Scottish islands and boundaries

[piperdave]

The Scottish Government has recently published a consultation on provisions to be included in a future Islands Bill. This follows on the successful discussion the three island authorities had with the Government and other political parties during the referendum campaign on further devolution within Scotland.

Part 5 of the consultation proposes legislative protection for the Na h-Eileanan an Iar Scottish Parliament constituency. That would replicate the change that was made in the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 for the UK constituency. There have been various boundary review reports that have looked at combining the Western Isles with part of the Highland mainland but none ever made it to a final recommendation. This change could only take place once the Scotland Bill currently in Westminster passes responsibility for Scottish Parliament boundaries to Holyrood.

Part 6 interestingly looks at local government wards involving islands. The question put is whether the law should be changed to allow 2 member or even 1 member wards where islands are involved. This change would only take effect after the 2017 local elections.

Personally I would support a 2 member option where it avoids an island being included with a mainland ward or where it avoids multiple islands or parts being combined in a way that does not meet the aims of the boundary review. I wouldn't see this as an option for Skye for example to just have two 2-member wards; 3 or 4 member wards should be used on islands where it is feasible and respects their nature. But it could mean that a small portion of Skye would not have to be combined with Lochalsh if it was entitled to 5 members and a reasonable 2 and a 3 member ward could be created.

And while we're on the subject, but I'd also like 5 member wards to be an option as well. It would improve proportionality and would also avoid a few areas where the Boundary Commission have had to split a town that would suit a 5 member ward. But the Islands Bill is not a suitable legislative vehicle for this kind of change sadly.

[john07]

It sounds a dubious way to have proportional representation.

Basically it could mean that the minority party in island areas will get no representation while the minority party in urban and other rural areas will be represented.

I am not sure if it will have any real impact given the electoral geography of the islands but I hope there is no attempt to spread this to rural areas.

[piperdave]

You are familiar with the high level of partisanship of island council candidates aren't you? The Bill is very specifically about islands so no, it couldn't be extended to Kintyre or Sutherland under these proposals.

[john07]

Oct 5, 2015 21:30:23 GMT piperdave said:

You are familiar with the high level of partisanship of island council candidates aren't you? The Bill is very specifically about islands so no, it couldn't be extended to Kintyre or Sutherland under these proposals.

That's why I said it would have little impact.

It was more of a philosophical objection.

There was a proposal in the 1930s(?) to elect the House of Commons using STV in the urban areas and AV in the rural areas. This is probably the most biased system ever put forward.

[Eastwood]

So we now have a published Islands (Scotland Bill)
www.parliament.scot/parliamentarybusiness/Bills/105168.aspx

As regards Scottish Parliament elections it proposes adding Na h-Eileanan an Iar to the protected constituencies (alongside Orkney and Shetland) and removing Na h-Eileanan an Iar from the total electorate and electoral quota calculations.

As regards local government elections as expected it allows 1 or 2 member wards in relation to wards which consist either wholly or mainly of one or more inhabited islands.

But, in relation to an electoral ward consisting wholly or mainly of one or more inhabited islands (within the meaning of section 1(2) of the Islands (Scotland) 10 Act 2018), an order made under section 17 of the 1973 Act may determine that the number of councillors to be returned is either one or two.”

It also provides that the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland must undertake a review of the electoral arrangements for each of the six local authority areas as soon as practicable. 

These are:
(a) Argyll and Bute Council,

(b) Comhairle nan Eilean Siar,

(c) Highland Council,

(d) North Ayrshire Council,

(e) Orkney Islands Council,
(f) Shetland Islands Council.

So it won't just be a review for the 3 island areas and Argyll & Bute which missed out on the last review, North Ayrshire and Highland will also be included so all 6 are likely to have revised boundaries before the 2022 elections. 

The wording is pretty broad so it looks like 1 or 2 member constituencies will not be restricted to areas where they are a whole island. So this allows for example several 2 member wards on Skye, or a 1 member ward for Harris. It also allows wards which partially have parts of the mainland included so a Skye and Lochalsh ward might be possible. 

