Eastwood
Non-Aligned
Politically restricted post
Posts: 2,122 
|
Post by Eastwood on Oct 29, 2016 6:49:38 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. It's fairly simple, South Ayrshire was gerrymandered to be a Conservative authority and the rest would have looked odd as a single Labour authority so it was divided into 2. Hence Troon is included in south but Doon was put in East as a more Labour area. I suspect come Local Government reorganisation a single Ayrshire unitary will be established. However until that point we need to deal with what we have. As a local government Officer the less MPs represent an area the easier it is to build good relationships with them. Hence why I dislike your plan which makes all the authorities deal with 2 MPs and East Ayrshire deal with 3. Definitely suboptimal. |
|
|
|
Post by AustralianSwingVoter on Oct 29, 2016 11:30:12 GMT
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. I think the proposed arrangements best serve the communities in the area. There's no point in pretending that Troon is just a suburb of Irvine, because it's not- and everyone who I've spoken to around Ayr, Prestwick and Troon about the Central Ayrshire/Ayr, Carrick & Cumnock split just hates it... Troon can effectively be treated as a suburb of Ayr and Prestwick, just as Ardrossan, Saltcoats and Stevenston are effectively a urban area with strong ties to Irvine: something you're overlooking. congratulations on your 2000th post! |
|
|
|
Post by kvjackson on Oct 29, 2016 11:46:57 GMT
Probably already been discussed but I daren't imagine the amounts of furious letters being written in Crieff right now  |
|
Eastwood
Non-Aligned
Politically restricted post
Posts: 2,122
|
Post by Eastwood on Oct 29, 2016 12:02:04 GMT
Also doesn't your plan have 3 MP's in East Ayrshire??? So it does. Had forgotten about Stewarton. That is a disadvantage to it. Troon is not a suburb of Ayr though. It's a distinct town. I can understand it has more affinity to Ayr but being in different constituencies is not as bad as splitting a community like Renfrew. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Oct 29, 2016 12:07:45 GMT
Also doesn't your plan have 3 MP's in East Ayrshire??? So it does. Had forgotten about Stewarton. That is a disadvantage to it. Troon is not a suburb of Ayr though. It's a distinct town. I can understand it has more affinity to Ayr but being in different constituencies is not as bad as splitting a community like Renfrew. No. It is worse. |
|
iain
Lib Dem
Posts: 11,453
|
Post by iain on Nov 26, 2016 16:28:11 GMT
|
|
Georg Ebner
Non-Aligned
Roman romantic reactionary Catholic
Posts: 9,887
|
Post by Georg Ebner on Nov 30, 2016 14:45:53 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jan 13, 2017 21:45:49 GMT
Well, I know a Sassenach like me has no business getting involved but I was irritated by the solemn assurance, in para 10 of the BCS booklet, that "it has not been possible to construct all constituencies from complete electoral wards".
So I put something in to tell them, quite politely I think, that they are wrong.
I assume everyone will take one look at the London postcode and feel free to ignore it, but I wanted to get it off my chest.
Oh, yes, and edited to add that I wholeheartedly endorse ntyuk's sentiments. I never expected to get so interested in the Scottish review.
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,144
|
Post by Foggy on Jan 14, 2017 3:19:38 GMT
I hadn't realised the deadline for Scotland fell so much later than it did for England and Wales, but I suppose it stands to reason now that I think about it. I didn't send in a submission for north of the border anyway. I'm already likely to be ignored in at least 5 English regions anyway, for the reason islington states above (i.e. the postcode, though mine isn't in London).
It is certainly possible to make a proposal that doesn't involve ward splits, but I found that splitting a couple in the Glasgow/Paisley area worked best in terms of the knock-on effects invovled. Without easy access to polling district data, however, I couldn't tell you exactly what wards those should be, or which parts would need to be siphoned off to a neighbouring seat.
