|
Post by AustralianSwingVoter on Jul 22, 2016 11:33:07 GMT
ASV Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I'll comment in detail later but I've submitted plans upthread showing how it might be done (and there may be other options, of course). If you treat Clacks (0.497) with the southern grouping rather than the northern, then the numbers work. They do, (but not for Falkirk-Lothian-Borders) and I would love to see your plans for incorporating Clackmannanshire so please do share
|
|
|
Post by AustralianSwingVoter on Jul 22, 2016 11:35:46 GMT
Oh, and thank you islington for being the only one who seems to notice and comment on my plans (particularly West Midlands NO WARD SPLIT), your insight and comments have been delightful.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jul 22, 2016 15:42:09 GMT
Tweeddale West Ward (aka Peebles West) is not in Lanark, Peebles & Shotts (therby making it Lanark) and therefore Berwick, Roxburgh & Selkirk OR Scottish Borders is over Quota and therefore have fun redrawing ALL of Lothian Now you have created Stirling, what will you do to Falkirk And on the previous two points, the Falkirk-West Lothian-Edinburgh-Midlothian-East Lothian-Scottish Borders area which is 10.598 Quotas with an average seat size of 72594 Now you have created Stirling, what will you do to Clackmannanshire Kilpatrick ward of West Dunbartonshire was in Glasgow Bearsden and instead of that you have put Milngavie in Glasgow Bearsden meaning that Dumbarton is over Quota And on that point your West Dunbartonshire-Argyll & Bute-Highland-Aberdeenshire-Aberdeen-Angus-Dundee-Perth & Kinross-Fife-Clackmannanshire is 17.524 Quotas with an average seat size of 73288 The Wigtown, Kirkcudbright & Cumnock OR Galloway & Cumnock is so ugly because it was literally my only option, I think, and correct me if I am wrong, that the Wigtown, Kirkcudbright & Cumnock OR Galloway & Cumnock seat is the only really ugly seat and I know from experience that there is almost always in larger areas one really ugly and illogical seat which is needed so that all the other seats are fairly nice and logical. So islington, unless you can make 11 seats out of 10.598 and 18 out of 17.524, remembering how large and cumbersome wards are, then your plan cannot work, but PLEASE try and make the rest of Scotland because I couldn't make it work (Especially Edinburgh) Also what I think you have done is make a lot of average seats and many sort-of bad seats (Coatbridge & Baillieston, Airdrie (which should be Airdrie & Shotts) and Kirkintilloch and Cumbernauld come to mind) and no really horrible seats (except Motherwell which looks a bit to gerrymandered). Instead I had a lot of lovely, fantastic, logical constituencies (my favourites being Airdrie & Coatbridge OR Monklands, Motherwell & Wishaw, Cumbernauld and Kilsyth & Kirkintilloch) with one truly horrid constituency (Wigtown, Kirkcudbright & Cumnock OR Galloway & Cumnock) which I think is an altogether better approach. I promised a fuller reply. In the first place, I've already had my fun with Lothian. Specifically, I wanted to treat Borders and Midlothian together (2 seats) and obviously give E Lothian a seat to itself, which meant that I had to get 6 whole seats into Edinburgh / W Lothian and I found it really difficult. I posted my proposal on 26 Jun and it's on p13 of this thread. Your comments welcome. On the previous page or two you'll find my proposals for the rest of Scotland. You mentioned Clacks. I treat this with Falkirk for 2 seats (see p 12, 25 Jun). I think this is the best approach although I accept that there's no direct access across the Forth within the seat. But there are good road links just outside the seat so I don't see it as a major problem. You can avoid it if you want to - in fact, you posted something very much along these lines - but it means putting a boundary through the town of Stirling. Regarding the placing of Kilpatrick ward in a Glasgow seat: I was very anxious to avoid this because it has knock-on consequences in the Highlands. Putting Kilpatrick in with Glasgow pushes the W Duns seat deeper into Argyll, meaning in turn that the Argyll seat has to push further into the Highlands - in your scheme, for instance, by including Skye. But the effect is to put it in excess of the 13000 sq km limit. Now, I know you don't agree with having such a limit, and neither do I; but it's there in the legislation and I don't want to propose an illegal seat. So I want the Argyll seat to pick up its numbers in the relatively densely-populated Helensburgh area rather than in sparsely-populated Skye. Regarding the merits of the various schemes: I agree some of my seats are less than ideal, both in my main proposals and in the non-split Glasgow plan I've posted today. You didn't mention Glasgow E, which I thought was pretty bad (your Glasgow E is much better, and the version in my main proposal (p 12, 25 Jun) I think is better still). So I'm happy to accept the criticism (but not always - my Motherwell looks fine to me) but all schemes have their problems and I'd point out that, apart from the 'Galloway / bits of Ayrshire' mash-up, you have a four-area seat (Clydesdale, &c) and at least two three-area seats. But on the other hand, you've been rather more successful that I was at avoiding boundaries through towns (although I note that you've split Arbroath). And I thought some of your seats were really excellent - Dumfries, the Renfrewshire seat, N Ayrshire, Kilmarnock, several others. And your treatment of Edinburgh and W Lothian is definitely better than mine, purely as affecting those areas in isolation - my problem is that it leaves you one ward too many to fit into the rest of southern Scotland, meaning that your seats have to average near the upper limit and that you eventually run out of sensible ways of achieving this. I'd just like to say in conclusion that I really appreciate your interest and your ideas. It's a pleasure to comment on them.
