Electoral boundaries - determination process: consultation analysis

Approval and Parliamentary Process for Boundary Changes

Automatic introduction of boundary changes versus continuation of parliamentary vote

Respondents to the consultation were asked whether they thought 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 (MSPs) before being introduced.

Among the 31 respondents to this question, there was no overall consensus view. Around 4 in 10 respondents (8 individuals and 5 organisations; 13 responses in total) made comments explicitly in favour of changes being automatically introduced (automaticity), while almost a quarter (7 individuals, 1 organisation; 8 in total) made comments explicitly in favour of changes continuing to be subject to a vote by MSPs. A further third of respondents (8 individuals, 2 organisations; 10 in total) 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.

Comments in favour of automatic introduction

Among the eight individual respondents who explicitly supported automaticity, three expressed views on the theme that automatic introduction would avoid political partiality / interference, or the perception of it. One of these individual respondents commented: “The non-partisan nature of the boundary review process is one of its great strengths, and this would be further enhanced by the automatic introduction of boundary changes. Although recent reviews in Scotland and the UK as a whole have largely been accepted without modification, I am concerned a small risk remains that elected representatives may in future seek to block or amend proposals they disagree with. Automaticity would remove that option, whilst also making it politically difficult to revert to parliamentary approval”. Another noted: “This would also avoid MSPs being lobbied as part of the approvals process and provide protection for them against being seen to be acting in their own or political party interest”.

Two individual respondents linked their support for automaticity to the consultation process, with one noting that automaticity should be introduced because MSPs get the opportunity to oppose and comment on proposals during the consultation process, and another stating “As long as there is still participation from the public to force a public enquiry” and noting two examples of public inquiries they had been involved in that had halted boundary change proposals that had been “unacceptable”.

A further individual respondent suggested that automaticity would “relieve MSPs of extra workload with boundary changes made in accordance with population numbers subject to a satisfactory system of determination of those numbers”.

The remaining two individual respondents didn’t make further comments in their responses to this question beyond recording their support for automaticity.

A higher proportion of responses from organisations than from individuals were explicitly in favour of automaticity. Five of the 8 responses received from organisations to this question (from the AEA, Boundaries Scotland, the EMB and the two responding local authorities) provided comments in support of automaticity.

In line with the comments made by individuals, the most frequently mentioned theme in comments provided by organisations was that automaticity was important for the process to be independent, impartial and free from any risk of political influence / interference (and to be seen to be to promote trust).

Boundaries Scotland and the EMB further commented that introducing automaticity would bring the approval process for Scottish parliamentary and local government boundary reviews in line with (international) best practice. They, as well as the AEA and Glasgow City Council, also noted that automaticity would bring the approval process in line with the process introduced for UK Parliament boundary reviews, Senedd boundary reviews, and local boundary reviews in Wales and in England.

The Association of Electoral Administrators (AEA) further commented that “The review process should be robust enough to deliver outcomes that are administratively sound, putting the needs of electors first. Allowing debate in the Scottish Parliament on the independently produced recommendations risks that process”.

Aberdeenshire Council raised ‘efficiency’ as an issue, suggesting that changes arising from the most recent review of parliamentary boundaries could have been implemented earlier if they had been approved automatically rather than waiting for a vote in Parliament.

Two different views were expressed in relation to whether or not parliamentarians should continue to have a role if automaticity was introduced. Aberdeenshire Council commented that “[…] Parliamentarians should continue to have a role to ensure democratic oversight and accountability”. The EMB, however, commented that “[…] there may be an argument for further governance arrangements to scrutinise and regulate the work of the independent Boundary Commission, but this should not involve politicians”.

Comments in favour of retaining parliamentary vote

Among the seven individual respondents who explicitly supported changes to electoral boundaries continuing to be subject to a vote by MSPs before being introduced, four cited a need for (democratic) scrutiny / participation as a reason for their view. One of these individual respondents commented that “You spell out the judgemental basis for variations from parity (which I think are vital), and where there is judgement, there must be scrutiny”. Another linked their view on the need for scrutiny to the appointment process for commissioners, commenting that “[…] the appointment of Boundary Commissioners by Ministers—although formally non-political—means their recommendations must be subject to final legislative scrutiny. Automatic approval would remove any meaningful democratic oversight and weaken the principle of representative accountability, especially in cases where the public or local authorities have voiced concern during consultations”.

In related points to the above, two respondents stated that changes should be subject to a vote to “guard against any flaws in the process”, with one of these respondents citing examples of rejected ward reviews in their constituency and commenting that “The Boundary Commissioners are not infallible. There must be a process for stopping recommendations which are generally regarded as unsuitable. Only reports which are widely regarded as unsuitable should be rejected. As a safeguard, rejecting a report should require more than a simple majority, e.g. 2/3 or 3/4”.