If we were designing constituencies for a 650-member Commons, then I'd probably want to split at least one ward in Edinburgh too.
|
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jan 14, 2017 8:44:52 GMT
Oh, quite.
There's a decent case for splitting the odd ward here and there and I acknowledge this in my submission.
And if the BCS had put forward a pragmatic argument for a few splits in specific circumstances, I should have said nothing. But it didn't. It said that aggregating whole wards was "not ... possible" (para 10 of the booklet) and "impractical" (para 3.6.2 of the policy document).
Well, as anyone that has followed this thread will know, these statements are what is politely known as bunkum. They are misleading the public. Hence my submission.
|
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on Jan 14, 2017 10:56:20 GMT
Well, I know a Sassenach like me has no business getting involved but I was irritated by the solemn assurance, in para 10 of the BCS booklet, that "it has not been possible to construct all constituencies from complete electoral wards". So I put something in to tell them, quite politely I think, that they are wrong. I assume everyone will take one look at the London postcode and feel free to ignore it, but I wanted to get it off my chest. Oh, yes, and edited to add that I wholeheartedly endorse ntyuk's sentiments. I never expected to get so interested in the Scottish review. Well, some of the Glasgow wards are so big, over 20,000 electors in many cases, that 3 wards are too small for a seat, and 4 wards would be too big. The alternative would be to send pitchfork manufacturers into overdrive by grabbing smaller wards from the surrounding suburban councils. Also, I think one of the Highland wards is so big geographically that it cannot easily be accommodated in a single seat, given the 13,000 Km 2 limit. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2017 23:44:39 GMT
ntyuk1707, would by "the election campaign" are you subtly hinting at Ruth essentially running a Bavarian version of The Conservative Party for the duration of 2020?
|
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,144
|
Post by Foggy on Feb 14, 2017 22:55:50 GMT
Eastwood and Loudoun (aka. Cunninghame East) Great work on the notionals and targets, but what has the Scottish Eastwood got to do with 'Cunninghame'? |
|
Foggy
Non-Aligned
Yn Ennill Yma
Posts: 6,144
|
Post by Foggy on Feb 14, 2017 23:00:08 GMT
Great work on the notionals and targets, but what has the Scottish Eastwood got to do with 'Cunninghame'? You might want to ask the boundary commission about that one because I have no idea. For some reason they decided to name the Eastwood and Loudoun constituency "Cunninghame East" when no part of the seat covers the district of Cunninghame. Glad to know I'm not going crazy since you are as confused as I am about that name! |
|
Eastwood
Non-Aligned
Politically restricted post
Posts: 2,122
|
Post by Eastwood on Feb 15, 2017 8:43:08 GMT
Great work on the notionals and targets, but what has the Scottish Eastwood got to do with 'Cunninghame'? You might want to ask the boundary commission about that one because I have no idea. For some reason they decided to name the Eastwood and Loudoun constituency "Cunninghame East" when no part of the seat covers the district of Cunninghame. To be fair to the BCS historically Cunnighame was one of the three bailieries of Ayrshire and covered the whole area along the valley of the river Irvine including Kilmarnock and the upper Irvine valley area of Darvel, Galston and Newmilns that is included in this provisional seat. When the name was revived in 1974 for a local government district however it only covered the western area that is now North Ayrshire. The Cunninghame East name is best avoided both because of the somewhat obsolete historical usage but also because the majority of the seat is in East Renfrewshire which has never had anything to do with Cunninghame and there is a perfectly good name for the upper Irvine Valley (Loudoun) which has long been used in Constituency names. Eastwood and Loudoun would be a much better name. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2017 19:53:37 GMT
I agree with the Scottish Conservatives.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2017 13:31:19 GMT
