Updated : 2011 Holyrood constituencies, a plan

[afleitch]

The current 73 constituenices will have to re-drawn. I have completed Strathclyde based on 2001 census data (bearing in min projected rises and falles in some areas) and on the new ward boundaries for 2007



Some major changes, Lanarkshire gains an extra seat (Wishaw) which while smaller in size in average will be home to the new town of Ravenscraig, on the site of the old steel works that is one of the largest building projects in Scotland. East Kilbride looses the countryside to the south, Hamilton is reunited and Ayr now hugs the coastline making it a stronger Tory seat than it currently is. Glasgow Kelvin now also looks a better bet for the Lib Dems.

I'm hoping to do the rest of Scotland bit by bit. I'm currently working on Edinburgh and the Lothians.

Ayrshire seats:

Ayr
Ayrshire South
Kilmarnock and Loudon
Irvine
Ayrshire North and Arran

Lanarkshire seats:

Clydesdale
East Kilbride
Hamilton
Rutherglen
Motherwell
Wishaw and Shotts
Bellshill
Airdrie and Coatbridge
Cumbernauld and Chryston

Argyll and Dumbartonshire seats:

Argyll and Bute
Dumbarton
Clydebank and Bearsden
Milngavie and Strathkelvin

Glasgow seats:

Anniesland
Kelvin
Maryhill
Springburn
Shettleston
Cathcart
Pollock
Gorbals and Tradeston
Govan

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Cool

So the idea of building another New Town got the go ahead then?

[afleitch]

Cool

So the idea of building another New Town got the go ahead then?

Pretty much, depite Glasgow's objections. It's target is 10,000 residents but it will probably be double that by 2020. Combine that with further developments straddling the Clyde we may soon have a mini-conurbation of some 250,000 forming in Glasgow's backyard swllowing up Hamilton, Motherwell, Wishaw, Bellshill and my home town of Blantyre :/

[afleitch]

Lothians.


An extra seat for the Lothians means Ediburgh gets greatly redrawn. As the Lothians are more strongly entitled to an extra seat than Lanarkshire if the total of seats exceeds 74 (allowing for one extra seat) Lanarkshire may loose a seat.

Seats:

Linlithgow
Livingston
Edinburgh West
Edinburgh Pentlands
Edinburgh South
Edinburgh Corstorphine
Edinburgh Waverley (NEW)
Edinburgh North and Leith
Edinburgh East and Musselborough (expanded)
Midlothian
East Lothian

EDIT: Seats renamed.

Edinburgh Waverley is a tight Labour/Lib Dem marginal

[minionofmidas]

What areas are in Old Town and Central respectively? (Also, need I really mention that you should find a different name for Central...?)
Btw, cool. And I love that the Gorbals have a constituency named for them.

[afleitch]

What areas are in Old Town and Central respectively? (Also, need I really mention that you should find a different name for Central...?)
Btw, cool. And I love that the Gorbals have a constituency named for them.

I know, I had problems with drawing up the Edinburgh seats as they corssed boundaries I'd rather they didn't. Central could be renamed Corstorphine. As for Old Town that is a mistake, it should be New Town; it covers the Castle, Haymarket and Tollcross.

Gorbals will probably get a seat named after it as it is expanding rapidly. The old Gorbals is being replaced and the areas is becoming 'gentrified' with some of the highest house prices in the City.

[minionofmidas]

What areas are in Old Town and Central respectively? (Also, need I really mention that you should find a different name for Central...?)
Btw, cool. And I love that the Gorbals have a constituency named for them.

I know, I had problems with drawing up the Edinburgh seats as they corssed boundaries I'd rather they didn't. Central could be renamed Corstorphine. As for Old Town that is a mistake, it should be New Town; it covers the Castle, Haymarket and Tollcross.

Holyrood too is suppose? Well, why should it not be Old Town then? Or maybe make this one Central ... how about Waverly?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[afleitch]

What areas are in Old Town and Central respectively? (Also, need I really mention that you should find a different name for Central...?)
Btw, cool. And I love that the Gorbals have a constituency named for them.