One respondent expressed a view that parliamentary approval ensured that public trust was maintained, and suggested that Scotland’s political context (with “active political debate around constitutional matters”) meant that “Removing the right of elected MSPs to vote on boundary changes would risk eroding public confidence, particularly if proposals are seen to favour or disadvantage specific political movements or regions”. Another commented that automatic introduction would not adequately meet the principle of transparency.

One organisation, the Scottish Liberal Democrats, provided a response explicitly in favour of retaining a parliamentary vote due to concern about the robustness of the process for determining local government ward boundaries, commenting “While we are confident in the process for changes to Scottish Parliament constituency and region boundaries, issues with the process for changes to local government ward boundaries (which have been rejected by Parliament on a number of occasions over recent years) bring us to conclude that changes should still be subject to a vote by MSPs, at least until such time as the process for determining local government ward boundaries is more robust”.

Other comments

As noted above, eight individual respondents and two organisations 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.

There was no overall theme among the other comments from individuals. A small number appeared to reflect a misunderstanding that automaticity would remove people’s ability to object to proposed boundary changes as part of the consultation process.

One individual respondent stated that “My feeling is that all spheres of Government in Scotland should be permitted a say in this, not just the Scottish Parliament as boundaries effect the way elected members work with each other”. Another commented that “It is important that there is some method of objecting to proposed boundary changes rather than the Boundary Commission being able to do whatever it wants, especially for the constituency MSPs. This is less relevant for the PR Area MSPs”. A further respondent stated that “the Parliamentary level should be the same as the UK parliament” but expressed concern about a potential loss of councillors’ ability to influence local council boundaries under an automatic process. Another stated that no automatic change of boundaries should take place and that “The needs of the population are better served through consultation and planning”, suggesting planning could include identifying where housing could be built and population shift as well as other social and economic factors.

Two responses from organisations (both community councils), were explicitly not in favour of automaticity, but also made comments that didn’t imply support for the status quo parliamentary vote. One suggested “No automatic introduction. Canadian system seems fairer” (Canada uses a form of return automaticity), and the other stated that “there should be more opportunity to object to boundary changes rather than less as is suggested in this consultation document”.

Should parliamentarians have a formal opportunity to lodge objections and, if so, at what stage

The consultation invited views on whether parliamentarians should have a formal opportunity to lodge objections on the grounds of procedure when approving changes to boundaries.

As shown in Table 2 below, among the 31 responses to this question, a clear majority of individuals (20 of 23 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, with four in favour (both community councils, Aberdeenshire Council and the Scottish Liberal Democrats) and four against (the Association of Electoral Administrators (AEA), Boundaries Scotland, the Electoral Management Board for Scotland (EMB) and Glasgow City Council).

Those who had answered ‘Yes’ (parliamentarians should have a formal opportunity to lodge objections on the grounds of procedure when approving changes to boundaries) were asked for their views on how this objection should be made. The response options provided were:

• 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.
• 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.
• Other, please state.
• Don’t know.

As shown in Table 3 below, a majority of individual respondents (12 of 20) 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 individual respondents (4 of 20) 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. A further 4 respondents selected ‘Other’ and provided further comments as set out below.

An individual respondent who supported objections needing to be submitted during the public consultation period only commented that “MSPs should have no rights to make objections over and above the rights enjoyed by all other members of the population and interested groups”.

Conversely, a couple of individual respondents provided comments in support of objections being considered if a set number of MSPs table objections to a part of the report on boundary changes submitted to Parliament, with one stating that “Having a threshold of MSPs would be a useful guard rail to the process”, and the other commenting: “This option strikes the appropriate balance between democratic oversight and protection from partisan misuse. Requiring a minimum number of MSPs to co-sign a formal objection introduces a threshold that ensures only substantive or widely held concerns are escalated, rather than enabling isolated political grievances to disrupt the process. Such a model encourages cross-party scrutiny and procedural integrity while allowing Boundaries Scotland to remain functionally independent. It also preserves public confidence in the fairness of reviews, especially where controversial changes may affect communities, representation, or regional identities. Unlike the Westminster model, which forecloses further parliamentary engagement after consultation, the Canadian-style objection threshold introduces a meaningful mechanism for final-stage oversight without over-politicising the process”.

Among the four individual respondents who selected ‘Other’, three made comments in support of more extensive opportunities to object than perhaps implied by the two models presented, with comments including “Boundaries Scotland should take full account of all objections from MSPs”, and “MSPs, Councillors and MPs who submitted objections during the public consultation should have the opportunity to restate these in person in Parliament if they do not feel the report adequately reflects the objections of themselves or their constituents into account”.

On a different theme, one individual respondent commented that “People in the area should vote on it, some areas are put into different boundaries every 5 years. This can impact the area development and cause more poverty and lack of money getting spent in the area. This is often deprived areas”.

Among the four organisations who had responded that they supported parliamentarians having a formal route to raise procedural objections, two (Aberdeenshire Council and Menstrie Community Council) responded 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. Aberdeenshire Council commented in support of their view that “This should provide a balanced approach, allowing for objections to be raised and considered without unduly delaying the approval process”.

