excited about the new Edinburgh Northern seat, based on 2022 local election results. Ridiculous. The only party who should be getting excited about these boundaries in Edinburgh is the Labour Party. |
|
|
|
Post by ntyuk1707 on Apr 17, 2024 23:47:12 GMT
I pretty much straddle Glasgow, East Renfrewshire and East Kilbride (house is very marginally in the East Kilbride seat), so I don’t know that I’d specifically define myself residential wise However I imagine in these things everyone believes that their community cohesion concerns are more important or valid than someone else’s What annoys me is that while Glasgow has a lot of overlapping communities, the Commissions have absolutely no idea about how they connect and how they don't. It's an afterthought and an apparent one. Based on the minutes I think I might be responsible for Glasgow NE and Glasgow E at the last Westminster review, rather than the alternative because I highlighted that in that part of the city transport links from bus, to rail, to road, run west to east. The computer system that is used clearly doesn't understand connectivity; only areas. As I type, it takes 40 minutes to an hour by public transport to get from Cathcart to Celtic Park which will now be in the same seat. From Mosspark to Erskine, also now in the same seat, it's an hour and a half. Boundaries Scotland is also a bit too 'quota' obsessed when the rules don't have to be as strict as at Westminster because Regions balance out representation. And? This is common for the vast majority of constituencies in Scotland. |
|
|
|
Post by ntyuk1707 on Apr 17, 2024 23:52:05 GMT
Even in the axed Newton Mearns-Johnstone seat, does Erskine-Mosspark's 1.5 hour public transport distance trump the 2 hours it would take from Eaglesham to Lochwinnoch? I think not.
|
|
stb12
Top Poster
Posts: 8,409
|
Post by stb12 on Apr 18, 2024 8:42:47 GMT
Even in the axed Newton Mearns-Johnstone seat, does Erskine-Mosspark's 1.5 hour public transport distance trump the 2 hours it would take from Eaglesham to Lochwinnoch? I think not. Yes, the Newton Mearns link up was arguable the bigger problem than Giffnock joining Glasgow |
|
|
|
Post by afleitch on Apr 18, 2024 11:02:27 GMT
What annoys me is that while Glasgow has a lot of overlapping communities, the Commissions have absolutely no idea about how they connect and how they don't. It's an afterthought and an apparent one. Based on the minutes I think I might be responsible for Glasgow NE and Glasgow E at the last Westminster review, rather than the alternative because I highlighted that in that part of the city transport links from bus, to rail, to road, run west to east. The computer system that is used clearly doesn't understand connectivity; only areas. As I type, it takes 40 minutes to an hour by public transport to get from Cathcart to Celtic Park which will now be in the same seat. From Mosspark to Erskine, also now in the same seat, it's an hour and a half. Boundaries Scotland is also a bit too 'quota' obsessed when the rules don't have to be as strict as at Westminster because Regions balance out representation. And? This is common for the vast majority of constituencies in Scotland. Not for a city 'burgh' constituency. |
|