I know, I had problems with drawing up the Edinburgh seats as they corssed boundaries I'd rather they didn't. Central could be renamed Corstorphine. As for Old Town that is a mistake, it should be New Town; it covers the Castle, Haymarket and Tollcross.

Holyrood too is suppose? Well, why should it not be Old Town then? Or maybe make this one Central ... how about Waverly?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Holyrood falls into Edinburgh East, but Waverley would be a better name than New Town Nice and neutral, so I've changed it. Thanks.

Here is the 'New' Gorbals with some soon to be demolished 'Not so old Gorbals' in the background.

[minionofmidas]

What areas are in Old Town and Central respectively? (Also, need I really mention that you should find a different name for Central...?)
Btw, cool. And I love that the Gorbals have a constituency named for them.

I know, I had problems with drawing up the Edinburgh seats as they corssed boundaries I'd rather they didn't. Central could be renamed Corstorphine. As for Old Town that is a mistake, it should be New Town; it covers the Castle, Haymarket and Tollcross.

Holyrood too is suppose? Well, why should it not be Old Town then? Or maybe make this one Central ... how about Waverly?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Holyrood falls into Edinburgh East, but Waverley would be a better name than New Town Nice and neutral, so I've changed it. Thanks.

Here is the 'New' Gorbals with some soon to be demolished 'Not so old Gorbals' in the background.

Both are ugly. Got some real old Gorbals still standing?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The new Gorbals looks ugly (although it's good to hear they're ripping down the towerblocks) but at least it's not as bad as all that legoland **** thrown all over the London Docklands in the '80's...

[afleitch]

The new Gorbals looks ugly (although it's good to hear they're ripping down the towerblocks) but at least it's not as bad as all that legoland **** thrown all over the London Docklands in the '80's...

Sadly they are throwing around the Lego in the Glasgow Harbour project where the BBC is building us a giant lightbox

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Is nowhere safe from lego?

[jimrtex]

With AMS, there is really no reason that the local authority boundaries cannot be strictly observed.  If the constituencies for an LA have an average electorate larger than the average for a region, then there will effectively be more votes transferred to the regional lists, and if the electorates are smaller than the average for a region, there will fewer votes transferred to the regional list.

In terms of existing law, this should give the Boundary Committee wider discretion in interpreting the meaning of "excessive disparity" between electorates of constituencies, now that there are no longer Westminster considerations.

More generally, it would permit adopting a system of rolling redistributions as is used in Australia. 

The total number of seats per region could be adjusted automatically (in the same manner as for the Great Britain electoral regions for the European Parliament).  Regions do not have to have equal population, nor do they have to number 8 (which is based on a former number of MEPs elected from Scotland).   

Similarly, constituencies could be apportioned among the LAs, with changes being fairly uncommon.  Constituency boundaries within LAs could be adjusted when there was significant variation or ward boundaries changed.  The number of list seats for a region would simply be the difference between the total number of regional seats and the collective number of constituencies for LAs that comprise a region.

BTW, I don't think you can justify a 9th Glasgow constituencie.  Based on 2004 electorates, I have it at an entitlement of 8.14 seats.

[afleitch]

The problem with the Scottish system is that it is a compromise system retaining links to individual seats with 56 extra region seats to have some sort of PR system. As a result you do have to have boundary reviews similar to the present system. I have ignored UA boundaries, as do the comission but I have kept some relationship to the old regions. So in essense all 3 Ayrshire UA's are treated collectiviley when it comes to seat distribution, But I would not put say part of Dumbartonshire formerly in Strathclyde in with Stirling, formerly part of Central if it can be avoided.

You may be right with Glasgow, I was wondering where Lanarksires extra seat came from, but I have had varying results depending on the figures where Glasgow is allotted 8 or 9 seats (down from 10 simply because Rutherglen is now classed as part of South Lanarkshire)

[minionofmidas]

Shouldn't you be using the regional constituencies' boundaries as the only boundaries that cannot be crossed?

