
Context
What's Happening?
Boundaries Scotland are back again with another pass at new Scottish Parliament constituencies and, for the first time in the process, regions. They published their initial proposals in May last year, which I wrote about quite extensively here, including an explanation of why it was happening and what the process was. Revised proposals were published in April, which I again took a detailed look at. At the end of September they published another set of revisions for consultation, but at this stage the general rule is if it hasn’t changed compared to the last revision, that means it’s not up for consultation. So only a subset of constituencies and the regional composition are being consulted on this time.
I’ve written comprehensively on the detail of this set of proposals here in a separate post which you should read if you’re into the detail and to get a sense of what differs here. As I think some of the proposals, especially for regions, are especially bad I’ve made a range of suggestions for alternatives in my own response to the consultation, which you can read here. These relate to the five southern regions – I think Highlands and Islands, Mid and Fife, and North East are all perfectly fine, within the confines of the system and rules.
Quick Response Guide
You can use the following text, though I’d ideally suggest putting your own spin on it if you can, to respond to the consultation. Remember that for the Lothian and South regions, only choose one of the following options.
Minimise changes to the Glasgow and West Regions
I agree with Ballot Box Scotland that changes between the current regional boundaries for Glasgow and West should be limited to Renfrew in the interests of effective local representation, and in line with Rule 3 on special geographic considerations.
- The proposed Erskine, Renfrew and Cardonald constituency extends too far beyond the urban area of the city and represents a confusing disruption to existing boundaries.
- It would also cut the West region in two, leaving no direct link between Dunbartonshire and the rest of the region south of the River Clyde.
- Boundaries Scotland should draw 8 new constituencies encompassing Glasgow City and Renfrew. It is possible to do so and have all or most of these constituencies fall within 10% of parity of the constituency quota, as in the Ballot Box Scotland proposal.
- Boundaries in Renfrewshire should accordingly be redrawn to accommodate this reduced loss to the Glasgow region.
- If this necessitates a small disruption to the historic Renfrewshire-Ayrshire boundaries, this is justifiable within the context of being an in-region rather than between-region change.
Restore balance between the Central Belt and other regions
I agree with Ballot Box Scotland that significant changes should be made to the proposed regional boundaries for Central Scotland, Lothian and South Scotland, in line with Rule 2 on special geographic considerations.
- The East Kilbride and Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse constituencies should not be included in the South Scotland region as they would significantly alter the character of the region, shifting the balance from rural to urban, diluting the representation of rural voters.
- In addition, this would create a region stretching between Glasgow and England.
- These constituencies naturally belong in the Central Scotland region with other urbanised Central Belt constituencies, and should be placed within that region.
- As a consequence, the Almond Valley and Linlithgow constituencies should be placed within the Lothian region, largely in line with current arrangements.
- As a further consequence, at least one constituency within the proposed Lothian region should be transferred to the South Scotland region, in line with one of the three options set out by Ballot Box Scotland, any of which would be a significant improvement.
Transferring constituencies from Lothian to South (Option 1)
I agree with the first option proposed by Ballot Box Scotland that the Midlothian North constituency should be placed within the South Scotland region, whilst East Lothian Coast and Lammermuirs should be placed within the Lothian region. This would be in line with Rule 2 on special geographic considerations.
- This would ensure that both East Lothian and Midlothian are wholly contained within a single region.
- Further, this would mean that West Lothian is the only Lothian area which would be split between regions, and only to a small degree.
- By maximising alignment between local authority areas, this option will improve overall political understanding and coherence of representation.
- Whilst this option would deviate significantly from the simple regional quota, this is justifiable under Rule 2.
Transferring constituencies from Lothian to South (Option 2)
I agree with the second option proposed by Ballot Box Scotland that the East Lothian Coast and Lammermuirs constituency should be placed within the South Scotland region, whilst Midlothian North should be placed within the Lothian region. This would be in line with Rule 2 on special geographic considerations.
- This would retain the closest possible alignment with the current and historic regional boundaries, as the primary East Lothian seat has always been in South, and the primary Midlothian seat in Lothian.
