Changes to Scotland’s boundaries reveal the reality of the Union

Before the plans can be approved, they will now go out for consultation until December, ensuring everyone can have their say, although the Tories and the SNP have already put their oar in. In the case of the Tories, the plans would split their leader Douglas Ross’s Moray seat into three and, although he won’t actually be standing next time, Mr Ross says he’s opposed to the idea. Many local historical links will be lost, he says, and the seat should be left alone.

The SNP are equally aggrieved. Among those who’ve spoken out are the MPs Steven Bonnar and Anum Qaisar-Javed, who say the historical make-up of their seats will be disrupted. The party’s deputy leader at Westminster, Kirsten Oswald, also said the plans were proof of a broken Westminster system under which Scotland would always be out-voted. “The Tory plans to further reduce Scotland’s representation at Westminster, while increasing the number of MPs for England, underlines the need for Scotland to become an independent country.” she said.

The SNP response obviously contains a large element of TWSTWT (They Would Say That Wouldn’t They); is there, I wonder, any policy, event, or phenomenon that for the SNP wouldn’t underline the need for Scotland to become an independent country? However, the point about the historical make-up of some constituencies is reasonable. Usually, there is some historical, logical or even emotional reason for the make-up of the places we live in and to be fair to the Boundary Commission, they have said this is one of the factors they’ll be trying to take into account in their final plans.

In other ways though, the commission’s proposals are simply following one of the basic rules of democracy which is that every vote should be given its due weight. The problem under the current arrangements is that the vote of someone living in Thurso, say, where there are 46,000 voters in the constituency, effectively has more influence than someone living in Falkirk, where the number of constituents is pretty much double that. Most people would probably agree that isn’t fair and should be changed.

The problem for the SNP is that, on the bigger scale of Westminster and the UK, the same rule applies – indeed, the changes being proposed to the constituencies reflect the reality of how the union works. What the SNP says is that a reduction in the number of Scottish MPs to 57 is an affront to democracy and would reduce Scotland’s voice but what is actually happening is that, across the UK, the votes in Scotland are being given their due weight. The bottom line is that England is a bigger country and a bigger partner in the union and so they have more representation. It’s just logical. And democratic. And fair.

READ MORE: Scotland could lose two Westminster seats as boundaries redrawn in plans

I understand that, for some people, such an arrangement is a problem and in some ways I get it. Other unions – America, Germany – are made up of states that are more directly comparable, although in America and Germany too the system is weighted to reflect population. The issue in the UK is that the union is not a union of four broadly comparable states, it is a union of three small nations and one large one which has more than 80% of the population. It is asymmetrical and I guess your reaction to that may depend on whether you ticked Yes or No on a bit of paper in 2014, although even those who voted No should recognise that it’s a unique situation and needs constant attention.

The most reasonable take on it all in the end, I think, is that at Westminster, Scotland will always have a smaller proportion of the MPs (or a smaller voice if you prefer). But what matters more is our response in the longer term. As I’ve said, the SNP’s take is that it underlines the need for Scotland to become an independent country (TWSTWT). But a weighted system at Westminster, all the way down to the constituencies that will be tweaked by the Boundary Commission, is a fair way to do things given the realities of our historical, economic and practical relationship. The deeper question is how we make it even fairer.

Give or take certain assumptions about independence, this is pretty much the question Gordon Brown will be looking at as part of Labour’s commission on the future of the UK. Obviously, he’s starting – as many (probably most) Scots do – from the premise that nations working together in unions is a good idea. But beyond that the commission may end up suggesting that pretty much all powers short of independence are transferred to Scotland. Some people call that “devo-max” but whatever you call it, it is an extension of the principles we’ve talked about. It’s logical. And democratic. And fair.

Moving in such a direction would also help tackle the issue of the imbalance at Westminster because most decisions would be taken in Scotland. But I have to say I was pleased to hear the Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer say Gordon Brown’s commission would also be looking at how you get decision-making closer to communities and councils as well as to the Scottish Parliament because – as I’ve said many times in this column – devolution shouldn’t stop at Holyrood.

In the end, the aim of Mr Brown’s commission – and the aim of the Boundary Commission as well – is, and should be, to work hard to get the tricky weighting process right. The UK is in many ways an eccentric arrangement – the result of historical accident, and monarchical whim, and economic pressure, and the diplomacy of swords and shields – and we have to make sure we get it right for our modern needs. We need to balance the votes of people in Thurso and Falkirk but we also need to balance the votes of people in Scotland and England. At the moment, we’re not getting it right. But we need to, quickly.

Our columns are a platform for writers to express their opinions. They do not necessarily represent the views of The Herald.