[jimrtex]

The problem with the Scottish system is that it is a compromise system retaining links to individual seats with 56 extra region seats to have some sort of PR system. As a result you do have to have boundary reviews similar to the present system.

It is precisely the AMS system that makes relatively strict equality among constituencies less important.  In the past when the constituencies were used for both Westminster and Holyrood, this was not the case.  But now because the electorate variation does not matter as much, boundaries reviews no longer have to be general, but could be done on a continuous basis.

Let's say that within a region (9 constituencies + 7 list), there are 480,000 votes cast, so that each member elected from the region represents 30,000 voters.  On average, there are 53,333 voters per constituency.

But imagine that a largish constituency has 70,000 votes (1.31 times the average), that splits 30-20-10-10.   The winning party elects its MSP from the constituency, and also uses up the 30,000 votes for one of the 16 MSPs from the region.  The 3 losing parties, have in effect earned 2/3, 1/3, and 1/3 of a list seat.  While this largish constituency only elected one constituency MSP rather than 1.31 constituency MSP,  it will have greater influence over the selection of the list MSPs.

Compare to a smallish constituency that has 40,000 votes (0.75 times the average) that splits 20-10-6-4.  In this case, the winning party gains a seat, but produces a deficit of 1/3 of a list seat.  The other parties earn 1/3, 1/5 and 2/15 of a list seat.

The total number of seats for a region should be determined based on the electorate share (of 129 seats), rather than simply being given 7 seats.  Since the consituency seats would be apportioned on the basis of 71 seats, an average sized constituency will have 129/71 seats apportioned to it (1 constiuency seat, and 0.81 regional seats). Larger constituencies will have 1 constituency seat and more regional seats; smaller constituencies will have 1 constituency seat and fewer regional seats.  A region with smaller constituencies (Highland and Islands) would tend to have a relatively smaller share of list seats.  But this is OK.  The island areas are better represented by local MSPs, and the list candidates are primarily elected by voters from the mainland areas.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The first rule is "So far as is practicable, regard must be had to the boundaries of local authority areas."

The second rule provides an exception for reasons of  equality of electorates.

The third rule provides an exception for geographical reasons, including size, shape, and accessiblity.

The fourth rule provides for taking into account inconvenience that would result from boundary changes (but this does not apply to Rule 1).

The problem in Scotland is similar to that of England where the Unitary Areas (except those in Berks) are treated as counties: the UA in England and LA in Scotland are typically small, entitled to only 1 or 1.5 or 2 constituencies.   This is unlike most ordinary English counties which typically have 5 to 10 MPs, and where any overage or underage in electorate size can be spread among constituencies (eg a county entitled to 5.5 seats, can have 5 or 6 seats within 10% of the electoral quota.

In England under the present review, UAs were often treated as little more than districts within their historical county (of importance in designing boundaries, but not so important as to ignore variation in electorate size).

In Scotland, under the review that took effect this year for Westminster constituencies, LAs were the basis for the constituencies, though they were often paired or grouped with other LAs to create inter-LA seats.

My argument is that the meaning of  "excessive variation" in electorates should take into account the use of the constituencies.   What is excessive for FPTP single member Westminster constituencies, may not be excessive for FPTP single member Holyrood constituencies used in conjunction with AMS.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The Westminster review also treated the 3 Ayrshire LAs together, but that was because they were entitled to 1.5, 1.3, and 1.3 MPs, too large for 1 constituency each, too small for 2 constituencies.  Under the previous review (the one still in effect for Holyrood), North Ayrshire has 2 constituencies, and South Ayrshire and East Ayrshire are paired for two more.

On the other hand, the Westminster review treated South Lanarkshire, Dumfries&Galloway, and Scottish Borders together, while North Lanarkshire and Dunbartonshire were paired.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The electoral quota is defined as (Scotland - Orkney - Shetland) / 71 rather than Scotland / nMP as was used for the previous review (used for Westminster before 2005, and still in effect for Holyrood).