|
|
|
Post by AustralianSwingVoter on Jul 22, 2016 22:50:56 GMT
...But on the other hand, you've been rather more successful that I was at avoiding boundaries through towns (although I note that you've split Arbroath)... The only towns I have split are Peebles (despite my many efforts no sensible alternative without mucking up Scottish Borders, Dumfries, Lanark & Shotts and Galloway & Cumnock) and Arbroath (the alternative is ULTRA UGLY) meanwhile your plan splits Airdrie and Coatbridge (which I think should be together) and puts wishaw with lanark
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jul 23, 2016 9:23:08 GMT
...But on the other hand, you've been rather more successful that I was at avoiding boundaries through towns (although I note that you've split Arbroath)... The only towns I have split are Peebles ... and Arbroath ... . Well, apart from Renfrew, Bishopbriggs, Cambuslang, E Kilbride, Stirling ... But I don't think town splits are the main issue, because they're inevitable under any scheme (look at the BCS zombie proposals, which split towns all over the place with loads of ward splits too). A more serious issue is that we are supposed to have regard to LA boundaries. Yet you have at least five 3-area seats, plus one 4-area seat. This isn't necessary. In my preferred Scotland scheme, I haven't completely avoided ward splits (I have four in total, two in Glasgow and two in Highland), but no seat extends into three or more LA areas. And my tweaking of your scheme, which retains the feature of getting rid of the Glasgow ward splits, involves only one three-area seat (Kirkintilloch & Cumbernauld). Plus, of course, you have at least one seat, probably two, over 13000 sq km, and thus illegal. (Whether or not you or I agree with such a rule is surely beside the point. It exists.) (Incidentally, see my post of 24 Jun (9.53am) on p 11 for an entirely non-ugly way of not splitting Arbroath.)
|
|
|
Post by AustralianSwingVoter on Jul 23, 2016 11:30:13 GMT
The only towns I have split are Peebles ... and Arbroath ... . Well, apart from Renfrew, Bishopbriggs, Cambuslang, E Kilbride, Stirling ... To start, you also split Renfrew, Bishopbriggs, Cambuslang, E Kilbride and please explain how I have split Stirling, all Stirling wards are in the same seat
|
|
|
Post by AustralianSwingVoter on Jul 23, 2016 11:32:42 GMT
The only towns I have split are Peebles ... and Arbroath ... . (Incidentally, see my post of 24 Jun (9.53am) on p 11 for an entirely non-ugly way of not splitting Arbroath.) I know that plan and that was my prefered option but look again and you see that Gordon & Deeside has to take 2 wards and the Kincardine ward doesn't fit. Also, please may you share your Falkirk-Lothian-Borders Plan, your North Plan as well as your revised plan with Clackmannanshire
|
|
|
Post by AustralianSwingVoter on Jul 23, 2016 11:33:27 GMT
ASV Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I'll comment in detail later but I've submitted plans upthread showing how it might be done (and there may be other options, of course). If you treat Clacks (0.497) with the southern grouping rather than the northern, then the numbers work. They do, (but not for Falkirk-Lothian-Borders) and I would love to see your plans for incorporating Clackmannanshire so please do share So, could you share the revised plans with Clackmannanshire please?
|
|
|
Post by afleitch on Jul 23, 2016 11:52:27 GMT
I enjoy people not from Scotland trying to do this because it makes you aware of how 'local ties' exist in collective heads in each area and not necessarily on the map.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jul 23, 2016 12:28:54 GMT
Afleitch -
Yes, I'm deeply conscious that I'm doing this from north London with a Sassenach eye so I'm more than ready to be told that I've overlooked local ties that would be evident from a Scottish perspective.
