|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Apr 18, 2024 11:14:23 GMT
The only person who would ever need to travel from one end of the constituency to the other is the MSP themselves. I suspect they would use a car rather than public transport anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by afleitch on Apr 18, 2024 11:22:00 GMT
Giffnock and Clarkston are 'Glasgow' whether they like it or not. Not 'Glasgow City Council' but they are Glasgow suburbs.
Putting them in with Linn Ward instead of Pollok, which might contain scary Castlemilk but also Cathcart/King's Park south of the railway lines is logical. It's the same area; just one divided by a council boundary.
And 'East Renfrewshire' purists didn't seem to mind Barrhead being kicked out the seat last time.
|
|
stb12
Top Poster
Posts: 8,409 
|
Post by stb12 on Apr 18, 2024 14:57:31 GMT
Clarkston and Giffnock do stand out from the majority of Glasgow in terms of affluence, but admittedly Glasgow itself does some affluent areas that they’re close to eg Newlands, Carmunnock, parts of Cathcart and Pollokshields
|
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on Apr 18, 2024 17:31:48 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. How is it an hour and a half from Mosspark to Erskine? 27 minutes on the 9A from Corkerhill Road to Braehead. 19 minutes on the X23 from Braehead to Erskine. from rome2rio.com |
|
|
|
Post by aidanthomson on Apr 18, 2024 18:26:51 GMT
Could Paisley be split? If it were, then Erskine could be moved to Renfrewshire West, and Barrhead (and Neilston?) moved into a predominantly Paisley seat, with part of east Paisley joining Renfrew and Cardonald. The proposed Glasgow Southern could be avoided by Pollokshields replacing Linn. Overall, something like this (approximate electorates in brackets, * denotes part of a split ward): 1. Renfrewshire West (64,403): Johnstone (x2), Houston/Linwood, Bridge of Weir/Bishopton, Erskine/Inchinnan 2. Paisley West and Barrhead (c.64,210): Paisley NW, SW, SE, E/C, Barrhead, *Neilston 3. Paisley East, Renfrew and Cardonald (54,576): Renfrew x2, Paisley NE, Cardonald 4. Eastwood (c.56,366): East Renfrewshire minus Barrhead and *Neilston 5. Glasgow Pollok (65,857): Greater Pollok, Newlands/Auldearn, Pollokshields 6. Glasgow Langside (66,900): Southside Central, Langside, Linn 7. Glasgow Central (59,347): Hillhead, Anderston etc., Govan 8. Glasgow Garscadden (60,545): Drumchapel/Anniesland, Garscadden/Scotstounhill, Victoria Park 9. Glasgow Kelvin (56,201): Canal, Maryhill, Partick/Kelvinside East 10. Glasgow Provan (c.63,584): Springburn/Robroyston, Dennistoun, North East, North East minus *Greenfield/Barlanark 11. Glasgow Shettleston (c.65,154): Calton, Shettleston, Baillieston, *Greenfield/Barlanark  |
|
|
|
Post by ntyuk1707 on Apr 18, 2024 19:02:10 GMT
And? This is common for the vast majority of constituencies in Scotland. Not for a city 'burgh' constituency. it's an hour and a half on public transport from Cardowan to Bargeddie in Coatbridge & Chryston burgh constituency. |
|
Ports
Non-Aligned
Posts: 606
|
Post by Ports on Apr 19, 2024 17:01:02 GMT
Surely the point is not 'my travel time is worse than yours anyway', but travel length is a reason why Castlemilk and Parkhead are might not be a better fit than the former and Giffnock. And the reason to cite public transport is on the basis that it is a better indicator of genuine connections rather than travel time by car. It was mentioned earlier in the thread that transport links were a likely reason why the new Westminster seats in east Glasgow were drawn in that way, hence why some of the ward boundaries were already suited to that configuration.