- As such, this would offer the least disruption to voters and elected representatives compared to current arrangements.
- In addition, it would ensure that the primary urban areas surrounding Edinburgh are contained within one Central Belt region, whilst avoiding adding a large rural component.
- Whilst this option would deviate significantly from the simple regional quota, this is justifiable under Rule 2.
Transferring constituencies from Lothian to South (Option 3)
I agree with the third option proposed by Ballot Box Scotland that both the Midlothian North and East Lothian Coast and Lammermuirs constituencies should be placed within the South Scotland region. This would be in line with Rule 2 on special geographic considerations.
- This would retain the closest possible alignment with the current and historic regional boundaries for voters in East Lothian Coast and Lammermuirs, as East Lothian has always been within the South region.
- This would also ensure that Midlothian is contained within a single region.
- It would also bring the Lothian region within the simple regional quota.
- Although this would represent a split with both historic arrangements and local authority boundaries, it would nonetheless be a significant improvement on the proposals to include two entirely urban Central Belt constituencies within the South region.
Taking stock of the system and roles
I agree with Ballot Box Scotland that the electoral system and boundary review rules combined put too many restrictions on the options available to Boundaries Scotland, particularly if following a strict interpretation. Boundaries Scotland should therefore recommend that a wider review of the system and rules is undertaken.
- Treating constituency and regional boundaries separately, starting with constituencies and considering those in isolation for multiple stages, is incoherent.
- The combination of the two rulesets is especially ill-thought through, as two regions are required to have 10 constituencies, yet if each was perfectly at the constituency quota the region would be 12.7% above the regional quota.
- Senedd Cymru has already legislated to replace AMS, and Scotland should consider whether it is serving its purpose, or is simply an unsatisfactory halfway house between unrepresentative FPTP and the democratic ideal of full proportional representation.
- The review should also consider whether it makes sense to use completely different voting systems for the Scottish Parliament and Local elections.
Central
The Boundaries Scotland proposal was to remove East Kilbride and Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse from this region, and substitute in West Lothian. This largely reverts that, because it’s completely egregious to suggest putting urbanised Central Belt constituencies in the same region as rural Borders seats.
Airdrie (Major)
Same as Boundaries Scotland, which means losing all villages to the north and east of Airdrie itself to Cumbernauld and Kilsyth. In compensation it gains Whitburn from the current Linlithgow and Fauldhouse from the current Almond Valley. Whereas the rest of West Lothian is returned to Lothian under my proposals, these additions remain.
That’s because even within my arguments around regional parity and special geographic considerations, the current West Lothian constituencies are massively oversized. I think there could be some boundary breaking between Edinburgh and West Lothian to try and address that, but it’s so complex I haven’t formally came up with suggestions myself.
Coatbridge and Chryston (Unchanged)
Same as Boundaries Scotland.
Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Major)
Same as Boundaries Scotland.
East Kilbride (Unchanged)
Same as Boundaries Scotland but returned from South compared to their regional proposal.
Falkirk East (Unchanged)
Same as Boundaries Scotland.
Falkirk West (Unchanged)
Same as Boundaries Scotland.
Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse (Unchanged)
Same as Boundaries Scotland but returned from South compared to their regional proposal.
Motherwell and Wishaw (Unchanged)
Same as Boundaries Scotland.
Uddingston and Bellshill (Unchanged)
Same as Boundaries Scotland.
Regional Impact - Ballot Box Scotland Scenario
The consequence of almost entirely reverting Central back to current regional boundaries bar that smaller West Lothian nibble is that the Greens lose their seat to Labour; they’d only won it by about 100 votes in 2021 anyway. Whilst West Lothian as a whole has a stronger Green presence than Central, Fauldhouse and Whitburn specifically are much weaker, and Labour much stronger. That makes the difference and does the Greens in.
Glasgow
In case you didn’t get that impression from the proposals analysis piece, I absolutely hate the proposed Erskine, Renfrew and Cardonald constituency that would be in the Glasgow region. It’s abominable! I got too clever though. I thought I was so smart and had come up with a way to keep Glasgow and Renfrewshire entirely separate, with 8 Glasgow-only constituencies plus the Rutherglen and Cambuslang preserving the current Glasgow region boundary, just with a lot of slightly below-parity constituencies.
