|
|
Post by jollyroger93 on Oct 22, 2016 17:42:53 GMT
Here's a map I've created of the initial proposed constituencies in Scotland.  MP composition (notional):- Scottish National: 51 (-5)
- Conservative: 1 (=)
- Liberal Democrat: 1 (=)
- Labour: 0 (-1)
Do you by any chance think you could do the notional results for the seats on your own figures if you have the time? Would be interesting to see where the battle ground seats for all the parties are. |
|
|
|
Post by afleitch on Oct 22, 2016 18:01:14 GMT
I have Clydesdale and Eskdale as quite comfortably SNP.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Oct 22, 2016 18:05:11 GMT
I'd have thought there's a good chance the Borders seat would have gone the other way though ?
|
|
|
|
Post by jollyroger93 on Oct 22, 2016 18:05:46 GMT
Do you by any chance think you could do the notional results for the seats on your own figures if you have the time? Would be interesting to see where the battle ground seats for all the parties are. I have notional ward figures which I can quite easily apply to individual constituencies, the problem is that I did not create ward notionals from 2015 in much of the boring Central Belt (Glasgow, North Lanarkshire, West Dunbartonshire, Falkirk, West Lothian, south Fife and South Lanarkshire). However I am planning on mapping party strength from the 2015 and 2016 elections onto the map provided, alongside the results of the 2014 independence referendum. Ok that's fine, I would say that the 2016 results are more applicable than the 2015 results. |
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 16,058
|
Post by Sibboleth on Oct 22, 2016 18:07:44 GMT
The continued insistence on keeping Airdrie and Coatbridge apart is silliness. They formed a constituency together until 1983 do not forget. Why is it that the commissioners sometimes seem to only listen to local complaints when they're from small minded parochialist morons?
|
|
Sibboleth
Labour
'Sit on my finger, sing in my ear, O littleblood.'
Posts: 16,058
|
Post by Sibboleth on Oct 22, 2016 18:09:39 GMT
No set of notionals will tell you much from a predictive perspective so don't bother to pick and choose based on that. The Scottish electorate is not now 'stable' enough for such things.
|
|
iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 11,453 
|
Post by iain on Oct 22, 2016 19:10:46 GMT
I'd have thought there's a good chance the Borders seat would have gone the other way though ? I doubt it - I'm pretty sure the SNP would have won Tweeddale East. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Oct 22, 2016 19:48:30 GMT
For some reason I had in mind that it had lost some territory to the Midlothian seat. In any case this must be a very good bet for a Tory gain in 2020
|
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Oct 22, 2016 23:28:41 GMT
The continued insistence on keeping Airdrie and Coatbridge apart is silliness. They formed a constituency together until 1983 do not forget. Why is it that the commissioners sometimes seem to only listen to local complaints when they're from small minded parochialist morons? My first Scotland plan had a Monklands seat - the electorate is spot-on. But it does make it difficult to make sensible constituencies in Cumbernauld/Chryston. |
|
|
|
Post by ajthomson on Oct 23, 2016 19:02:03 GMT
Some interesting proposals from the BCS. In general, the arrangements north of the highland line work well, and in central Scotland only the Kinross-shire & Cowdenbeath division looks odd, largely because it's the 'leftovers' seat, and the commission presumably didn't want to split P&K council between three constituencies as I suggested up-thread and afleitch suggested more recently. I'm not wild about the solution for Stirling/Clacks/Falkirk, but the numbers there are very tight, especially since the BCS chose not to detach Kilsyth from the rest of North Lanarkshire. After the near consensus on what might happen in Edinburgh, the commission came up with a bit of a surprise, but whether it will survive a review is anyone's guess (Edinburgh was redrawn from scratch in 2002 after the BCS's first attempt was rejected by just about everyone). The arrangement for Glasgow also surprised me a bit, particularly the South West seat, as it separates Newlands from Old Cathcart.