The argument against the above is why the much nearer Giffnock is a much worse pairing for other reasons which I haven't been convinced by yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by yellowfox on Apr 19, 2024 17:17:37 GMT
Could Paisley be split? If it were, then Erskine could be moved to Renfrewshire West, and Barrhead (and Neilston?) moved into a predominantly Paisley seat, with part of east Paisley joining Renfrew and Cardonald. The proposed Glasgow Southern could be avoided by Pollokshields replacing Linn. Overall, something like this (approximate electorates in brackets, * denotes part of a split ward): 1. Renfrewshire West (64,403): Johnstone (x2), Houston/Linwood, Bridge of Weir/Bishopton, Erskine/Inchinnan 2. Paisley West and Barrhead (c.64,210): Paisley NW, SW, SE, E/C, Barrhead, *Neilston 3. Paisley East, Renfrew and Cardonald (54,576): Renfrew x2, Paisley NE, Cardonald 4. Eastwood (c.56,366): East Renfrewshire minus Barrhead and *Neilston 5. Glasgow Pollok (65,857): Greater Pollok, Newlands/Auldearn, Pollokshields 6. Glasgow Langside (66,900): Southside Central, Langside, Linn 7. Glasgow Central (59,347): Hillhead, Anderston etc., Govan 8. Glasgow Garscadden (60,545): Drumchapel/Anniesland, Garscadden/Scotstounhill, Victoria Park 9. Glasgow Kelvin (56,201): Canal, Maryhill, Partick/Kelvinside East 10. Glasgow Provan (c.63,584): Springburn/Robroyston, Dennistoun, North East, North East minus *Greenfield/Barlanark 11. Glasgow Shettleston (c.65,154): Calton, Shettleston, Baillieston, *Greenfield/Barlanark I did suggest splitting Paisley as I suppose it does avoid the snake constituency along the Clyde. It makes the cross-authority seat more compact, but I'd argue it's actually a worse set of boundaries because it splits a town unnecessarily (something similar happens to Hamilton in this proposal) which I'm really not keen on either. I totally get that its not in the legislation that this has to be avoided, but a town standing alone seems to me to be the definition of "local ties" and it also passes the "least change" test, with the current Paisley constituency. The Newton Mearns extension of Renfrewshire South was the problematic bit of the initial proposals but at least Newton Mearns was in a single constituency, and so was the Giffnock/Clarkston conurbation, Johnstone, Renfrew etc. In terms of geography its probably just as awkward as Erskine and Cardonald, but it was just a series of satilite commuter towns being linked, not an inner city community with a commuter town, and with that community context it was, on balance, more reasonable. It also meant the Clyde only had to be crossed in one constituency (in fairness Boundaries Scotland, could have avoided this in this review and haven't) so the knock-on impacts of a seat's boundaries also better represented community ties with the initial proposals. I'd probably go for something like these three sub-groups (and with far too many ward splits at this stage). Renfrewshire Area 1. Renfrewshire West (50,060 - 1,672 under a 10% variance): Erskine/Inchinnan, Bishopton etc, Houston etc, Paisley NW (I would add Elderslie to this seat) 2. Paisley and Renfrew (62,365): Renfrew x2, Paisley NE, Paisley East and Central, Paisley SE, Paisley SW 3. Renfrewshire South (68,997 - 5,769 over a 10% variance): Johnstone x2, Barrhead etc, Newton Mearns x2 (would lose Elderslie and perhaps some of the sparsely populated area of the Muirshiels) Glasgow South Area 4. Glasgow Cathcart and Giffnock (50,776 - 956 under a 10% variance): Giffnock etc, Clarkston etc, Linn (would have an area in Muirend and Cathcart itself added) 5. Glasgow Shawlands (63,731 - 503 over a 10% variance): Langside, Newlands/Auldburn, Pollokshields (would lose the area in Muirend/Cathcart south of the White Cart Water but add Tradeston) 6. Glasgow Pollok (65,540 - 2,312 over a 10% variance): Greater Pollok, Cardonald, Govan (would lose Tradeston) Glasgow North Area 7. Glasgow Anniesland (59,623): Garscadden/Scotstounhill, Drumchaple Anniesland, Victoria Park 8. Glasgow Kelvin (54,759): Hillhead, Partick East/Kelvindale, Maryhill (would have Ruchill added) 9. Glasgow Central (55,905): Anderston etc, Southside Central, Calton (would have some of the area around Parkhead added) 10. Glasgow Springburn (52,854): Canal, Springburn/Robroyston, Dennistoun (would lose Ruchill but have Riddrie/Cranhill added) 11. Glasgow Shettleston (72,384 - 9,156 over a 10% variance): North East, Baillieston, East Centre, Shettleston (would lose Parkhead, Riddrie and Cranhill) It's not fantastic and I could probably do better in Glasgow but as far as I can see right now, this would best represent community ties (including keeping the cross-Clyde seat as far east as possible). The only thing I'm totally hesitant with is nibbling on Paisley in Renfrewshire West, the alternative is splitting Renfrew though, which isn't any better. |
|
|
|
Post by aidanthomson on Apr 20, 2024 14:13:22 GMT
Could Paisley be split? If it were, then Erskine could be moved to Renfrewshire West, and Barrhead (and Neilston?) moved into a predominantly Paisley seat, with part of east Paisley joining Renfrew and Cardonald. The proposed Glasgow Southern could be avoided by Pollokshields replacing Linn. Overall, something like this (approximate electorates in brackets, * denotes part of a split ward): 1. Renfrewshire West (64,403): Johnstone (x2), Houston/Linwood, Bridge of Weir/Bishopton, Erskine/Inchinnan 2. Paisley West and Barrhead (c.64,210): Paisley NW, SW, SE, E/C, Barrhead, *Neilston 3. Paisley East, Renfrew and Cardonald (54,576): Renfrew x2, Paisley NE, Cardonald 4. Eastwood (c.56,366): East Renfrewshire minus Barrhead and *Neilston 5. Glasgow Pollok (65,857): Greater Pollok, Newlands/Auldearn, Pollokshields 6. Glasgow Langside (66,900): Southside Central, Langside, Linn 7. Glasgow Central (59,347): Hillhead, Anderston etc., Govan 8. Glasgow Garscadden (60,545): Drumchapel/Anniesland, Garscadden/Scotstounhill, Victoria Park 9. Glasgow Kelvin (56,201): Canal, Maryhill, Partick/Kelvinside East 10. Glasgow Provan (c.63,584): Springburn/Robroyston, Dennistoun, North East, North East minus *Greenfield/Barlanark 11. Glasgow Shettleston (c.65,154): Calton, Shettleston, Baillieston, *Greenfield/Barlanark I did suggest splitting Paisley as I suppose it does avoid the snake constituency along the Clyde. It makes the cross-authority seat more compact, but I'd argue it's actually a worse set of boundaries because it splits a town unnecessarily (something similar happens to Hamilton in this proposal) which I'm really not keen on either. I totally get that its not in the legislation that this has to be avoided, but a town standing alone seems to me to be the definition of "local ties" and it also passes the "least change" test, with the current Paisley constituency. The Newton Mearns extension of Renfrewshire South was the problematic bit of the initial proposals but at least Newton Mearns was in a single constituency, and so was the Giffnock/Clarkston conurbation, Johnstone, Renfrew etc. In terms of geography its probably just as awkward as Erskine and Cardonald, but it was just a series of satilite commuter towns being linked, not an inner city community with a commuter town, and with that community context it was, on balance, more reasonable. It also meant the Clyde only had to be crossed in one constituency (in fairness Boundaries Scotland, could have avoided this in this review and haven't) so the knock-on impacts of a seat's boundaries also better represented community ties with the initial proposals. I'd probably go for something like these three sub-groups (and with far too many ward splits at this stage). Renfrewshire Area 1. Renfrewshire West (50,060 - 1,672 under a 10% variance): Erskine/Inchinnan, Bishopton etc, Houston etc, Paisley NW (I would add Elderslie to this seat) 2. Paisley and Renfrew (62,365): Renfrew x2, Paisley NE, Paisley East and Central, Paisley SE, Paisley SW 3. Renfrewshire South (68,997 - 5,769 over a 10% variance): Johnstone x2, Barrhead etc, Newton Mearns x2 (would lose Elderslie and perhaps some of the sparsely populated area of the Muirshiels) Glasgow South Area 4. Glasgow Cathcart and Giffnock (50,776 - 956 under a 10% variance): Giffnock etc, Clarkston etc, Linn (would have an area