I realised when I was almost close to having these pieces ready for publication what I’d actually done was add an additional Renfrewshire constituency, giving 74 seats overall. That’s illegal. Whoops! I then had to rework my entire Glasgow and West proposal. It’s unavoidable crossing the Renfrewshire boundary, but I’ve managed to do so in a less egregious way at least. It does have some… interesting consequences for West later on though.
Glasgow Anniesland (Minor)
Same as Boundaries Scotland.
Glasgow Cathcart and Pollok (New)
Same as Boundaries Scotland. I don’t like the shape of this one very much but it’s hard to get the northern parts of the southside right if you don’t do this.
Glasgow Central (New)
This has the same name as a Boundaries Scotland proposal, but is very significantly different. Whilst theirs goes cross-Clyde to take in Govan, mine stays north of the river with Hillhead. Similarly for its eastward component it takes Dennistoun rather than Calton. This is a lot more like the existing Glasgow Kelvin than anything Boundaries Scotland proposed, and therefore it still has the Greens in second in 2021 terms and would be a live prospect for them.
At this point, you might be tempted to go “oh of course, the guy with a Green history decides to try and recreate a Green-winnable constituency.” I would direct you to the regional calculations for Central and South if you do think that, and remind you that my proposals there cost the Greens seats versus current boundaries. This is genuinely what I thought worked best with the ward boundaries as they are.
Glasgow Easterhouse and Springburn (Major)
This has the same name but is a bit different to the Boundaries Scotland proposal. I remove the portion of Canal they had as well as Dennistoun ward, and in their place I bring in a small part of Baillieston (Easthall and Wellhouse) plus the East Central ward.
Glasgow Maryhill and Kelvin (Major)
Similar to the Boundaries Scotland proposal, but it loses Hillhead and in return takes the portion of Canal ward it was missing in theirs.
Glasgow Shettleston and Calton (Minor)
This is actually almost identical to the current Glasgow Shettleston, barring Barlanark. Compared to Boundaries Scotland’s Baillieston and Shettleston, it doesn’t have East Central or the Easthall and Wellhouse area of Baillieston ward, but does have Calton.
Glasgow Southside (Major)
Similar to the Boundaries Scotland proposal, I’ve just chopped the Craigton and Dumbreck portions of the Pollokshields ward off, taking the M77 as a more natural boundary these days.
Renfrew and Govan (New)
This is effectively the proposal that displaces the ghastly, awful Erskine, Renfrew and Cardonald proposal from Boundaries Scotland. As stated throughout the past two phases of the review, my issue isn’t fundamentally with extending the Glasgow Region to include further non-Glasgow City areas. It’s already got a whole constituency of that from Rutherglen. With a better voting system, this definitely wouldn’t be necessary, but with one preserving the utterly useless FPTP voting system, we are where we are.
Instead, I objected to extending so far beyond the direct urban settlement around Glasgow. Renfrew is entirely within that wider settlement, whereas Erskine and Bishopton were not. Therefore, combining Renfrew with the Govan and Cardonald wards from Glasgow (plus the Laurieston chunk of Southside Central) is tolerable in my view. I’d still prefer not to do it, and I’m annoyed after I thought I’d come up with a clever solution that I have to, but I think it’s vastly better than what Boundaries Scotland were proposing.
Rutherglen and Cambuslang (Unchanged)
Same as Boundaries Scotland.
Regional Impact - Ballot Box Scotland Scenario
As with Boundaries Scotland proposals that extend beyond the current regional boundary, the slender gap between the Conservatives and Greens for third widens slightly with more non-city areas added. That doesn’t change the overall seat distribution however.
Lothian
The constituencies within Lothian don’t have any boundary changes relative to what Boundaries Scotland are suggesting, but I have shifted what seats are within the region. Boundaries Scotland had ejected West Lothian but added the remaining area of East Lothian outside Musselburgh that wasn’t already in Lothian. I’ve got a few options for this one, all of which involve reclaiming (most of) West Lothian.