Re Dunbartonshire West and Bearsden North: the reason that Milngavie wasn't added to West Dunbartonshire was, I assume, that there isn't a direct road link between them. The only direct road link between West and East Dunbartonshire is through Bearsden North ward. The northern part of that ward where the road link occurs, Baljaffray, used to be in a single-member Milngavie ward (Craigdhu), which may explain why Milngavie has generally been linked with Clydebank in the past (and, at Holyrood, still is).
Re Lanarkshire/D&G: the division of Motherwell between seats isn’t great. One solution is to divide Motherwell North ward between the bits that are in Motherwell proper (not very much) and those that aren't (most of it). Move Motherwell West and the parts of Motherwell North that lies west of the South Calder Water into Hamilton & Motherwell, and move Wishaw into Airdrie South & Shotts: the numbers should work and Motherwell won't be split. On the other hand, I don't know how much of Wishaw there is in Motherwell SE & Ravenscraig ward.
Further south, I’m not too keen on separating Locharbriggs from Dumfries; there was a big complaint locally when the BCS tried to put Locharbriggs and Heathall in DCT at the 5th review, and the commission came up with an alternative plan. Why not move Locharbriggs in to D&G and then move Annan to Clydesdale & Eskdale? I don’t have the numbers to hand, though, so it might not work.
It was interesting to hear Eastwood's and ntyuk1707's take on Ayrshire and Renfrewshire, as I am very much with afleitch with regard to the BCS crossing the Ayrshire-Renfrewshire border in three seats. I imagine the reason for the three cross-county seats is that they wanted to maximise the number of seats that were wholly contained within one LA area, with the remaining constituencies to be put together as best they could. But it has created some areas that I don't think work. Cunninghame East I really don't like because the small towns in the Irvine Valley have no connection that I'm aware of with Eastwood. Renfrew is split between Paisley and West Renfrewshire, which seems an unnecessary split for what is a relatively small town. Ntyuk's comments about the connections between the North Ayrshire coastal towns make a strong case for keeping those towns in the one seat; that said, the BCS have often split those towns between seats in the past (and continue to do so at Holyrood). While Cumnock presumably does look to Kilmarnock rather than to Ayr for local services, given that they are in the same LA (and this is borne out by ntyuk’s anecdotal evidence), they have never previously been in the same seat, whereas Cumnock and Carrick have been in the same seat for almost 150 years (and Kilmarnock and Loudoun have been in the same seat for almost 100).
I had in mind something like this:
1. Ayr, Carrick & Cumnock (72,079): the existing seat, adjusted to fit ward boundaries, so Cumnock/New Cumnock, Doon Valley, Ayr x3, Maybole, Girvan.
2. Kilmarnock & Loudoun (71,101): the existing seat, adjusted to fit ward boundaries, so Annick, Kilmarnock x4, Irvine Valley, Ballochmyle.
3. Ayrshire Central (74,862): the existing seat plus Kilwinning, so Irvine x2, Kilwinning, Troon, Prestwick, Kyle.
4. Ayrshire North & Johnstone (my one cross-ceremonial-county seat) (81,859, minus Elderslie, which is c.3500): Saltcoats/Stevenston, Ardrossan/Arran, Dalry/West Kilbride, Beith/Kilbirnie, North Coast, Johnstone x2 but minus Elderslie.
5. Inverclyde (77,565): Inverclyde LA, Bishopton/Bridge of Weir, Houston/Linwood.
6. Paisley & Renfrew (80,682, plus Elderslie, c.3500, minus Glenburn, c.7000): Erskine/Inchinnan, Renfrew x2, Paisley x4, plus Elderslie, minus Glenburn).
7. Renfrewshire East (67,706, plus Glenburn, c.7000): East Renfrewshire LA, plus Glenburn.
3 wards would be split (Johnstone South, Paisley South, Paisley South West), which is the same as the BCS's proposals.