And if South Perthshire ends up with North East Fife I think this is quite unlikely really. One is that having looked through well over a hundred consultation responses, only five people have suggested this, two of which live in Glasgow and one of which lives in London. Most of the objections either explicitly or implicitly appear to reject linking up with any part of Fife rather than just with the Cowdenbeath area, so there's really not much evidence that linking up with North East Fife would meet with much more approval. The other is that, aside from some minor tinkering suggested by the Liberal Democrats, there have been no complaints about the proposed new North East Fife constituency, and linking most of it with South Perthshire (and the East Neuk with Glenrothes) would be very unpopular. I think it depends really if you want to upset one set of people or two...  |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Mar 2, 2017 13:53:35 GMT
Most complaints relating to the South Perthshire - Cowdenbeath union propose that the rural northern parts of Stirlingshire should be used as a substitute for Cowdenbeath to make up the numbers in South Perthshire as the more affluent rural south of Perth & Kinross doesn't fit in with the industrial south of Fife. Whilst this in itself is not an unreasonable counter-proposal it would inevitably result in the city of Stirling being split between two constituencies in addition to a lot of ward splitting. Here is my attempt at appeasing the masses:  1. Perth and North Perthshire - 72,831 2. Stirling North and South Perthshire - 71,596 3. North East Fife - 78,184 (ward split required) 4. Glenrothes and Kirkcaldy - 78,845 (ward split required) 5. Dunfermline and South Fife - 75,580 6. Clackmannanshire and West Fife - 71,519 7. Stirling South - 67,906 (ward split required) 8. Falkirk - 74,092 I'm not altogether happy with the proposal given the rather appalling "Clackmannanshire and West Fife" amalgamation and the divide in Stirling: although it is an improvement on the provisional boundaries in my opinion. If this were to go through Stirling North & South Perthshire should be a Conservative constituency (having voted such at the 2016 Scottish Parliament election). Personally I can't really see the Boundary Commission pursuing these boundaries as the allocated review areas are Perth & Kinross and Fife, and Clackmannanshire, Falkirk and Stirling. Alternatively I would propose the following boundaries for the area in question (using the allocated review areas):  1. North Perthshire - 72,831 2. South Tayside - 76,287 3. Glenrothes and East Fife - 74,747 4. Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath - 73,323 5. Dunfermline and West Fife - 78,254 6. Stirling - 72,036 7. Grangemouth and Clackmannanshire - 67,762 (ward split required) 8. Falkirk - 76,313 The Fife section of the "South Tayside" constituency is similar in nature to the affluent, rural south of the Perth and Kinross council area, with tourism around St. Andrews and agriculture further west. I think that this is a more satisfactory solution over the existing "Ochil and South Perthshire" division and the proposed "Kinross-shire and Cowdenbeath" constituency. These proposals allow for neat boundaries all round, keeping the city of Stirling within a single Westminster constituency and only requiring one ward split between Falkirk and Grangemouth. The main issue is that there is no direct road link between the Clackmannanshire and Grangemouth components of the proposed Grangemouth & Clackmannanshire constituency (as the Kincardine road bridge falls JUST outside of the constituency in Dunfermline & West Fife). Kilsyth would fit nicely and make up the numbers in your Stirling South seat (or is there some at least informal rule about not combining wards from more than two authorities?) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2017 14:23:10 GMT
The Conservative proposals: www.bcs2018.org.uk/download_document?file=draft/1485949152_9031_Scottish_Conservative_Unionist_Party_Reduced_Redacted.pdfTheir preferred solution to the Kinross Question is to group Fife with Clackmannanshire and split Dunfermline down the middle whilst grouping Perth & Kinross, Stirling and Falkirk with Highland, Moray and Argyll & Bute. The result is that Grantown-on-Spey ends up in a constituency with Perth, whilst 'Kinross-shire and Stirlingshire' extends from Invergowrie to Loch Lomond. An alternative (and in my view rather amusing) proposal from their report is 'Clackmannanshire, Dunblane & Milngavie'... |
|
|
|
Post by afleitch on Mar 2, 2017 21:56:26 GMT
I love that Scottish Labour's counter proposals for the whole country focus on trying to retain their Edinburgh seat. You'd think they would at least try.
|
|