The "mainly" wording and lack of any allowance for isolated peninsulas means that places like Knoydart, Ardnamurchan Small Isles, Luing, Gigha etc are unlikely to be able to benefit. 

[john07]

Sept 5, 2017 19:00:11 GMT @jamesdowden said:

Oct 5, 2015 22:27:15 GMT john07 said:

There was a proposal in the 1930s(?) to elect the House of Commons using STV in the urban areas and AV in the rural areas. This is probably the most biased system ever put forward.

But STV with single-member constituencies is equivalent to AV. That proposal just extended the virtue of STV being adaptable to the size of communities to small communities as well as large ones.

But it would distort the votes by giving representation to the minority party in urban areas (Conservatives) but not to minority party in rural areas (Labour).

[Eastwood]

So I'm going to run through the 6 island containing authorities as a thought experiment. 

I'll assume that the councillor numbers from the dropped 5th reviews will be used. 

I'll start with Na h-Eileanan an Iar.

26 councillors proposed. 

Wards 4, 5, 6 and 7 covering Stornoway, Point and Back seem unlikely to any different. Little reason here to require 1 or 2 member wards:
Ward 4 (now 10) Sgìre an Rubha agus Sanndabhaig - 3 councillors
Ward 5 (now 11) Steòrnabhagh a Deas - 3 councillors
Ward 6 (now 12) Steòrnabhagh a Tuath - 3 councillors
Ward 7 (now 13) Loch a Tuath - 3 councillors

The definite 1 and 2 member wards will be in Uists and Barra:
New Ward 1 would be Barraigh agus Bhatarsaigh - 1 councillor
New Ward 2 would be Eirisgeigh agus Uibhist a Deas - 2 councillors
New Ward 3 would be Beinn na Foghla - 1 councillor
New Ward 4 would be Uibhist a Tuath, Griomasaigh agus Beàrnaraigh - 2 councillors

I think there would be a strong lobby for Harris to be detached from Lewis:
New Ward 5 would be Na Hearadh agus Sgalpaigh - 2 councillors

So that leaves us with the remainder of Lewis and 6 councillors to go round. We could have 2x 3 member wards but that doesn't really work very well as Lochs and Uig are distinct and isolated communities so I'd go for something like:

New Ward 6 would be Sgìre nan Loch - 2 councillors
New Ward 7 would be Uig agus Beàrnaraigh Mòr - 1 councillor 
New Ward 8 would be An Taobh Siar agus Càrlabhagh - 2 councillors
New Ward 9 would be Nis - 1 councillor

So we have:
4 x 1 member wards
5 x 2 member wards
4 x 3 member wards
for 26 councillors in total.

[Eastwood]

Turning to Orkney. 

5th Review proposed 21 councillors.

I think the unchanged ones are likely to be:
Ward 1 Kirkwall East - 4 councillors
Ward 2 Kirkwall West and Orphir - 4 councillors
Ward 5 East Mainland, South Ronaldsay and Burray - 3 councillors

West Mainland would need a bit of jigging about to get 2 x 3 member wards

Ward 3 Stromness and Sandwick - 3 councillors
Ward 4 West Mainland, Rousay, Egilsay and Wyre - 3 councillors

So we then have 4 councillors to cover the remaining outlying islands:
Ward 6 Hoy, South Walls and Flotta - 1 councillor
Ward 7 Shapinsay and Stronsay - 1 councillor
Ward 8 Sanday and North Ronaldsay - 1 councillor
Ward 9 Eday, Westray and Papa Westray - 1 councillor

So we have:
4 x 1 member wards
3 x 3 member wards
2 x 4 member wards
for 21 councillors in total.

[Eastwood]

Shetland is probably the simplest review.

Just adopt wards 2-7 from the 5th review.