|
|
|
|
Post by ajthomson on Oct 24, 2016 17:48:04 GMT
Some interesting proposals from the BCS. In general, the arrangements north of the highland line work well, and in central Scotland only the Kinross-shire & Cowdenbeath division looks odd, largely because it's the 'leftovers' seat, and the commission presumably didn't want to split P&K council between three constituencies as I suggested up-thread and afleitch suggested more recently. I'm not wild about the solution for Stirling/Clacks/Falkirk, but the numbers there are very tight, especially since the BCS chose not to detach Kilsyth from the rest of North Lanarkshire. After the near consensus on what might happen in Edinburgh, the commission came up with a bit of a surprise, but whether it will survive a review is anyone's guess (Edinburgh was redrawn from scratch in 2002 after the BCS's first attempt was rejected by just about everyone). The arrangement for Glasgow also surprised me a bit, particularly the South West seat, as it separates Newlands from Old Cathcart. Re Dunbartonshire West and Bearsden North: the reason that Milngavie wasn't added to West Dunbartonshire was, I assume, that there isn't a direct road link between them. The only direct road link between West and East Dunbartonshire is through Bearsden North ward. The northern part of that ward where the road link occurs, Baljaffray, used to be in a single-member Milngavie ward (Craigdhu), which may explain why Milngavie has generally been linked with Clydebank in the past (and, at Holyrood, still is). Re Lanarkshire/D&G: the division of Motherwell between seats isn’t great. One solution is to divide Motherwell North ward between the bits that are in Motherwell proper (not very much) and those that aren't (most of it). Move Motherwell West and the parts of Motherwell North that lies west of the South Calder Water into Hamilton & Motherwell, and move Wishaw into Airdrie South & Shotts: the numbers should work and Motherwell won't be split. On the other hand, I don't know how much of Wishaw there is in Motherwell SE & Ravenscraig ward. Further south, I’m not too keen on separating Locharbriggs from Dumfries; there was a big complaint locally when the BCS tried to put Locharbriggs and Heathall in DCT at the 5th review, and the commission came up with an alternative plan. Why not move Locharbriggs in to D&G and then move Annan to Clydesdale & Eskdale? I don’t have the numbers to hand, though, so it might not work. It was interesting to hear Eastwood's and ntyuk1707's take on Ayrshire and Renfrewshire, as I am very much with afleitch with regard to the BCS crossing the Ayrshire-Renfrewshire border in three seats. I imagine the reason for the three cross-county seats is that they wanted to maximise the number of seats that were wholly contained within one LA area, with the remaining constituencies to be put together as best they could. But it has created some areas that I don't think work. Cunninghame East I really don't like because the small towns in the Irvine Valley have no connection that I'm aware of with Eastwood. Renfrew is split between Paisley and West Renfrewshire, which seems an unnecessary split for what is a relatively small town. Ntyuk's comments about the connections between the North Ayrshire coastal towns make a strong case for keeping those towns in the one seat; that said, the BCS have often split those towns between seats in the past (and continue to do so at Holyrood). While Cumnock presumably does look to Kilmarnock rather than to Ayr for local services, given that they are in the same LA (and this is borne out by ntyuk’s anecdotal evidence), they have never previously been in the same seat, whereas Cumnock and Carrick have been in the same seat for almost 150 years (and Kilmarnock and Loudoun have been in the same seat for almost 100). I had in mind something like this: 1. Ayr, Carrick & Cumnock (72,079): the existing seat, adjusted to fit ward boundaries, so Cumnock/New Cumnock, Doon Valley, Ayr x3, Maybole, Girvan. 2. Kilmarnock & Loudoun (71,101): the existing seat, adjusted to fit ward boundaries, so Annick, Kilmarnock x4, Irvine Valley, Ballochmyle. 3. Ayrshire Central (74,862): the existing seat plus Kilwinning, so Irvine x2, Kilwinning, Troon, Prestwick, Kyle. 4. Ayrshire North & Johnstone (my one cross-ceremonial-county seat) (81,859, minus Elderslie, which is c.3500): Saltcoats/Stevenston, Ardrossan/Arran, Dalry/West Kilbride, Beith/Kilbirnie, North Coast, Johnstone x2 but minus Elderslie. 