Electoral boundaries - determination process: consultation analysis

Consultation Process for Boundary Reviews

Length of consultation period(s) for electoral boundaries reviews

The consultation sought views on how long respondents thought the consultation period(s) for electoral boundaries reviews in Scotland should be. For Scottish Parliament constituency and region reviews, currently a one-month long public consultation period is held on initial proposals for change, and if revised proposals are made, a further one-month consultation is held. This consultation process repeats if any further changes are made. When reviews of ward boundaries and councillor numbers are conducted, Boundaries Scotland hold a two-month consultation with the local authority where the changes will take place, before then consulting publicly on any proposals put forward (for a 12-week period). There are two consultation rounds.

As shown in Table 4 below, among the 30 responses to this question (22 from individuals and 8 from organisations), the most frequently suggested (initial) consultation period was 8 weeks (or 2 months), with around 4 in 10 of both individual and organisational responses suggesting this period specifically.

Only a small number of respondents specified whether they thought that consultation periods should be the same or different for parliamentary boundaries and ward boundaries, so for most responses it is not possible to say whether the respondents suggesting 8 weeks, for example, explicitly think the consultation period should be the same (so for parliamentary boundaries should be longer, and for ward boundaries should be shorter), or whether they are just thinking of one process or the other.

Similarly, only a small number of respondents provided comments relating to follow up consultation periods, so the responses summarised in Table 4, above, are assumed to refer principally to the initial round of public consultation. Among respondents who did mention 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. Glasgow City Council noted in support of this view: “A more standardised model, such as the one used in Wales for Senedd boundaries [8/6/4], would be more appropriate […] This structured and phased approach allows for meaningful engagement, transparency, and sufficient time for stakeholders to consider and respond to proposals”.

One individual respondent suggested an initial period of 8 weeks followed by a period of 12 weeks to “give time for everyone to [respond] that wants too”. Another suggested two periods of 8 weeks with no unlimited rounds.

Where respondents did explicitly comment on whether consultation periods should be the same or different for parliamentary boundaries and ward boundaries, more respondents suggested that they should be the same than suggested that they should be different. In addition to a couple of individual respondents arguing that the consultation periods should be consistent, Glasgow City Council and the EMB commented respectively that: “The consultation period for boundary reviews—whether for council ward boundaries, councillor numbers, Scottish Parliament and Region boundaries, or UK Westminster constituencies—should be given equivalent priority and follow a consistent approach” and for “parity of esteem” through consistent processes.

Conversely, the Scottish Liberal Democrats suggested no change to the length of the current process for parliamentary boundary reviews, but that the process for local government ward boundary reviews be extended to allow for additional events.

Boundaries Scotland provided a detailed response suggesting that there should be “consistency about consultation lengths across the different processes in the UK and within Scotland, as well as enhanced time to consult”. They noted that a “staged approach would allow us to focus attention on areas where change is contentious and likely achieve greater consensus among participants”. Boundaries Scotland’s summary of the consultation periods that they would support are set out below:

Scottish Parliament reviews

• “Preliminary discussions – discretion for Boundaries Scotland to meet with local authorities and other stakeholders to discuss possible approaches in areas where there has been significant electoral change.
• Constituencies – three rounds of consultation of decreasing length (12 weeks initial consultation, 8 weeks secondary consultation where responses to initial consultation are also shared and 4 weeks).
• Regions – two rounds of consultation with first round commencing at same stage as constituencies second round (8 weeks and 4 weeks)”.

Local authorities (both administrative and electoral)

• “Boundaries Scotland is of the view that the recent approach of two rounds of consultation each for councillor numbers and then ward boundaries (2 months with councils and then 12-week public consultation) is the preferred approach. The current rules governing both electoral and administrative reviews also provide Boundaries Scotland with a wide discretion to hold further consultations if appropriate. It is Boundaries Scotland’s view that the wide discretion provided in the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 should be retained”.

Other comments made by respondents in response to this question included three that related to issues of timing / scheduling:

• reviews should be scheduled to avoid recesses/holiday periods, e.g. “Anything less than 4 weeks is too short if someone is away on holiday and unaware of the consultation” and “no more than a fortnight of any consultation period should [fall] within parliamentary recess or council recess periods”
• review timings should give administrators and communities appropriate and predictable lead-in time. Aberdeenshire Council called for at least 12 weeks to allow councils to secure committee approval of responses. Another respondent noted that “Community Councils and other community bodies usually meet on a monthly cycle”, so “Depending on when in the cycle a consultation begins, one month can be too short to enable community councillors and others to study proposals, consult their communities and then discuss their submission at the scheduled monthly meeting”.
• “the review and approval process must ensure the final decisions are made with sufficient time for the changes to be enacted by administrators well in advance of the first electoral event they are due to come into effect for. The same applies in ensuring candidates and electors are aware of the revised arrangements well in advance” (noted by the AEA).