This produces a slightly larger electoral quota and will bring Glasgow a bit closer to 8 seats.  If Na h-Eileanan an Iar remains a separate constituency, the new electoral quota will tend to produce about 73.6 constituencies.

The following is based on 2004 electorates.

Aberdeen City         157,468  2.92  3
Aberdeenshire         176,099  3.27  3
Angus                  84,614  1.57  2
Argyll & Bute          67,967  1.26  1
City of Edinburgh     330,162  6.13  6
Clackmannanshire       34,312  0.64  1
Dumfries & Galloway   113,430  2.11  2
Dundee City           108,270  2.01  2
East Ayrshire          93,482  1.73  2
East Dunbartonshire    82,682  1.53  2
East Lothian           70,186  1.30  1
East Renfrewshire      66,556  1.24  1
Falkirk               107,117  1.99  2
Fife                  271,712  5.04  5
Glasgow City          442,174  8.21  8
Highland              165,197  3.07  3
Inverclyde             60,924  1.13  1
Midlothian             60,515  1.12  1
Moray                  65,264  1.21  1
Na h-Eileanan an Iar   21,310  0.40  1
North Ayrshire        107,234  1.99  2
North Lanarkshire     244,847  4.54  5
Orkney Islands         15,679  0.29  1
Perth & Kinross       105,276  1.95  2
Renfrewshire          126,509  2.35  2
Scottish Borders       85,048  1.58  2
Shetland Islands       16,807  0.31  1
South Ayrshire         90,658  1.68  2
South Lanarkshire     236,072  4.38  4
Stirling               62,929  1.17  1
West Dunbartonshire    69,343  1.29  1
West Lothian          118,154  2.19  2

[jimrtex]

Shouldn't you be using the regional constituencies' boundaries as the only boundaries that cannot be crossed?

The regions are defined after the constituencies.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Shouldn't you be using the regional constituencies' boundaries as the only boundaries that cannot be crossed?

The regions are defined after the constituencies.

True; IIRC they had to change the boundaries of the North Wales region and the Mid & West Wales region after the boundary changes in Gwynedd.

[jimrtex]

This groups the LAs into 9 regions, and assigns a total number of seats for the region using an electoral quota based on 129 seats (due to rounding the total number of seats is 131).   Apportionment of constituent seats LAs and total seats to regions is done independently, but is proportional except for rounding effects.  The number of list seats is the difference between the number of regional seats and the number of constituencies in the region.

Aberdeen City         157,468  2.92  3
Aberdeenshire         176,099  3.27  3
Angus                  84,614  1.57  2
Dundee City           108,270  2.01  2
Northeast             526,451 17.60 18 (10+8)

Argyll & Bute          67,967  1.26  1
Highland              165,197  3.07  3
Moray                  65,264  1.21  1
Na h-Eileanan an Iar   21,310  0.40  1
Orkney Islands         15,679  0.29  1
Shetland Islands       16,807  0.31  1
Highland&Islands      352,224 11.78 12 (8+4)

City of Edinburgh     330,162  6.13  6
Edinburgh             330,162 11.04 11 (6+5)

Clackmannanshire       34,312  0.64  1
Fife                  271,712  5.04  5
Perth & Kinross       105,276  1.95  2
Stirling               62,929  1.17  1
East                  474,229 15.86 16 (9+7)

Dumfries & Galloway   113,430  2.11  2
East Ayrshire          93,482  1.73  2
North Ayrshire        107,234  1.99  2
South Ayrshire         90,658  1.68  2
Southwest             404,804 13.54 14 (8+6)

East Dunbartonshire    82,682  1.53  2
East Renfrewshire      66,556  1.24  1
Inverclyde             60,924  1.13  1
Renfrewshire          126,509  2.35  2
West Dunbartonshire    69,343  1.29  1
West                  406,014 13.58 14 (7+7)