5. Inverclyde (77,565): Inverclyde LA, Bishopton/Bridge of Weir, Houston/Linwood. 6. Paisley & Renfrew (80,682, plus Elderslie, c.3500, minus Glenburn, c.7000): Erskine/Inchinnan, Renfrew x2, Paisley x4, plus Elderslie, minus Glenburn). 7. Renfrewshire East (67,706, plus Glenburn, c.7000): East Renfrewshire LA, plus Glenburn. 3 wards would be split (Johnstone South, Paisley South, Paisley South West), which is the same as the BCS's proposals. Well Ayr and Prestwick were in the same constituency for 300 years before 2005  Touché! But equally I could argue that Cumnock and Carrick were also in the same seat for 300 years too (the 150 years referred only to the split of rural Ayrshire seats in 1868!) More seriously, as with any boundary changes, there will be a balancing act between whether it is better to create some seats that are excellent and some that are pitchfork bait, or all seats that are more or less OK but none of them ideal. I readily concede that Cunninghame West is a better arrangement than my Ayrshire North & Johnstone, but I think that the latter is worth the price of West Renfrewshire not seeing the light of day. We can agree to differ! |
|
|
|
Post by ajthomson on Oct 24, 2016 18:18:23 GMT
So here's my take on the review as a whole: - The boundaries in the Highlands are almost perfect: somehow the Boundary Commission has managed to create a seat based in Caithness, Sutherland & Ross (the northern seat in the Highlands) fitting within the quota without (apparently) over-stepping the area limited or splitting up Inverness in to two constituencies. They have also managed to respect the council boundaries of Argyll & Bute and Moray, keeping both council areas in their own respective constituencies by drawing on electors from parts of the Highland council area. My main concern here is the truly awful constituency name of "Highland North" which should be renamed to Caithness and Ross, otherwise the boundaries here are adequate.
- I don't really understand the arrangement in Dunbartonshire: Bearsden is unnecessarily split in two with half of the town joining up with West Dunbartonshire and the other half joining up with the remainder of East Dunbartonshire, when Milngavie can just join West Dunbartonshire allowing for Bearsden to remain within a single constituency...
I agree re the name of 'Highland North', though I'd go for 'Caithness, Sutherland and Ross'. The Commission did a good job getting the area and numbers to fit, and the seat they've created looks quite like the one in the zombie review. Re East Dunbartonshire: I can only assume it's the lack of direct road access issues between a) West Dunbartonshire and Milngavie; and b) Bearsden and Bishopbriggs North. I don't see why either of these should be a problem: Milngavie has been linked with Clydebank often enough for the absence of Baljaffray not to be a problem, and, as mentioned upthread, the lack of road link between Bearsden and Bishopbriggs is down to the odd shape of the Glasgow city boundary, which, given that it affects virtually no electors, shouldn't be considered insuperable. I'd say that local opinion would be strongly against the separation of Milngavie and Bearsden full stop, but obviously that isn't an option. I'd have thought that Bearsden North would be a better prospect than Milngavie for a unionist seat in the successor to Dunbartonshire East, whatever it is ultimately called, which could see the unionist parties pushing for a Dunbartonshire West & Milngavie arrangement. |
|
Eastwood
Non-Aligned
Politically restricted post
Posts: 2,122
|
Post by Eastwood on Oct 24, 2016 20:07:23 GMT
I agree re the name of 'Highland North', though I'd go for 'Caithness, Sutherland and Ross'. The Commission did a good job getting the area and numbers to fit, and the seat they've created looks quite like the one in the zombie review. Re East Dunbartonshire: I can only assume it's the lack of direct road access issues between a) West Dunbartonshire and Milngavie; and b) Bearsden and Bishopbriggs North. I don't see why either of these should be a problem: Milngavie has been linked with Clydebank often enough for the absence of Baljaffray not to be a problem, and, as mentioned upthread, the lack of road link between Bearsden and Bishopbriggs is down to the odd shape of the Glasgow city boundary, which, given that it affects virtually no electors, shouldn't be considered