ASV -
1 - If your map and numbers are correct, you have Stirling W ward, which includes a major chunk of the town, in your Milngavie and Teith seat (which is also 3-areas, incidentally). 2 - Regarding my plans for other bits of Scotland: I have posted them all upthread and I have directed you thither because I didn't want to try everyone's patience by reposting my own plans. But I'll repost a couple of the areas that you seem especially interested in.
|
|
|
Post by AustralianSwingVoter on Jul 23, 2016 12:35:18 GMT
Afleitch - Yes, I'm deeply conscious that I'm doing this from north London with a Sassenach eye so I'm more than ready to be told that I've overlooked local ties that would be evident from a Scottish perspective. ASV - 1 - If your map and numbers are correct, you have Stirling W ward, which includes a major chunk of the town, in your Milngavie and Teith seat (which is also 3-areas, incidentally). 2 - Regarding my plans for other bits of Scotland: I have posted them all upthread and I have directed you thither because I didn't want to try everyone's patience by reposting my own plans. But I'll repost a couple of the areas that you seem especially interested in. I mean your plans for these areas WITHOUT WARD SPLITS
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jul 23, 2016 12:37:08 GMT
Continuing to make my way through Scotland ... SC-E (Clacks, Falkirk): 152407 = 2.04 = 2My thanks to Ntyuk for these boundaries. CLACKMANNAN AND GRANGEMOUTH - 76094. The are good road links between the two halves of the seat either side of the river Forth, although they do involve transiting just outside it. The seat is slightly reminiscent of (but much less bizarre than) the old Clackmannan & E Stirlingshire (of blessed memory), which once covered some of the same area. FALKIRK - 76313 SC-F (Stirling, E Duns): 145831 = 1.95 = 2Now, here I owe a big apology to Ntyuk and AJT who gave me excellent - and I'm sure, correct - local advice to the effect that it was in order to remove Milngavie ward from E Duns to get it down to size for a seat. I wanted to take this advice, I really did. But in the end, it looks so terrible on the map that I just couldn't bring myself to do it, and I hope I may be forgiven. I've gone for an alternative that looks much better on the map, but it puts a terrible boundary through the town of Kirkintilloch. All I can say in extenuation is that Kirkintilloch is used to it, since the existing seat boundary (although different) is also driven right through the town in an equally brutal way. And at least my boundary (unlike the current one) (i) follows a nice clean line (the Forth & Clyde Canal), and (ii) keeps the oldest part of the town all in one seat (Stirling) (even though the bulk of the modern town is in the E Duns seat on the other side of the canal). EAST DUNBARTONSHIRE - 73123 STIRLING - 72708 I'm reposting this for ASV, who has asked several times about my plans for Clackmannan. (Please note that this is different from the tweak to ASV's plan that I posted the other day, which linked Stirling to Kilsyth. The above is my preferred plan: i.e. it links Stirling with Kirkintilloch N. In terms of numbers, it works either way.)
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jul 23, 2016 12:41:20 GMT
I've no doubt everyone's attention is elsewhere (and very reasonably), but having come so far, I am ploughing on to the end. Let me conclude Scotland. SC-J (Edinburgh, W Lothian): 456507 = 6.11 = 6Edinburgh (4.40) needs to be paired and given that E Lothian can stand by itself and Midlothian can partner Borders for 2 seats, the linking with W Lothian is a natural one. But the actual boundaries gave me more trouble than almost anywhere else in the country. Edinburgh consists of 17 wards of almost Glaswegian proportions; W Lothian has 9, somewhat smaller although still large by most standards. So we have 26 wards for 6 seats. I don't think a 3-ward seat is feasible in Edinburgh, or a 6-ward seat in W Lothian, so that means that if ward splits are to be avoided, it has to be two seats of 5 wards (consisting of the 9 WL wards plus one from Edinburgh) and four seats of 4 wards (the remaining 16 wards of Edinburgh). Two Edinburgh wards border on WL, so the obvious way to do this is to link WL with the larger of these (Almond), which gives us: WL + Almond = 147904 = 1.98 = 2; and the rest of Edinburgh = 308603 = 4.13 = 4. Encouragingly (or so I thought), WL + Almond divides beautifully into two; and surely (I fondly imagined), the remaining 16 wards, although on the large side for four seats, would yield some workable combination. Well, maybe they do. But if so, I failed to find it. In the end I was reduced to trying something apparently crazy: increasing the size imbalance still further by linking WL with the smaller of the two bordering wards (Pentland Hills) instead. This gives: WL + Pentland = 144818 = 1.94; rest of Edinburgh = 311689 = 4.17. It's a sign of desperation that I even considered this; surely (especially at the Edinburgh end) it could never work. But amazingly, it did. EDINBURGH CENTRAL - 78260. Now, I know this doesn't look good on the map. And I know that in at least one case (E Duns), I rejected a seat on this ground despite local advice to the contrary. But this is a different case, because this seat makes much more sense on the ground than might be imagined from its (frankly) eccentric appearance. Three of the wards (Centre, Meadows and Southside) work together perfectly well; what makes the seat look strange is the fourth ward, Sighthill/Gorgie, which forms a long spur to the west. But there is a good reason for this ward's elongated shape - it follows the A70 / A71, one of the city's main arteries, and this road runs the whole length of the ward and connects directly with the city centre at the eastern end. So if you get past the shape on the map to look at the street pattern beneath, I'd argue that this is a perfectly workable combination. EDINBURGH NORTH - 78096 EDINBURGH SOUTH - 77044. Another seat with something of a spur, but much less dramatic than that of Edinburgh C. EDINBURGH WEST - 78289. This is a perfectly reasonable seat although there might be a case for calling it 'NW' rather than just 'W'. It will be noted how all the Edinburgh seats are well above average size: one of 77000 and the other three all above 78000. LINLITHGOW - 73770. Linking WL with Pentland ward also, of course, completely wrecks the nice division that can be achieved if it is linked with Almond. The arrangement set out here is the only legal one I can find. This is an awkward seat in itself; moreover, it includes substantial eastern parts of Livingston New Town. LIVINGSTON - 71048. This includes the main part of the New Town and the original Livingston village; the boundary separating it from its eastern suburbs is at least a clean one, following the A899 dual carriageway. Note that this is the smallest seat in mainland GB, only 17 above the legal minimum. SC-K (E Lothian): 76153 = 1.02 = 1Absolutely nothing to see here. EAST LOTHIAN - 76153 SC-L (Midlothian, Borders): 150636 = 2.01 = 2I've added Galashiels ward to Midlothian. This seems the most natural, but it does take rather a bite out of the Borders seat. The other possibility is Tweeddale West, which results in a better Borders seat but would add Peebles to the list of unoffending towns that are severed from part of their suburbs. MIDLOTHIAN AND GALASHIELS - 75256 SCOTTISH BORDERS - 75380 And just for the sake of completeness, let me add the protected island areas. SC-M (Orkney, Shetland): 33229 = 0.44 = 1ORKNEY AND SHETLAND - 33229 SC-N (Na h-Eileanan an Iar): 20887 = 0.28 = 1NA H-EILEANAN AN IAR - 20887 Again, this is for the benefit of ASV, who has been asking about my plans for Edinburgh / Lothian / Borders. I am sure he will note the entire absence of ward splits.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jul 23, 2016 12:44:52 GMT
Continuing with Scotland ... SC-B (Aberdeenshire, Angus, Dundee): 382204 = 5.11 = 5BANFF AND BUCHAN - 77582. My thanks to AJT for this one. DUNDEE - 77612. Two wards of the city need to be excluded from this seat; it seems logical to take the two most inland. FORFAR - 76693 GORDON AND DEESIDE - 73365. Thanks again, AJT. KINCARDINE AND ARBROATH - 76952. I'm happy with this seat, which (unlike some plans) keeps the town of Arbroath together. SC-C (Aberdeen): 150235 = 2.01 =2I'm sorry, I haven't checked upthread to see who devised this very satisfactory arrangement but I'm happy to adopt it with thanks. ABERDEEN NORTH - 78274 ABERDEEN SOUTH - 71961 SC-D (Fife, Perth & Kinross): 375442 = 5.02 = 5This is a classic example of why it's important to be flexible about groupings. I initially thought of linking Fife and Clacks with 4 seats, and purely on the numbers it looks very sensible. But once you start actually trying to draw seats, it just doesn't work at all. So I was very happy to change tack and embrace Ntyuk's alternative approach; and although other arrangements are possible, and have been suggested, in the E Fife / Glenrothes / Kinross area, I don't think any of them improves on Ntyuk's original suggestion. (Sorry, East Neuk.) DUNFERMLINE - 78254. A great improvement on what was proposed by the BCS in the zombie (cutting this important town in half, with a ward split thrown in for good measure). GLENROTHES - 74747 KIRKCALDY - 73323 PERTH - 72831. Admittedly the city itself is right at the edge of the seat. ST ANDREWS AND KINROSS - 76287 That will do for now. I'd like to point out that we've now covered about a third of Scotland and the only ward splits have been in the unique circumstances of the Highland area. And finally this one, just to reassure ASV that's it's possible to keep Arbroath together in a non-ugly manner and without any ward splits.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Jul 24, 2016 10:35:08 GMT