Ward 1 - North Isles is then split into 3x single member wards
Yell
Unst & Fetlar
Whalsay & Out Skerries

So we have:
3 x 1 member wards
5 x 3 member wards
1 x 4 member ward
for 22 councillors in total.

[Eastwood]

Argyll & Bute is probably both the easiest and also one of the trickiest.

The 5th review was very unpopular locally so I'll assume they restart from first principles.

The obvious island wards are:
Bute - 2 councillors
Mull - 1 councillor
Islay, Jura and Colonsay - 1 councillor

Meanwhile Gigha, Lismore, Kerrera and the slate islands are too small to get their own councillors so end up in mainland multi member wards.

The tricky one is Tiree and Coll. For me they justify a 1 councillor ward on their own. They are distinct, remote and have no direct ferry or air connection to Mull (who you could otherwise pair them with).

The problem is they will probably only have enough electors to justify about half a councillor. I'd be happy to make an exception for them. LGBCS probably won't be that bold.

[Eastwood]

North Ayrshire is the same problem as Argyll & Bute.

Arran is perfectly suited to a 1 councillor ward. Will need some adjustments on the mainland to keep 3 and 4 member wards elsewhere.

Cumbrae meanwhile has the 10th largest population of any Scottish island, more than other islands who will be getting their own councillor but because they are grouped into an urban authority they will only have enough electors for about half a councillor.

Again for me I'd make an exception and give them a 1 councillor ward but the LGBCS probably won't.

[Eastwood]

Highland is another tricky one.

Skye is already its own 4 councillor ward so you could just leave it alone.

Equally it could make sense to have a pair of 2 councillor wards centred on Portree and Broadford.

There are also reasonable arguments to include Lochalsh with Broadford in a larger 3 or 4 member ward leaving Portree as a 2 member.

The one area that to me looks to miss out based on this legislation is Mallaig, Arisaig, Inverie and the Small Isles. Being lumped in with Fort William in a multi member ward is not ideal and there is sufficient population for a 1 councillor ward taking in the west coast villages, Small Isles and Knoydart. The majority of the population would be on the mainland though so with the current bill wording it wouldn't be possible for the LGBCS to create a ward like that.

Maybe a Highland MSP could look into amending the legislation to allow a ward like Mallaig to be created?

[andrewteale]

It may be worth looking back at the 1999 FPTP boundaries for some clues as to how the LGBCS would approach this.

Argyll and Bute: Despite being extremely undersized Tiree and Coll was a single-member ward of its own. They're so remote that combining them with somewhere else just isn't worth the hassle. Mull was a (slightly oversized) single-member ward. Islay/Jura/Colonsay actually merited two wards, one called Islay South and one for the rest. Bute had three wards.

North Ayrshire: Arran was a single-member ward, but the Cumbraes weren't: they were combined in a ward with part of Largs.

Highland: Skye actually merited four-and-a-bit councillors in FPTP days: there was a Kyle and Sleat ward covering both sides of the Kyle of Lochalsh. There was also a single-member Mallaig and Small Isles ward roughly as suggested.

The FPTP map for Orkney, interestingly, was a real mess. Hoy was actually split between two wards both of which also covered part of Mainland. A number of the North Isles were also included in wards with part of Mainland - Shapinsay and Kirkwall Harbour was perhaps the most bizarre example.

[Eastwood]

Sept 7, 2017 21:14:00 GMT andrewteale said:

It may be worth looking back at the 1999 FPTP boundaries for some clues as to how the LGBCS would approach this.

Argyll and Bute: Despite being extremely undersized Tiree and Coll was a single-member ward of its own. They're so remote that combining them with somewhere else just isn't worth the hassle. Mull was a (slightly oversized) single-member ward. Islay/Jura/Colonsay actually merited two wards, one called Islay South and one for the rest. Bute had three wards.

North Ayrshire: Arran was a single-member ward, but the Cumbraes weren't: they were combined in a ward with part of Largs.