insuperable. I'd say that local opinion would be strongly against the separation of Milngavie and Bearsden full stop, but obviously that isn't an option. I'd have thought that Bearsden North would be a better prospect than Milngavie for a unionist seat in the successor to Dunbartonshire East, whatever it is ultimately called, which could see the unionist parties pushing for a Dunbartonshire West & Milngavie arrangement. In 2015 I believe that the vote in Bearsden North and Milngavie was very similar: both going Lib Dem. I think that Caithness & Ross is preferable to Caithness, Sutherland & Ross as that name is already used in the Scottish Parliament. The logical name is Caithness, Sutherland, Ross and Cromarty. Reflects the historical counties and the difference from the Scottish Parliament constituency which doesn't include the Black Isle (predominantly in Cromartyshire traditionally). |
|
Eastwood
Non-Aligned
Politically restricted post
Posts: 2,122
|
Post by Eastwood on Oct 28, 2016 8:22:36 GMT
I suspect I'm going to upset ntyuk1707 here but I'm now of the opinion that it is necessary to split Ayr from Troon. The advantages of having a single constituency containing Paisley and Renfrew and a constituency with all of East Renfrewshire outweigh any disadvantage from Troon being included with Irvine instead of Ayr. So my constituencies would be: Paisley & Renfrew 68,016 (+circa 4,000 voters) Renfrewshire wards: Paisley South Paisley South West Paisley North West Paisley East & Ralston Renfrew South & Gallowhill Renfrew North + either Elderslie community council area or Linwood community council area (depending on which has better numbers) Inverclyde & Erskine 78,957 (-circa 3,000 voters) All of Inverclyde council area Renfrewshire wards: Bishopton, Bridge of Weir & Langbank Erskine & Inchinnan - Bridge of Weir community council area Cunninghame North & Johnstone 78,381 (+circa 3,000 voters -circa 4,000 voters) North Ayrshire wards: North Coast and Cumbraes Kilbirnie and Beith Dalry and West Kilbride Kilwinning Renfrewshire wards: Houston, Crosslee & Linwood Johnstone North, Kilbarchan & Lochwinnoch Johnstone South, Elderslie & Howwood + Bridge of Weir community council area - either Elderslie community council area or Linwood community council area (depending on which has better numbers) East Renfrewshire & Stewarton 77,288 All of East Renfrewshire Council area East Ayrshire ward: Annick Kilmarnock & Loudoun 71,824 East Ayshire Wards: Kilmarnock West and Crosshouse Kilmarnock East and Hurlford Irvine Valley Kilmarnock South Kilmarnock North Ballochmyle Cumnock and New Cumnock Cunninghame South & Troon 77,535 North Ayrshire Wards: Ardrossan and Arran Saltcoats and Stevenston Irvine East Irvine West South Ayrshire Wards: Troon Kyle Ayr & Carrick 73,853 South Ayrshire wards: Prestwick Ayr West Ayr East Ayr North Maybole, North Carrick and Coylton Girvan and South Carrick East Ayrshire ward: Doon Valley Pros compared to BCS plan:Renfrew is not split East Renfrewshire is all in one constituency Only 2 Constituencies instead of 3 cross the Ayrshire boundary (which I view as a more significant barrier as it crosses Health Board and VJB boundaries etc as well as just council area boundaries) Upper Irvine valley linked with Kilmarnock to which it has much better local affinity than Eastwood North Ayrshire and Arran wholly within 2 constituencies rather than 3. Where it is the same as BCS plans:5 constituencies that cross council area boundaries 2.5 constituencies that contain only 1 or 1.5 wards from one council area in a constituency mainly in another council area Cons compared to BCS plan:Troon and Ayr in different constituencies I think the separation of Troon and Ayr is a price worth paying for all the other advantages it offers. Just need to get some exact numbers for Linwood and Elderslie to work out what combination of splits will work there. Basically the number of electors in whichever of Linwood or Elderslie you remove has to be at least 3,015 and be bigger than the number of electors in Bridge of Weir (or no more than 126 more anyway) in order to keep Cunninghame North and Johnstone below the quota. |
|
Eastwood
Non-Aligned
Politically restricted post
Posts: 2,122
|
Post by Eastwood on Oct 28, 2016 11:52:13 GMT