It was also observed that there can be diminishing returns and challenges for scheduling arising from repeat consultation rounds, which was highlighted by Boundaries Scotland as well as an individual respondent who noted “concern about the current requirement to undertake further consultations at each stage during the [Scottish Parliament] review process when a change has been made. This could extend the review period […] Also, those involved in an early consultation may feel alienated by the numerous reiterations during the process”.

Should there be additional events or processes as part of the consultation process

The consultation sought views on whether there should be additional events or processes as part of the consultation process in Scotland.

There were 28 responses to the question (21 from individuals and 7 from organisations), with the majority of respondents (18 of 21 individuals and all 7 organisations who responded) making comments in support of additional events or processes.

The most frequently raised theme was modernising the consultation process and including more hybrid and online events to improve accessibility and enable maximum participation, including for people in rural and island areas, as well as for younger people (who one respondent suggested would be less likely to attend face to face meetings even in populated areas). In addition to more hybrid/online events, one respondent suggested recording/livestreaming events to allow those unable to attend to view them, and stated: “The legislation need not be specific on these matters but Boundaries Scotland should adapt their processes going forward to take advantage of societal communications and engagement norms of the time. That said, current constraints on style of meeting in existing legislation which preclude hybrid and online meetings should be amended. In any legislative proposals, it is important that the wording does not constrain future opportunities to engage widely as technology changes”.

Boundaries Scotland noted within its response that it “would welcome flexibility in the legislation to allow us to modernise our approach and deliver a process which draws on the rich tradition of community empowerment already seen in Scottish public life”.

Glasgow City Council, Aberdeenshire Council and the EMB also made comments in support of developing hybrid options to make participation more accessible and inclusive and pursuing best practice, with Glasgow City Council suggesting that “Exploring models from other countries that successfully integrate flexible and varied consultation formats could also offer valuable insights” and the EMB suggesting “there needs to be constant awareness of best practice in public engagement considering a full range of activities and media so that all sectors of society are aware of the proposals and have the opportunity to comment”.

One respondent expressed a different view regarding expanding hybrid options, commenting that “Hybrid meetings are a nightmare. Go for full in person or full online”.

Also on the theme of maximising participation, one individual respondent suggested “appearances at Agricultural Shows and Summer Galas” to seek as many views as possible, and another advocated “mandatory advertising […] in public spaces, schools, libraries, community halls and community groups, including community councils”. A further respondent said there was a need for events to “be well publicised through a range of media” and to “be held at times which attract a range of different people (say sessions through the day and evening) [and] they should be held in welcoming and informal environments and in a format which attendees do not find intimidating”. The timing of events was also commented on by another respondent who stated “You need to write to people in the area, not have meetings at 10am on a Monday”.

A further theme among responses to this question was a desire to see more localised / targeted consultation in affected areas, with comments including “There should be more consultations in the areas being moved and reasons as to why” and “If consultation events were more localised, i.e. local authority led on behalf of Boundary Scotland, rather than national conversations where residents from Stranraer, Stonehaven and Stornoway are on the same call, they might be more meaningful for people”.

One individual respondent suggested that there should be mandatory public hearings in affected regions rather than local inquiries being “optional and triggered only by specific thresholds (e.g. 100 electors or local authority requests)”. They suggested that “a minimum number of public hearings should be guaranteed during each review, especially where changes are significant or controversial. This aligns with the Westminster model (2–5 public hearings per review) and helps ensure proposals receive meaningful scrutiny at local level”.

This was in line with the view expressed by Boundaries Scotland, which stated that it “believes a set number of local inquiries in Scottish Parliament reviews would aid engagement and understanding. It is the Commission’s view that the legislation should refer to a total of eight local inquiries being held, with one to be held in each Scottish Parliament region to ensure that the whole of Scotland is covered. These local inquiries should be held at the secondary consultation stage, as in UK Parliament and Senedd reviews. The exact location of the local inquiry within the region should be at the Commission’s discretion but such events are likely to be held in areas within the region where there has been significant electoral change or considerable public response in the initial consultation period”.