East Lothian           70,186  1.30  1
Falkirk               107,117  1.99  2
Midlothian             60,515  1.12  1
Scottish Borders       85,048  1.58  2
West Lothian          118,154  2.19  2
Southeast             441,020 14.75 15 (8+7)

Glasgow City          442,174  8.21  8
Glasgow               442,174 14.78 15 (8+7)

North Lanarkshire     244,847  4.54  5
South Lanarkshire     236,072  4.38  4
Lanarkshire           480,919 16.08 16 (9+7)

[/pre]

[jimrtex]

True; IIRC they had to change the boundaries of the North Wales region and the Mid & West Wales region after the boundary changes in Gwynedd.

As a curiousity, the regions were originally defined for use as European constituencies, and were updated as part of the Westminster boundary review of the early 1990s.  The updated were never used for election of MEPs, since the electional of MEPs was switched to regional lists with Wales and Scotland each being a region for election of MEPs.

The acts establishing the Scottish Parliament and the Assembly for Wales provided that the European constituencies be used for the AMS regions, and that future Westminster boundary reviews should also establish the regions for the the two bodies.  The Wales boundary commission did so.  The Scottish boundary commission never did, because of the decoupling of Westminster and Holyrood constituencies (the decoupling legislation removed the responsiblity, and also said that if they had defined regions they were to be ignored).

[afleitch]

Seems sound, but there is no chance they will let Clackmannanshire be one seat. It will be combined with part of Perthshire to retain an Ochil seat as it is just far too small on it's own.

[jimrtex]

Seems sound, but there is no chance they will let Clackmannanshire be one seat. It will be combined with part of Perthshire to retain an Ochil seat as it is just far too small on it's own.

And yet, they will create three smaller seats, any two of which combined are about the same as Clackmannanshire seats.

Because the list seats correct for not only partisan discrepancies, but also electorate variation among constituencies, creating a seat with about 2/3 of the average electorate should not be considered excessive, especially since it permits the commission to have regard for the local authority boundaries (the 1st rule).  Because of AMS it is practicable.

[afleitch]

They will cross UA boundaries if they have to. They will not tolerate seats too large or too small exept the Island Authority seats. The seats themselves will be as similar to the old seats as possible. I give you my word, Clackmannan will not stand alone as one seat. They will group UA's together, similar to what they did with the 2005 Westminster boundaries; The three Ayrshire UA's will be grouped together as will East Renfrew, Renfrew and Inverclyde and more than likely, the two Lanarkshire UA's.

[jimrtex]

They will cross UA boundaries if they have to. They will not tolerate seats too large or too small except the Island Authority seats.

But it is not necessary to cross LA boundaries.  Seats that would be too large or too small under single member only, are neither too large or too small under AMS.

Consider if a pure regional list system were used.  Equal numbers of persons (or roughly so) would elect each member.  If there are 480,000 votes cast, and 16 members to be elected from a region, then each 30,000 votes for a party will elect one member from their list.

Now consider under AMS.  If there are 480,000 votes cast in a region that elects 16 members (9 constituencies and 7 list members), then each 30,000 votes for a party will elect one member from the region.  The only difference is that some of the members elected for the region will come from constituencies rather than party lists.  If a party is successful in several constituencies, fewer of that party's members will be chosen from their list.

There is the possibility under AMS that most or all constituencies in a region will be won by a single party, even without a majority of the vote, such that the total distribution of seats is not proportional.  This is particularly true in Scotland with 4 or more parties competing.  Let's say that Labor takes all 9 constituencies in a region with 40% of the vote (192,000).  Since 9/16 (56%) is much greater than 40%, Labor will not receive any list seats.  The 7 regional list seats will be apportioned among the other parties on the basis of their share of the non-Labor vote (288,000), or one member for every 41,143.  For these list votes, it matters not at all which constituency they came from, or whether there were constituencies at all.  It works exactly like a regional list.