I suspect I'm going to upset ntyuk1707 here but I'm now of the opinion that it is necessary to split Ayr from Troon. The advantages of having a single constituency containing Paisley and Renfrew and a constituency with all of East Renfrewshire outweigh any disadvantage from Troon being included with Irvine instead of Ayr. So my constituencies would be: Paisley & Renfrew 68,016 (+circa 4,000 voters) Renfrewshire wards: Paisley South Paisley South West Paisley North West Paisley East & Ralston Renfrew South & Gallowhill Renfrew North + either Elderslie community council area or Linwood community council area (depending on which has better numbers) Inverclyde & Erskine 78,957 (-circa 3,000 voters) All of Inverclyde council area Renfrewshire wards: Bishopton, Bridge of Weir & Langbank Erskine & Inchinnan - Bridge of Weir community council area Cunninghame North & Johnstone 78,381 (+circa 3,000 voters -circa 4,000 voters) North Ayrshire wards: North Coast and Cumbraes Kilbirnie and Beith Dalry and West Kilbride Kilwinning Renfrewshire wards: Houston, Crosslee & Linwood Johnstone North, Kilbarchan & Lochwinnoch Johnstone South, Elderslie & Howwood + Bridge of Weir community council area - either Elderslie community council area or Linwood community council area (depending on which has better numbers) East Renfrewshire & Stewarton 77,288 All of East Renfrewshire Council area East Ayrshire ward: Annick Kilmarnock & Loudoun 71,824 East Ayshire Wards: Kilmarnock West and Crosshouse Kilmarnock East and Hurlford Irvine Valley Kilmarnock South Kilmarnock North Ballochmyle Cumnock and New Cumnock Cunninghame South & Troon 77,535 North Ayrshire Wards: Ardrossan and Arran Saltcoats and Stevenston Irvine East Irvine West South Ayrshire Wards: Troon Kyle Ayr & Carrick 73,853 South Ayrshire wards: Prestwick Ayr West Ayr East Ayr North Maybole, North Carrick and Coylton Girvan and South Carrick East Ayrshire ward: Doon Valley Pros compared to BCS plan:Renfrew is not split East Renfrewshire is all in one constituency Only 2 Constituencies instead of 3 cross the Ayrshire boundary (which I view as a more significant barrier as it crosses Health Board and VJB boundaries etc as well as just council area boundaries) Upper Irvine valley linked with Kilmarnock to which it has much better local affinity than Eastwood North Ayrshire and Arran wholly within 2 constituencies rather than 3. Where it is the same as BCS plans:5 constituencies that cross council area boundaries 2.5 constituencies that contain only 1 or 1.5 wards from one council area in a constituency mainly in another council area Cons compared to BCS plan:Troon and Ayr in different constituencies I think the separation of Troon and Ayr is a price worth paying for all the other advantages it offers. Just need to get some exact numbers for Linwood and Elderslie to work out what combination of splits will work there. Basically the number of electors in whichever of Linwood or Elderslie you remove has to be at least 3,015 and be bigger than the number of electors in Bridge of Weir (or no more than 126 more anyway) in order to keep Cunninghame North and Johnstone below the quota. As I've said those plans would also break apart the distinct community of Cumnock and Doon Valley (which incorporates the East Ayrshire wards of Cumnock/New Cumnock, Ballochmyle and Doon Valley), though on the plus side those constituencies are more reasonable than most alternatives I've come across so far. Personally I prefer the BC's proposed constituency arrangement in Renfrewshire and East Renfrewshire as Cunninghame East and Paisley are both coherent constituencies with good road links (Annick and East Renfrewshire has poorer road links). Honestly I can't see how keeping together East Renfrewshire in one constituency weighs out the problems created by these boundaries: if anything Barrhead belongs with Paisley! As I said before I don't think the BCS proposals are awful. I concede the point on Doon to an extent but the area does have good links to Ayr as well as Cumnock / Kilmarnock. For example in secondary education where Patna and Dalmellington denominational kids go to Queen Margaret Academy in Ayr. Doon valley patients will also tend to be seen at Ayr Hospital rather than Crosshouse. So I'd argue that Dalmellington and Patna have more affinity to Ayr than Galston and Darvel do to East Renfrewshire. Equally I don't have a huge objection to Barrhead being linked to Paisley but once you do link Barrhead to Paisley the numbers force you to split Renfrew to stay below quota which to me is a bigger problem. BCS is by no means awful but I think my proposal solves some of the problems like Renfrew without creating any town splits or really disconnected communities like the upper Irvine valley in the BCS proposal. |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Oct 28, 2016 14:17:25 GMT