Boundaries Scotland also made comments in relation to seeking to create a less adversarial and more consensual approach, for example, they consider that “local inquiries (or an equivalent process) should remain in place” but they “would prefer these to have a different term, potentially, ‘community consultation meetings’ or similar”, and stated “Likewise, removing the requirement for an ‘objection’ as a trigger for a local inquiry to be held would also assist with creating a more multilateral, consensus-building approach to setting boundaries”.

Other comments included a suggestion from the Scottish Liberal Democrats that “the powers within the Parliamentary review process where a council or 100 electors can ask for an independent person to chair a meeting and submit a report should be extended to the local government process to provide further independent oversight”, and a request from Craigton Community Council for events to explain methodology and to elevate “Liveable Neighbourhood” principles beyond “purely numbers-based” arguments.

Further comments on the consultation process for boundary changes

The consultation provided an opportunity for respondents to provide any further comments on the consultation process for boundary changes, including any other elements of the models used in other countries that they would like to see introduced in Scotland.

There were 16 responses to this question (10 from individuals and 6 from organisations).

The EMB and Glasgow City Council both provided comments in relation to seeking to avoid overlapping boundaries, suggesting that these can lead to voter confusion. While both organisations acknowledged that “some overlap may be unavoidable due to the complexity of different levels of representation” (GCC) “there should be a presumption against subdivision of local authority ward boundaries within [such] parliamentary boundaries. Local authority wards are the smallest electoral boundary that are set. In doing so Boundaries Scotland have concluded there are significant local ties in the creation of those wards. To then subdivide those in larger exercises is illogical” (EMB).

Both organisations also noted the need to “allow sufficient time for electoral administrators to prepare and for voters to become familiar with the new arrangements, ultimately supporting a smoother transition and more effective democratic engagement” (GCC) with the EMB noting that “the provision in the Scottish Elections (Representation and Reform) Act 2025 that recommendations for changes to boundaries must be made at least 18 months ahead of the election to which they will apply was welcomed by administrators and should be maintained”.

Two individual respondents also made comments in relation to councillor numbers, with one stating “As a Councillor I also strongly believe that no Council should ever be left with an even number of elected members”. Another commented that “In Council ward reviews, an unalterable decision should not be made at the beginning on Councillor numbers. My experience of reviews in the 20th century was that difficult problems could often be resolved by increasing Councillor numbers by one. There should be flexibility to change Councillor numbers during later stages of the review if this would result in an outcome that better respected community ties”.

Boundaries Scotland noted that “for Scottish Parliament reviews, as well as introducing a set number of consultation stages, Boundaries Scotland considers it would be worthwhile to have a discretion to hold inform al discussions with local authorities and other key stakeholders at the start of the review. This approach, like that recently taken for local authority electoral reviews, is likely to encourage more multilateral thinking about boundary designs that work for all of Scotland and would be of great benefit in areas where there has been significant electoral change”.

Further comments made included:

• “As someone who engages closely with boundary review processes, I found the most recent Scottish Parliament review process to be surprisingly difficult to follow, due to the number of stages” […] “I found that I was lacking capacity and energy to deal with so many iterations” […] “future Holyrood reviews should aim to have a tighter process, reducing the number of stages to three if possible: initial, revised and final, with the first two including consultation periods”.
• “There should be should a limit on the number of times a community can be moved from one area to another. At the very least being moved in one boundary review should exempt that community being moved again in the next equivalent boundary review”.
• “Aberdeenshire Council supports the inclusion of local inquiries chaired by independent figures to address specific local concerns”.

One individual respondent provided a detailed response recommending what they described as a more structured, participatory, transparent and inclusive model, including:

1. Multi-Stage Consultation Model (following the Wales and Westminster Example)

2. Mandatory Publication of Consultation Outcomes (including a clear summary of all representations received; a justification for any revisions made (or not made); an explanation of how feedback was weighed in decision-making)

3. Local Liaison Panels (a Canada-style Adaptation). “Scotland could introduce regional liaison groups during each boundary review cycle, composed of: Representatives from local authorities, Community organisations, Mapping or geographic information specialists, Equality and inclusion advocates)

4. Public Engagement Standards and Deadlines (including public notice period, formats in which consultation materials must be published, time allowed between consultation stages)

5. Digital and Archive Transparency (including an open public archive of past and current boundary proposals, consultation responses and minutes from local inquiries or hearings)