In some extreme cases, a variation in constituency size may permit a party to have a disproportionate share of a region's seats even on a relatively small vote share.  For example, it might be possible for the Lib Dems to win all 3 islands seats in Highlands and Islands on less than 3/16 of the regional vote.  But we already accept that disparity because we recognize that the remote islands have particular and distinct interests that may not be well represented by regional representatives chosen largely by the voters of the massively populated mainland (Highland LA alone has 3 times the population of the 3 island LAs combined).

A single Clackmannanshire seat is unlikely to cause a similar problem (note Clackmannanshire would be entitled to 1.15 seats under a 129 single member only election).

Let's consider two hypothetical LAs, East Blobshire and West Blobshire.  EB is entitled to 1.2 seats and WB is entitled to 0.8 seats.  You would have the boundary commission attach a bit of EB to WB so as to form two seats of equal size.  Voters attached area might have to travel into West Blobshire to attend candidate meetings or to meet their representative.  The Westies are likely to dominate the candidate selection process, perhaps choosing members of the WB council or other local representatives.  The EB people in the attached area are more likely to have an interest in what effect the parliament's policies have on EB, its schools, police, water service, community centers, etc.  If the WB Party ("West is Good, East is Bad") wins the constituency, the voters from the attached area will be told not to worry, they can vote for regional members.

At a future boundary review, East Blobshire might paired with South Blobshire, requiring an entirely different area of EB to be attached to SB, so various areas of EB are being shifted about for no purposeful reason.

I would have the boundary commission create two constituencies coterminous with the LAs.  The constituencies are likely to have a more cohesive interest that can be represented by their member.  The EB voters will (collectively) still have more influence over the selection of the region's members.  And the constituency boundaries will tend to be stable over longer periods of time.

The purpose of seat members is to represent local interests, rather than the interests of similar numbers of people.  The regional list serves that function, where similar numbers of people are aggregated on the basis of their party choice to elect members.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Only if the boundary commission does their work by blind rote, not considering why they are creating the constituencies.   In the 2005 review, the boundary commission was still dealing with single member only constituencies and could be expected to abide by Britain-wide standards of equality.  There was also the fact that constituencies were typically 25% larger because of the reduction in the number of Scottish constituencies.  Even if they weren't being used for single member purposes only, adding another 30% variation might have been too much of a shock for all.

In the 2005 review, the boundary commission first considered which LAs could be considered stand alone, and then did pairings or groupings of the others.  As it happened, most of the LAs west of Glasgow could have there own member or member(s).  The exception was East Dunbartonshire which was then paired with North Lanarkshire.   South Lanarkshire, Scottish Borders, and Dumfries&Galloway then ended stuck together.  The 3 Ayrshire LAs were in between whole numbers of seats, and were grouped together.  But for the SP, North Ayrshire is right at 2 seats.  if South Ayrshire and East Ayrshire are combined, giving them 3 large seats collectively will be almost as bad as giving each two seats.  Perth&Kinross is almost perfect for two seats, so Clackmannanshire could get thrown together with someone else.

[jimrtex]

They will cross UA boundaries if they have to. They will not tolerate seats too large or too small exept the Island Authority seats. The seats themselves will be as similar to the old seats as possible. I give you my word, Clackmannan will not stand alone as one seat. They will group UA's together, similar to what they did with the 2005 Westminster boundaries; The three Ayrshire UA's will be grouped together as will East Renfrew, Renfrew and Inverclyde and more than likely, the two Lanarkshire UA's.

The Artbuthnott commission is scheduled to release their report next month
Commission on Boundary Differences and Voting Systems .   Any recommendations they make (which include STV for Holyrood elections) could lead to completely different purposes for any boundary review before the 2011 election.

In this research paper Boundaries (PDF) they at least seem open to the idea of greater variation in electorates of Holyrood constituencies so that they could be more closely linked to local authority boundaries.   They don't quite seem to recognize that the regional seats under AMS mitigate the effect of variation among the constituencies, but rather take the view that community interests might justify giving less importance to electoral parity.