Equally I don't have a huge objection to Barrhead being linked to Paisley but once you do link Barrhead to Paisley the numbers force you to split Renfrew to stay below quota which to me is a bigger problem. Or e.g. take Ferguslie Park out of Paisley like I have. www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1LemDO_4rTEcEchf0rTRIyypD6q8 |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Oct 28, 2016 16:22:05 GMT
Interesting but I doubt that Ferguslie split will satisfy Eastwood. Another issue is that there's no direct road link between the East Renfrewshire and Johnstone components of the proposed Renfrewshire South constituency. I am one of the merry band of people who don't care whether there's a direct road link or not. I'd put it way down the list of importance, after things like geographical proximity, community of interest and historical associations - both areas are in the sphere of influence of Glasgow and both have been part of Renfrewshire for hundreds of years. I did originally pair Johnstone with Ardrossan. There's good roads between the two without leaving the constituency, but I really don't think the two towns are more closely related than Johnstone is with the rest of Renfrewshire. |
|
Eastwood
Non-Aligned
Politically restricted post
Posts: 2,122
|
Post by Eastwood on Oct 28, 2016 20:00:53 GMT
Equally I don't have a huge objection to Barrhead being linked to Paisley but once you do link Barrhead to Paisley the numbers force you to split Renfrew to stay below quota which to me is a bigger problem. Or e.g. take Ferguslie Park out of Paisley like I have. www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1LemDO_4rTEcEchf0rTRIyypD6q8I'm afraid your proposals split Paisley, split East Renfrewshire, split Inverclyde and divide East Ayrshire between 3 constituencies. I'm not seeing many advantages there. You also manage to have six out of seven constituencies covering two local authorities. The only good thing I can see is that there is a single crossing of the Ayrshire / Renfrewshire border. However your Renfrewshire South constituency is a real abomination. There are absolutely no connections or affinity between Johnstone / Lochwinnoch and the Eastwood area. As a resident of that proposed constituency I'd be very unimpressed. |
|
Adrian
Co-operative Party
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Adrian on Oct 29, 2016 0:37:11 GMT
As I've said before, I don't get why Ayrshire is divided into three authorities (the division reminds me a bit of Cheshire East/West), and whether it's important to people, so I don't have any compunction about crossing the district boundaries. Also, once I'd decided not to cross the Lanarkshire border it did make for some tricky decisions. And to be fair the counties south and west of Glasgow are a bit of a mystery to me - I did spend a night in Kilmarnock 20 years ago but that's not much to go on! So I thank you for educating me.
Edit: The only thing I remember about Kilmarnock was that apparently quite a few council-house tenants had torn out their newly installed central-heating radiators and pipes and sold them for scrap.
Or maybe that was Košice.
|
|
Eastwood
Non-Aligned
Politically restricted post
Posts: 2,122
|
Post by Eastwood on Oct 29, 2016 6:43:31 GMT
I'm afraid your proposals split Paisley, split East Renfrewshire, split Inverclyde and divide East Ayrshire between 3 constituencies. I'm not seeing many advantages there. You also manage to have six out of seven constituencies covering two local authorities. The only good thing I can see is that there is a single crossing of the Ayrshire / Renfrewshire border. However your Renfrewshire South constituency is a real abomination. There are absolutely no connections or affinity between Johnstone / Lochwinnoch and the Eastwood area. As a resident of that proposed constituency I'd be very unimpressed. Probably greater affinity than the residents of Troon have to Irvine being honest! True but Troon is right next to Irvine so it's their own fault for ignoring the place. Troon folk tend to go to Crosshouse for outpatient care for example so there are areas where they are already classed with north and east Ayrshire. |
|
