Electoral boundaries - determination process: consultation analysis

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

Respondents were asked whether they had any further comments on the process by which electoral boundary changes are approved or implemented in Scotland that had not been captured in their previous responses. A total of 13 respondents provided further comments (9 individuals and 4 organisations).

Communication and engagement with communities

Three individual respondents noted issues related to communication and engagement with communities, with comments including that “There is a perception that Boundaries Commission decisions can be blind to the way people feel about their communities in naming constituencies and also deciding on what is included”; “Local communities feel very disconnected from this process, and from their representatives due to the size and geography of constituencies”; and, “Some of the dissatisfaction with the outcomes of recent reviews has been due to misunderstanding about why reviews are necessary, the rules set out in legislation which Boundaries Scotland are required to follow in their work and why there is a difference in constituencies between the different parliaments. Also the impact (or lack of) on matters not relevant on the outcome of a review e.g. school catchments. It is beholden on all involved in the process to attempt to ensure those commenting on and affected by boundary changes understand the flexibility or not that Boundaries Scotland have and the relevance or not of boundary changes to day to day life. greater attention needs to be paid to increasing the profile of the work Boundaries Scotland does and how it does it”.

Timing, predictability and/or stability

Three further respondents (one individual, and the two local council responses) noted issues relating to timing, predictability and/or stability. Glasgow City Council suggested that “it may be beneficial to extend the review cycle to 15 years, aligning it with the local government electoral cycle. This would allow for a more comprehensive and strategic overhaul of boundaries when required, rather than more frequent incremental adjustments. Such an approach could also reduce disruption for both the electorate and electoral administrators, providing greater stability and predictability in the electoral landscape. This change would support more effective planning and implementation, particularly in the context of evolving demographic and development trends”. Aberdeenshire Council emphasised “the importance of maintaining a clear and consistent process for boundary reviews to ensure stability and predictability”.

An individual respondent suggested that “Reports should be published at the same time as they are submitted to the Scottish Government. This should be at least 18 months before polling day in the next election. 12 months is too short for the Scottish Parliament to confirm or reject the report, then parties to identify potential candidates and carry out a democratic selection process and the chosen candidate to prepare for the campaign”.

Other issues raised

One respondent queried the basing of boundaries on the number of electors (using electoral data taken from the electoral register), rather than basing boundaries on population data. They highlighted that younger people would be less likely to be on the electoral register, commenting: “At present boundaries in Scotland are based upon the electorate, those over 16 for Scottish and Local elections and those over 18 for Westminster elections. I believe very strongly that boundaries should be based on population. Younger people may not vote but they are surely entitled to be represented in accordance with their presence in the population of an area. At present our electoral systems simply say that young people do not exist. This is surely wrong!”.

Another individual respondent suggested that “There is a growing concern among the Scottish public that the process of boundary reform—if not fully safeguarded—could be vulnerable to political manipulation, particularly during pivotal constitutional moments”. The respondent proposed a set of principles to be embedded in the boundary change process, intended to “help reinforce the independence, fairness, and democratic legitimacy of Scotland’s boundary review process”. In summary, these were (further detail is provided in the full response published at the consultation page):

• Constitutional Sensitivity Clause
• Public Notification and Transparency Requirements
• Inclusion of Electoral Impact Projections
• Legal Recourse for Citizens and Councils
• Safeguards for Community Identity

Boundaries Scotland noted that “Other areas of potential improvement which have been raised previously in correspondence between Boundaries Scotland and Scottish Government include: Whether there should continue to be a legislative requirement to use display points; Use of the Edinburgh Gazette to announce start of review; [and the] Tying of enumeration date to the Gazette publication date and register in force at that date”.

One respondent, responding both as an individual and as part of an agreed response from a community council, suggested that “The automated process goes against the Community Empowerment Act 2015 which is intended give more power to the community and not less”.

A further comment made by an individual respondent was: “If there is a change to the approvals process, it would help scrutiny by the Scottish Parliament if on an annual basis the Chair of Boundaries Scotland were required to appear before the appropriate SP committee to discuss the Annual Report of Boundaries Scotland”.