My Option 1 baseline and preferred outcome is to put Midlothian North in South, making Lothian a 10-constituency region. Although this option diverges from the existing regional boundary, I think the fact it means that Midlothian and East Lothian are each contained to a single region rather than split means it’s justified.
Option 2 is to swap East Lothian Coast and Lammermuirs for Midlothian North. Although that maintains the current split between regions for those council areas, it makes sense in that Midlothian North is a very urbanised Edinburgh satellite, whereas the East Lothian seat has a larger rural chunk, so it keeps a bit of separation between urban Central Belt and rural Scotland. It also almost perfectly matches the current boundary.
Option 3 is my least preferred option, but it’s the one that might keep Boundaries Scotland happiest if they really, really, really dug their heels in about prioritising the regional quota over effective local representation. Both the East Lothian and Midlothian North seats are put in South, which makes South a 10-constituency region. I don’t like this because it does all three things I want to avoid: splits both East and Midlothian between regions; diverges most from the current region; and includes urbanised Central Belt areas in South.
Almond Valley (Minor)
Same as Boundaries Scotland but returned from Central compared to their regional proposal, which means this loses Fauldhouse to the Airdrie seat (and thus in this proposal to Central), but it keeps Longridge, a tiny village I’m very familiar with as the abode of a former boyfriend, and therefore I know it’s very weird that tiny village will be in Lothian region whilst the two neighbouring larger towns are in Central. Perhaps worth fixing? Also cedes Seafield to Linlithgow. The current constituency has a staggering +17% deviation from the quota which is why I haven’t even tried to justify reversing the losses to the Airdrie seat.
East Lothian Coast and Lammermuirs (Minor) - Key Seat
Same as Boundaries Scotland.
Edinburgh Central (Major) - Key Seat
Same as Boundaries Scotland.
Edinburgh Eastern, Musselburgh and Tranent (New)
Same as Boundaries Scotland.
Edinburgh North Eastern and Leith (New)
Same as Boundaries Scotland.
Edinburgh North Western (Major)
Same as Boundaries Scotland.
Edinburgh Northern (New) - Key Seat
Same as Boundaries Scotland.
Edinburgh Southern (Major) - Key Seat
Same as Boundaries Scotland.
Edinburgh South Western (Minor)
Same as Boundaries Scotland.
Linlithgow (Major)
Same as Boundaries Scotland but returned from Central compared to their regional proposal, which means it loses Whitburn (a pretty substantial town) to Airdrie (and thus in this proposal to Central), whilst gaining Seafield from Almond Valley. The current constituency has a staggering +27% deviation from the quota which is why I haven’t even tried to justify reversing the losses to the Airdrie seat.
Regional Impact - Ballot Box Scotland Option 1
Similar to the Boundaries Scotland proposal, this reverses the order of Conservatives and Labour, basically because of the little bit of West Lothian that’s lost and that the Conservatives actually beat Labour in the East Lothian regional vote in 2021. It otherwise gives the same list seat outcome as the current region, it’s just that the SNP have an extra constituency due to the expansion to 10 constituencies.
Regional Impact - Ballot Box Scotland Option 2
This is a little bit more favourable to the SNP and less to everyone else than Option 1, but it doesn’t matter at all to seat distribution.
Regional Impact - Ballot Box Scotland Option 3
As this cuts Lothian down to a 9 seat region, similar to the Boundaries Scotland proposal but unlike my other two options, the SNP drop a seat in the region, but the rest of the distribution is the same. This actually gives the Greens a big boost in vote share for this region, because Edinburgh is even more dominant amongst what remains. That means for their second list seat, they go from the seventh and shaky seat handed out to fine in fifth.
South
Most of the constituencies in South go unchanged, and even if they had, given it starts with the most non-SNP constituencies, changing constituency winners alone wouldn’t be likely to change the total number of seats, as the lists would be more capable of delivering proportionality. This is also one of the regions where there is a degree of uncertainty about what the exact makeup would be, given how messy neighbouring Lothian is.
Ayr (Unchanged)
Same as Boundaries Scotland.
Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Unchanged)
Same as Boundaries Scotland.