The Scottish Liberal Democrats responded ‘Don’t know’, having previously indicated their support for the status quo option of changes to electoral boundaries continuing to be subject to a vote by MSPs before being introduced.

Craigton Community Council responded ‘other’ and commented that “All elected officials should be allowed to submit objections as they are the elected officials that will have a more detailed knowledge of the feeling of the public in particular. If objections limited to the consultation period, then the consultation period must be a lengthy period say of 3 months. Obviously, the Boundary Commission have to judge if changes are being objected to because of an electoral advantage to be gained by the objector’s political party”.

Boundaries Scotland, the EMB and Glasgow City Council provided further comments at this stage of the consultation, re-iterating their view that there should be no “special role” for parliamentarians/politicians/elected representatives. Boundaries Scotland commented: “Specifically, we believe that elected representatives should not have any greater opportunity than other citizens to reject or amend proposals […] With respect to objections, we believe that Judicial Review, which currently provides a route to challenge the process followed by Boundaries Scotland, provides a sufficient route through which any person – elected or not – can have concerns addressed. This is also consistent with wider UK and Welsh devolved practice”.

Further comments on the approval and parliamentary process

Respondents to the consultation were asked if they had any further comments on the approval and parliamentary process, including any other elements of the models used in other countries that they would like to see introduced in Scotland.

Fourteen individual respondents and seven organisations provided further comments at this stage (21 responses in total).

In relation to UK and international models, three respondents advised caution in terms of the suitability of international models in the Scottish context, with one noting that “The international models cited in the consultation illustrate varied approaches, but none offer a one-size-fits-all solution for Scotland’s unique constitutional and political environment […] The Westminster and New Zealand models, where no parliamentary vote is permitted, are inappropriate for a devolved legislature like the Scottish Parliament, especially where questions of constitutional autonomy are active. Removing parliamentary approval risks eroding democratic legitimacy and increasing centralised influence over local representation”. Another individual respondent commented: “Each country devises policies/practices and procedures in light of their own evolutionary experience and knowledge of what is efficient, effective and practical. It is not always wise to seek to emulate what others do in adopting processes which are essentially administrative and bureaucratic in nature”.

Conversely, two organisations (Glasgow City Council and the EMB) noted the strong controls in the UK, Australia, and New Zealand to “ensure that boundaries are drawn independently” / “so that the boundaries determined independently are not amended by politicians” and stated, respectively, that “Adopting similar safeguards in Scotland would strengthen the transparency and fairness of the boundary review process” and that “Such controls should be adopted in Scotland if it is to maintain its reputation for the highest standards in electoral integrity”.

Three respondents (one individual and two organisations – Boundaries Scotland and the AEA) made or reiterated views that the approval process adopted should be the same as that adopted for UK (and Senedd) elections.

A small number of respondents made comments in relation to judicial review / additional controls. One individual respondent commented that there should be “no dilution of the present system” and “If MSPs are not to play a role I believe there must be some form of final review and decision process for contentious issues which I believe there is”. Similarly, another individual respondent stated that “Whilst Boundaries Scotland is independent and the approval process should be automatic, it is important that there is a mechanism to provide scrutiny if there is legitimate concern that Boundaries Scotland has not applied the rules under which it is required to operate. Note this is concerns about process, not outcome. There is already a mechanism in Scotland (and indeed the wider UK) to do this via the judicial review process. A new or different mechanism is not necessary and indeed could provide confusion”.

The EMB suggested there may also be scope for additional controls, noting that there is often a third-party regulator to provide monitoring and scrutiny “where it is important that activities are insulated from political influence”, citing the role of the Electoral Commission in monitoring the work of Returning Officers and Electoral Registration Officers and the independent Scottish Information Commissioner with respect to Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act work. The EMB further commented that “the expert work of Boundaries Scotland is to be supported but if the role of the MSPs is removed, there may be opportunity for additional scrutiny of its work to ensure and demonstrate its independence”.

Three individual respondents also called for greater transparency, with one noting that “Regardless of whether the final vote remains, increased transparency about the rationale for accepting or rejecting proposals, and public access to any procedural objections, would support civic trust. This should include publication of committee minutes and objection summaries”.

The Scottish Assessors’ Association (SAA) noted that “The approval process adopted must ensure that boundaries are finalised and approved with sufficient time for administrators to be able to enact the changes, with certainty, well in advance of the first electoral event that they are due to come into effect for. Ideally to allow for publication of the revised version of the register as governed by [the] Representation of the People Act 1983 S13 (1) and (1A)”.

One individual respondent also suggested that statutory clarity on exceptional rejection grounds should be introduced, stating that “If parliamentary rejection of recommendations is retained, the law could provide a limited list of grounds (e.g. procedural failure, disproportionate impact on community representation) on which MSPs may reject a boundary proposal. This would add clarity, reduce politicisation, and preserve oversight”.

The remaining comments related to topics covered in subsequent sections rather than the approval and parliamentary process per se.