Electoral boundaries - determination process: consultation analysis

Summary

Background

In early 2025, the Scottish Ministers established an Independent Review of the Process for Determining Electoral Boundaries in Scotland, to consider whether there is a better way to approve changes to electoral boundaries, and whether any other changes should be made as a result of any change to the approval process.

To inform the work of the Review, a consultation paper was published seeking public views. The consultation received 33 responses, including 24 responses from individuals and 9 from organisations. The key themes expressed in the responses to the consultation were as follows.

Summary of views expressed

Approval and parliamentary process for boundary changes

• There was no overall consensus view on the question of whether the process for approving changes to electoral boundaries (following reviews by Boundaries Scotland) should be changed so that these are automatically introduced, or whether changes to electoral boundaries should continue to be subject to a vote by Members of the Scottish Parliament before being introduced.
• Around 4 in 10 respondents made comments explicitly in favour of changes being automatically introduced (automaticity), while almost a quarter made comments explicitly in favour of changes continuing to be subject to a vote by Members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs). A further third of respondents provided responses that, while not in favour of automaticity, were also not explicitly in favour of the status quo position of changes to electoral boundaries continuing to be subject to a vote by MSPs before being introduced
• Those in favour of automaticity cited the importance of the process being independent, impartial and free from any risk of political influence / interference (or the perception of it), as well as the role of the consultation process and the potential efficiency gains.
• Those in favour of retaining a parliamentary vote cited a need for (democratic) scrutiny / participation as a reason for their view, and that changes should be subject to a vote to “guard against any flaws in the process”.

Parliamentary objections

• A clear majority of individual respondents thought that parliamentarians should have a formal opportunity to lodge objections on the grounds of procedure, while there was an even split among responding organisations.
• A majority of respondents who supported parliamentarians having a formal route to raise procedural objections thought that objections to boundary changes from MSPs should need to be submitted during the public consultation period with no further opportunity to table objections in Parliament, similar to the process for Westminster constituencies. Fewer respondents thought that objections should be considered if a set number of MSPs table objections to a part of the report on boundary changes submitted to Parliament, similar to the process in Canada.
• There were mixed views on adopting models from other countries, with some respondents cautioning against applying external models to Scotland’s specific context, while others supported alignment with UK and Welsh practice.

Consultation process for boundary reviews

• The most frequently suggested (initial) consultation period for electoral boundaries reviews was 8 weeks. Among respondents who mentioned timescales for further consultation rounds, the most common suggestion was 6 then 4 weeks (following an initial 8 week period) in line with the periods for UK and Senedd boundaries.
• There were different views expressed on whether the consultation periods should be the same or different for parliamentary boundaries and ward boundaries. Two responses from organisations suggested they should be given equivalent priority and follow a consistent approach, while two others supported different rounds and timescales to meet the needs of each type of review.
• The most frequently raised theme in relation to whether there should be additional events or processes was modernising the consultation process and including more hybrid and online events to improve accessibility and enable maximum participation.

Boundary commission structure and resources

• Several respondents made comments in relation to whether commission membership should include people with specific technical and/or public service expertise, with mixed views on whether individuals with this expertise should be appointed or whether existing arrangements providing access to this expertise were sufficient.
• There was some support expressed for reviewing the appointment process so that appointments were made either independently of Ministers or with cross-party approval / oversight of appointments.
• There was also some support for merging of or better collaboration between Boundaries Scotland with the Electoral Management Board for Scotland (EMB) following the model of the Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru, to “help ensure a more joined-up approach, reduce duplication of effort, and support clearer communication with stakeholders and the public”.

Further comments on the process by which electoral boundary changes are approved or implemented in Scotland

• Further comments provided by respondents at this stage included calls for better communication and engagement with communities and more predictable and structured timing.

Further comments on the process by which electoral boundary changes are approved or implemented in Scotland

• Support was expressed for clearer parity thresholds, while retaining flexibility for rural areas.
• There was also support for boundaries to be based on population data rather than on the number of electors (using electoral data taken from the electoral register).