Clydesdale (Unchanged)
Same as Boundaries Scotland.
Dumfriesshire (Unchanged)
Same as Boundaries Scotland.
Ettrick, Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Unchanged)
Same as Boundaries Scotland.
Galloway and West Dumfries (Unchanged)
Same as Boundaries Scotland.
Midlothian North (Minor)
Same as Boundaries Scotland.
Kilmarnock and Irvine Valley (Minor)
Same as Boundaries Scotland, hence it loses Stewarton and Dunlop to Cunninghame South, and therefore also to the West region.
Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale (Minor)
Same as Boundaries Scotland.
Regional Impact - Ballot Box Scotland Option 1
The fact this option trades the East Lothian Coast and Lammermuirs seat for Midlothian North, and keeps South at 9 constituencies, means unlike the Boundaries Scotland proposal there’s no space for the Greens to squeak a seat. In fact, it slips them just below 5%, a deposit losing vote share. Although Midlothian North is stronger for them than the South average, it is weaker than the lost portion of East Lothian.
Regional Impact - Ballot Box Scotland Option 2
Keeping the region as close to the current boundary as possible with the constituency boundary changes as they are flips the final regional seat from Labour to the Greens. That’s because the bit of the current East Lothian that is lost to Lothian regardless is absolutely great for Labour and rotten for the Greens. Since the Greens were already only 115 votes short of a seat here, that tips the balance their way.
Regional Impact - Ballot Box Scotland Option 3
Making South the 10-seat region means that although Labour are strengthened overall in this scenario, so are the Greens, so they actually end up with the 6th rather than 7th list seat here. That last seat does still go to Labour however, as the SNP now get their 7th seat in the region from having an extra constituency in it, which is why this is the option with a net seat loss for the SNP.
West
West ends up being the counterbalance to Lothian. Whereas the population across Lothian has been increasing rapidly, not so much across Renfrewshire in particular. I was really unhappy with just how much of Renfrewshire was added to a Glasgow constituency in the Boundaries Scotland proposals. I got too clever by half and thought I could resolve that entire problem, as noted earlier, but I’d actually made it worse by creating a whole additional constituency.
As such, I had to come back to this with other changes that mean losing less to Glasgow but result in slightly awkward tweaks to the Ayrshire-Renfrewshire boundary that, in theory, Boundaries Scotland don’t want to touch at this stage. I still think this is better than what they are proposing, but the whole exercise has only further convinced me that we need to get rid of all traces of FPTP.
Clydebank and Milngavie (Unchanged)
Same as Boundaries Scotland.
Cunninghame North (Unchanged)
Boundaries Scotland have by and large avoided breaking the boundary between Ayrshire and Renfrewshire. As a rule, I’d say that’s the right thing to do. However, a small break here ends up being necessary to keep the Glasgow-Renfrewshire boundary break to a minimum. In this case, that means taking Inverkip and Wemyss Bay out of the Inverclyde-containing constituency. These villages do integrate well with the rest of the Firth of Clyde coast via the road down to Largs.
Whilst I really, really don’t like historic county breaks where I can avoid them, I don’t think I can here, and given it’s within the same region I don’t think it matters as much as between regions. With a same-region boundary change, local representation may be impacted, but ultimately voters are all counting towards the same overall pool of MSPs. A cross-region boundary change is much more disruptive, and I therefore think it’s justified to say minimising the Glasgow-Renfrewshire break is, in this specific case, a higher priority than avoiding an Ayrshire-Renfrewshire crossover.
Cunninghame South (Minor)
Same as Boundaries Scotland.
Dumbarton (Unchanged)
Same as Boundaries Scotland.
Eastwood (Minor) - Key Seat
This goes back to the previous proposal by Boundaries Scotland and adds Neilston to the existing Eastwood seat. I agree that it’d be better to keep Neilston in with Barrhead, but this helps the Mid Renfrewshire numbers. Again, if it’s an in-region boundary shift I think it matters a lot less. This is still a Conservative seat in 2021 terms regardless.
