TOWNS such as Ayr, East Kilbride and Dunfermline should not have been sacrificed to tough new rules on Westminster parliamentary boundaries, according to the Electoral Reform Society in Scotland.
The society, citing claims in England that reforms there are “mad and insane”, has praised the efforts of the Boundaries Commission in Scotland but said they faced a “thankless task” as a result of the rigid nature of the system.
Willie Sullivan, director of the Electoral Reform Society Scotland, is now calling on the Government to reassess the tight variance of 5% imposed between constituency sizes – which has meant 16 Westminster seats will cross council boundaries, breaking up traditional communities such as Dunfermline, Ayr and East Kilbride.
Mr Sullivan said: “If Scotland’s new boundaries seem as ‘mad and insane’ as England’s, then responsibility must lie with the British Government. The Boundary Commission for Scotland was given a thankless task. This rigid ‘one size fits all’ approach was never going to fit Scotland – its cold vision of equality flies in the face of real communities, simple geography and common sense.”
Seven of Scotland’s 59 Westminster constituency seats are poised to be axed by the Boundary Commission to comply with rules set out by Parliament. All 50 mainland constituencies must have electorates within 5% of the UK average – between 72,810 and 80,473 and they are also required to be no larger than 13,000 sq km.
Mr Sullivan said: “The rule about keeping constituencies within 5% of difference in size was too strict. When the Bill was going through the LibDems wanted to make it 10% but the Tories wouldn’t wear it.
“If you look at other countries there is a reasonable amount of variation for reasons of geography, local history and so on, but this has not been allowed here. It is totally wrong and extremely rigid to cut over so many local authority boundaries as they have.
“Dunfermline and Alloa have never been in administration together, and the same goes for other areas such as Ayr and East Kilbride. There should have been a wider allowance of at least 7% to 8% but the Tories resisted this.”
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article