in Muirend and Cathcart itself added) 5. Glasgow Shawlands (63,731 - 503 over a 10% variance): Langside, Newlands/Auldburn, Pollokshields (would lose the area in Muirend/Cathcart south of the White Cart Water but add Tradeston) 6. Glasgow Pollok (65,540 - 2,312 over a 10% variance): Greater Pollok, Cardonald, Govan (would lose Tradeston) Glasgow North Area 7. Glasgow Anniesland (59,623): Garscadden/Scotstounhill, Drumchaple Anniesland, Victoria Park 8. Glasgow Kelvin (54,759): Hillhead, Partick East/Kelvindale, Maryhill (would have Ruchill added) 9. Glasgow Central (55,905): Anderston etc, Southside Central, Calton (would have some of the area around Parkhead added) 10. Glasgow Springburn (52,854): Canal, Springburn/Robroyston, Dennistoun (would lose Ruchill but have Riddrie/Cranhill added) 11. Glasgow Shettleston (72,384 - 9,156 over a 10% variance): North East, Baillieston, East Centre, Shettleston (would lose Parkhead, Riddrie and Cranhill) It's not fantastic and I could probably do better in Glasgow but as far as I can see right now, this would best represent community ties (including keeping the cross-Clyde seat as far east as possible). The only thing I'm totally hesitant with is nibbling on Paisley in Renfrewshire West, the alternative is splitting Renfrew though, which isn't any better. I'm an expatriate northside Glaswegian whose memories of travelling through Giffnock, Whitecraigs and Newton Mearns date back to before the completion of the M77. So I'm definitely not an expert in this area! Point taken about not dividing Paisley unnecessarily, but as your own solution admits it's hard to come up with a solution that doesn't do this somewhere. I'd say, on reflection, that both your solution and mine need to split Paisley more rather than less – better to have a clear sense of Paisley having two seats (as they do at Westminster, and as they did in Holyrood prior to the last changes) rather than one and a bit. So how about: 1. Renfrewshire West: Bishopton etc., Houston/Linwood, Erskine/Inchinnan, Johnstone (incl. Elderslie) x2 (64,403) 2. Paisley North: Renfrew x2, Paisley NW, NE/Ralston, E/C (56,127) 3. Paisley South and Newton Mearns: Newton Mearns x2, Barrhead, Paisley SE, SW (66,982) Re the cross-Clyde seat: when the Commission first proposed including Govan in a Central seat (one of the zombie reviews, I think), I wasn't keen on the idea. But I think it might work better here than including Southside Central. Something like: 4. Glasgow Pollok: Greater Pollok, Cardonald, part of Newlands/Auldburn west/north west of the Central-East Kilbride railway line (Arden, Carnwadric, Pollok Park), westernmost part of Govan around the QEU Hospital, part of Pollokshields west of M77 (Craigton, Dumbreck) (c.61,403) 5. Glasgow Cathcart: Linn, rest of Newlands/Auldburn, Giffnock, Clarkston (c.61,739) 6. Glasgow Southside: Southside Central, Langside, rest of Pollokshields (c.62,799) Then the north side mostly as I had it, which isn't ideal, as it splits the West End among three seats, but there is a precedent for that (Anniesland, Kelvin, Maryhill in the 1997–2011 arrangement). In the east of the city, I'd also split Baillieston to include Queenslie and Wellhouse in Provan. 7. Glasgow Central: rest of Govan, Hillhead, Anderston (58,186) 8. Glasgow Garscadden: Victoria Park, Garscadden, Drumchapel (60,545) 9. Glasgow Maryhill: Maryhill, Canal, Partick East (56,201) 10. Glasgow Provan: Springburn/Robroyston, Dennistoun, North East, part of East Centre (Riddrie, Carntyne, Cranhill), part of Baillieston (Queenslie, Wellhouse) (c.65,391) 11. Glasgow Shettleston: Calton, Shettleston, rest of East Centre (Greenfield, Barlanark), rest of Baillieston (c.63,347)  |
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Apr 21, 2024 10:42:48 GMT
Looking at it on a map, it looks like one of the issues is that East Renfrewshire is very much not a natural unit. You've got Giffnock and Clarkston, which are a suburban continuation of Glasgow South; Newton Mearns, which is perhaps slightly more separate but fundamentally similar in orientation; and you've got Barrhead and Neilston, which are best linked to Pollok.
