The Proposals of The Boundary Commission for Scotland
Perth and Kinross Council · 24 November 2022
Back to Kinross-shire Committee — 24 November 2022 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
Agreed by Perth and Kinross Council on 9 November 2022 Emergency Motion Depute Provost A Parrott and Councillor J Duff With Regard to The Proposals of The Boundary Commission for Scotland Announced on 8 November 2022 It is proposed that Perth and Kinross Council agree that the response statement below with regard to the proposals of the Boundary Commission for Scotland in respect of Westminster Parliamentary Constituencies should be submitted to the Boundary Commission for Scotland as a response to their further consultation, requesting amendment of the proposals in order to improve the provisions in respect of Perth and Kinross. RESPONSE STATEMENT Perth and Kinross Council welcomes the proposals set out on 8 November 2022 by the Boundary Commission for Scotland, considering that they represent, overall, a very considerable improvement on the initial proposals that were circulated earlier. Perth and Kinross Council, however, wishes to respond to the Boundary Commission for Scotland’s further consultation to make clear our resolute opposition to certain aspects of the proposals and our wish that the amendments as set out below are made to the present proposals. With regard to the proposed “North Tayside” constituency, the boundaries for this constituency are accepted but it is requested that this constituency be named instead “North Perthshire and Angus” in order to better reflect the communities included. With regard to the Scotlandwell area of the Kinross-shire Ward, Perth and Kinross Council strongly object to the inclusion of this area in the proposed “Glenrothes” constituency and it is requested that this area be included instead in the proposed “Perth and Loch Leven” constituency. The historic county of Kinross has never previously been split between Parliamentary constituencies. The present proposal breaches the design principles of not crossing Council boundaries and not breaking community ties. It is accepted that adopting this request will require further minor adjustment in Fife to ensure the proposed “Glenrothes” constituency remains above the minimum legal electorate number by adding about 300 voters to the proposed “Glenrothes” constituency from the proposed “North East Fife” constituency. Scotlandwell can be added to the proposed “Perth and Loch Leven” constituency without exceeding the maximum legal electorate number. With regard to the areas of Strathallan Ward included in the proposed “Clackmannanshire and Forth Valley” constituency, Perth and Kinross Council object as strongly as possible to this proposal submitting that these areas have no links to the rest of the proposed constituency that they are included with, indeed have no direct road links at all and would be very poorly represented in the new arrangements. The present proposal breaches substantially all the design principles of not crossing Council boundaries, giving regard to local
Page 2
geography, causing minimum disruption and not breaking community ties. It is accepted that the maximum electorate rules preclude the inclusion of these parts of Strathallan Ward in the proposed “Perth and Loch Leven” constituency but it is strongly urged that these parts of Strathallan Ward be included instead with the adjacent proposed “Stirling” constituency. The Strathallan area has historic links with adjacent parts of the proposed “Stirling” constituency that until 1975 were part of historic Perthshire. Accepting this change would mean the proposed “Stirling” and “Clackmannanshire and Forth Valley” constituencies would still comply with the rules regarding electorate size. With regard to the proposed “Perth and Loch Leven” constituency, it is requested that this constituency, its boundaries amended as proposed above, be named instead “Perth, South Perthshire and Kinross” in order to better reflect the communities included and consider in the name the electorate ahead of a physical feature of the landscape. With regard to the proposed “Stirling” constituency, it is requested that, if parts of Strathallan Ward are included as proposed above, this constituency is named instead “Stirling and Strathallan” to better reflect the communities included. The initial proposals of the Boundary Commission for Scotland unacceptably divided Perth and Kinross between no less than 5 proposed constituencies, with consequent additional council staff workload at election times, when the electorate in Perth and Kinross amounts to about 1.5 constituencies. The present proposals still unacceptably divide Perth and Kinross between 4 proposed constituencies. The requests made above which Perth and Kinross Council strongly urge the Boundary Commission to adopt divide Perth and Kinross between only 3 proposed constituencies while greatly strengthening adherence to the Boundary Commission principles and only requiring one minor further change within Fife.