Just to be clear - I think that, on balance, the double ward-split arrangement proposed by the BCS in the zombie is the best way of keeping seats in the Highland area below 13000 sq km; so I'm sticking to that as my main proposal as posted a few pages upthread. So what I'm posting now is not my preferred option for the Highland area: it's an answer to the question of whether it's possible to draw up constituencies for the whole of Scotland that are legal in terms of both electorate and surface area (i.e. below 13000 sq km) without a single ward split anywhere. Amazingly, the answer is YES. Earlier posts have already demonstrated this for the rest of Scotland: all that remains is the Highland area. The problem here is not numbers: once you have hived off Nairn to go with Moray, and the two southernmost wards to go with Argyll, you are left with 148392 electors: ideal for two seats. The problem is to stay below 13000 sq km, and the arrangement below, although inelegant, achieves it. Northern Highlands and Inverness - 75611 (9127 sq km) Central Highlands and Skye - 72781 (12411 sq km) I'm not claiming this is an elegant arrangement (and remember, I'm not actually advocating it) but the Northern seat is contiguous: you could drive all the way from Inverness to John O'Groats without leaving the constituency. And it includes the whole of the main part of Inverness town (see large-scale map) - it's only the outlying suburbs that are omitted. So we can now say (taking account of current discussions on the Y&H thread) that a legal plan is possible without a single ward split anywhere in the entire UK.
|
|
|
Post by AustralianSwingVoter on Jul 24, 2016 11:22:38 GMT
Continuing to make my way through Scotland ... SC-E (Clacks, Falkirk): 152407 = 2.04 = 2My thanks to Ntyuk for these boundaries. CLACKMANNAN AND GRANGEMOUTH - 76094. The are good road links between the two halves of the seat either side of the river Forth, although they do involve transiting just outside it. The seat is slightly reminiscent of (but much less bizarre than) the old Clackmannan & E Stirlingshire (of blessed memory), which once covered some of the same area. FALKIRK - 76313 SC-F (Stirling, E Duns): 145831 = 1.95 = 2Now, here I owe a big apology to Ntyuk and AJT who gave me excellent - and I'm sure, correct - local advice to the effect that it was in order to remove Milngavie ward from E Duns to get it down to size for a seat. I wanted to take this advice, I really did. But in the end, it looks so terrible on the map that I just couldn't bring myself to do it, and I hope I may be forgiven. I've gone for an alternative that looks much better on the map, but it puts a terrible boundary through the town of Kirkintilloch. All I can say in extenuation is that Kirkintilloch is used to it, since the existing seat boundary (although different) is also driven right through the town in an equally brutal way. And at least my boundary (unlike the current one) (i) follows a nice clean line (the Forth & Clyde Canal), and (ii) keeps the oldest part of the town all in one seat (Stirling) (even though the bulk of the modern town is in the E Duns seat on the other side of the canal). EAST DUNBARTONSHIRE - 73123 STIRLING - 72708 I'm reposting this for ASV, who has asked several times about my plans for Clackmannan. (Please note that this is different from the tweak to ASV's plan that I posted the other day, which linked Stirling to Kilsyth. The above is my preferred plan: i.e. it links Stirling with Kirkintilloch N. In terms of numbers, it works either way.) That Clackmannanshire & Grangemouth is horrid, and also you have now also split KIRKINTILOCH
|
|
|
Post by AustralianSwingVoter on Jul 24, 2016 11:24:42 GMT
You know what islington, at the moment it feels like you and me are the only people taking any notice of Boundaries over the past few weeks
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,813
|
Post by The Bishop on Jul 24, 2016 11:26:20 GMT
Well, there has been some other stuff going on
|
|
|
Post by finsobruce on Jul 24, 2016 11:34:18 GMT
You know what islington, at the moment it feels like you and me are the only people taking any notice of Boundaries over the past few weeks We feel your pain mate and appreciate your contributions, just keep going. Normal service will be resumed... well, who knows when.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2016 12:43:12 GMT
You know what islington, at the moment it feels like you and me are the only people taking any notice of Boundaries over the past few weeks This will change soon enough, the Provisional Recommendations come out around September 12th/13th, so not long to wait before we get to move over to these forums. The post-Brexit/Labour Coup discussion is taking away attention at the mo...
|
|