So I'd be tempted to go for a Glasgow SW & Barrhead seat.
|
|
|
|
Post by Forfarshire Conservative on May 5, 2024 8:20:03 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on May 5, 2024 11:21:42 GMT
The Leith psephologists dismisseth us |
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,840
|
Post by J.G.Harston on May 5, 2024 14:40:51 GMT
The Leith psephologists dismisseth us. Why is the existing seat Edinburgh North and Leith? There's hardly any not-Leith in the seat (there's a little bit of Leith sliced off in Edingburgh Eastern). It should be just Leith. (I'd accept: Edinbugh Leith) |
|
|
|
Post by therealriga on May 6, 2024 16:44:19 GMT
The Leith psephologists dismisseth us. Why is the existing seat Edinburgh North and Leith? There's hardly any not-Leith in the seat (there's a little bit of Leith sliced off in Edingburgh Eastern). It should be just Leith. (I'd accept: Edinbugh Leith) Probably because they were trying to distinguish Scottish parliament and Westminster parliament constituencies with different boundaries, though that rationale is dubious. |
|
|
|
Post by afleitch on Sept 24, 2024 9:35:13 GMT
There was a local enquiry held in August in Falkirk. Further proposals for all of Scotland and provisional proposals for Regions are due 26th September.
Afterwards, the expectation is that a review of electoral wards is undertaken that now has variance for 2 to 5 elected members (or 1 in the case of one or more inhabited islands) so that work will be quite drastic.
|
|
piperdave
SNP
Dalkeith; Midlothian/North & Musselburgh
Posts: 911
|
Post by piperdave on Sept 24, 2024 19:24:16 GMT
There was a local enquiry held in August in Falkirk. Further proposals for all of Scotland and provisional proposals for Regions are due 26th September. I'll be interested to see what the proposals are for the regions. The reduction in constituencies in the west, and growth in the east is making the current arrangements untenable. I think the Commission will try to broadly maintain the status quo, but I have one or two more radical suggestions I'm toying with (which won't go down well anywhere). |
|
|
|
Post by doktorb🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ on Sept 26, 2024 2:30:02 GMT
|
|
YL
Non-Aligned
Either Labour leaning or Lib Dem leaning but not sure which
Posts: 4,915
|
Post by YL on Sept 26, 2024 7:43:31 GMT
I see Ballot Box Scotland has gone into rant mode about this.
|
|
|
|
Post by afleitch on Sept 26, 2024 8:53:21 GMT
Rightly so.
A seat stretching from Glasgow to Bishopton is insane. A quota busting southern Glasgow seat is also created, all to placate Eastwood.
The West Region is now non-contiguous across the Clyde as the Erskine Bridge isn't in the region anymore.
|
|
stb12
Top Poster
Posts: 8,409
|
Post by stb12 on Sept 26, 2024 14:13:46 GMT
East Kilbride and Hamilton seats in the South Scotland region does feel like a bit of a stretch
|
|