Highland: Skye actually merited four-and-a-bit councillors in FPTP days: there was a Kyle and Sleat ward covering both sides of the Kyle of Lochalsh. There was also a single-member Mallaig and Small Isles ward roughly as suggested.

The FPTP map for Orkney, interestingly, was a real mess. Hoy was actually split between two wards both of which also covered part of Mainland. A number of the North Isles were also included in wards with part of Mainland - Shapinsay and Kirkwall Harbour was perhaps the most bizarre example.

Yes I used the 1999 wards to give me some ideas which areas might justify their own councillors. I was equally baffled by the Hoy wards though! 

[Crimson King]

Tiree is about 35 miles round (if some bastard puts a few extra hills and beaches on the course)

[Eastwood]

Final proposals now published:
boundaries.scot/2019-reviews-electoral-arrangements

My thoughts:

Argyll & Bute
Generally pretty good but separate Coll & Tiree and Mull & Iona single member wards would have been better despite the increased disparity.

Highland
I like the North, West and Central Sutherland ward.
Changing boundaries to match the Caithness and Sutherland (modern ones used, ie Ardgay in Sutherland) boundaries is an improvement.
Dingwall including Strathpeffer is an improvement but why not include Starthconon and Garve as well?
Wester Ross and Lochalsh would be better as separate wards but you can't have a mainland single member ward. Lochalsh and Skye South would work though.
Fort William and Caol should be one ward and Ardnamurchan, Morvern, Mallaig and the small isles should be the other. Would be a 5 and a 2 but better than the current mess.
Inverness boundaries are improved

North Ayrshire
Cumbrae could be a single member constituency. I know it would be below parity but show some imagination. Not that bothered though as Cumbrae is well integrated to Largs.
Garnock Valley is a big improvement and matches local geography well. More use of 5 member wards like this to create better community cohesion in other authorities will be a bonus in future.
Arran is good.
Using historic burgh / town boundaries in the Three Towns is a big improvement.

Orkney
I'm not a fan or Rousay, Egilsay and Wyre being in North Isles or South Isles being in Stromness ward. Locals don't seem upset though so what do I know.
Positive that the commission sacrificed exact parity at Stromness to better match community ties

Shetland
Again commission listening to community ties and creating a 2 member ward to fit better to those local communities.

Na h-Eileanan an Iar
Not sure why Berneray doesn't get name checked in Ward 3 when every other inhabited island does?
Ward 4 Na Hearadh is amended from their initial proposals to correctly follow the historical Lewis / Harris (and Inverness-shire / Ross & Cromarty) boundary. Obviously I agree with this as it was me who pointed out their mistake.
Personally I'd put the Ward 8 Loch a Tuath boundary along the A857 but that's a very minor point.
In general there is good account taken of local community ties.

Overall I'd give a B-, most of the proposed wards are improvements and there is good account taken of local community links. Main disappoint is Highland which starts off well in the north but then loses impetus in the south where the commission just seem to have given up and used existing boundaries.

[johnloony]

I notice that they propose 2 5-member wards in Highland. I know that the legislation has been changed to allow for 1- or 2-member wards (for small island areas etc) as well as the previously-universal 3- and 4-member wards, but I didn't know they were allowed to go to more than 4. It is interesting to see the maps if only to get some idea of where the population density clusters are, but I have no local knowledge so I can't otherwise judge whether it's a good set of proposals or not.

I have a cousin family who live in Kiltarlity just outside Inverness, but we last visited them in 1975 so anyway.

[YL]

They consistently write the name of the ward covering Skye as "Eilean a' Chèo". Shouldn't it be "Cheò"?

[afleitch]

Jun 11, 2021 12:16:19 GMT Eastwood said:

Changing boundaries to match the Caithness and Sutherland (modern ones used, ie Ardgay in Sutherland) boundaries is an improvement.

That was one of my submissions

[afleitch]

So it was apparently just me.

boundaries.scot/sites/default/files/LGBCS_2557_Highland_Development_Final_Proposals.pdf

Para 46. 'A member of the public...'

I feel seen.