Inverclyde and Bishopton (Major)
Bishopton should absolutely not be in the Glasgow region, and with Renfrewshire having to drop a constituency overall, this is where I figure it fits best – a largely coastal constituency that contains most of Inverclyde, sans the bits lost to Cunninghame North for balancing purposes. It also still has Houston and a bit of Crosslee, following the same boundary as the current Renfrewshire North and West vs Renfrewshire South constituencies.
In an ideal world, I wouldn’t keep the break at Crosslee, and Bridge of Weir would be in the same constituency as Quarriers Village. That is not what the numbers say for FPTP however, and again just really emphasises how utterly stupid and nonsensical this is as a voting system. Just get rid of it, for goodness sake.
Mid Renfrewshire (New)
Effectively an expansion of the current Renfrewshire South constituency to include Erskine and Bridge of Weir, whilst losing Neilston to Eastwood for the sake of staying within 10% deviation from parity. Do I think a constituency that wraps all the way round Paisley like this is good? I do not. Do I think it is better than putting Erskine in the Glasgow region? Absolutely.
Paisley (Minor)
Same as Boundaries Scotland, excepting an absolutely tiny area of road that I transferred into Mid Renfrewshire to make it look a little more connected.
Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Unchanged)
Same as Boundaries Scotland.
Regional Impact - Ballot Box Scotland Scenario
Although the overall regional boundary changes aren’t enormous, just gaining that little bit from South by Stewarton and losing Renfrew to the Glasgow region, like the Boundaries Scotland proposals it’s enough to flip the Conservative-Labour ranking. It’s not enough to change the overall regional seat distribution however, though the SNP dip one seat here due to the disappearance of one constituency.
Notional National Result
As the Holyrood voting system is mostly proportional within regions and the regions aren’t changing enormously regardless of scenario, there aren’t really that many differences to the current seat distribution. The chart below shows all three of the BBS options outlined above, alongside the actual 2021 result plus the Boundaries Scotland proposals.
What little difference there is between proposals is between the Greens, Labour and SNP. Boundaries Scotland have the most Green-favourable proposals, which would have given the party an extra seat in 2021 at the SNP’s expense. My preferred option 1 proposal actually gives the Greens the fewest seats, costing them a seat versus 2021, whereas options 2 and 3 keep them steady on 8 albeit shifting an MSP from Central to South.
I don’t want to labour the point too much on this front, but for people always on the lookout for my horrific, evil bias in favour of the Greens (remembering I stood for them in 2017 and 2019) might be a bit disappointed here. The option I genuinely think is geographically optimal, within the sub-optimal confines of the review process and a not brilliant voting system (albeit still better than pure FPTP – or, frankly, small-size STV), is the one that comes out worst for the Greens. It’s almost like some people do actually just believe in democracy and effective representation as a matter of principle. What a novel idea, I know, that you can have principles rather than just cynically try and tilt everything to your own advantage.
Remember of course that working out notionals is not an exact art, and that parties will operate slightly differently on different boundaries! As with the initial proposals, I haven’t done a notional for every seat just yet as that would be incredibly time consuming and the final versions could change yet again. I will however work those out when we do have final, signed off boundaries.
Responding to the Consultation
You can respond to the consultation on Boundaries Scotland’s website here. Remember that the least useful, most absolutely pointless thing you can do is send unconstructive complaints or abuse to the commission. That helps nobody, least of all you or other people in the area you’re unhappy about. If you think there is something wrong, suggest a viable alternative – viable being the key word! Suggesting they remove a few hundred voters so they can add thousands more isn’t going to stack up. You have until the 26th of October to respond.
I have also submitted a comprehensive response to the consultation myself, which you can read here. If you agree with the points I’ve been making, particularly around the Glasgow region boundary plus the correct balancing of Central, South and Lothian, then that summary piece and this Twitter thread (and Bluesky equivalent) gives you some guidance on what you can tell Boundaries Scotland in your own response.
If you find this or other Ballot Box Scotland output useful and/or interesting, and you can afford to do so, please consider donating to support my work. I love doing this, but it’s a one-man project and takes a lot of time and effort. All donations, no matter how small, are greatly appreciated and extremely helpful.
(About Donations)