On Wednesday, Boundaries Scotland released their provisional proposals for changes to Scottish Parliament constituency boundaries. This is subject to public consultation and you can see more details at Boundaries.scot and have your say on the proposals.
Were the proposals to be enacted, this would mean that the areas of North Lanarkshire that have lasting ties to, and are traditionally considered to be, “Uddingston” (Viewpark, Tannochside, Birkenshaw, etc) would no longer be in the same constituency as the rest of Uddingston (the South Lanarkshire portion).
These continuing ties (beyond peoples’ addresses) mean that, for example, there is a reciprocal agreement between SLC and NLC where some primary-aged South Lanarkshire children go to school in the North and some secondary-aged pupils in the North go to Uddingston Grammar in the South.
In my opinion, the proposed new constituency may be detrimental to the operation of local organisations that work across the G71 area. Under these proposals, these organisations would need to deal with multiple MSPs should they have any issues when dealing with a Scottish public body.
The reformation of local government and the creation of the separate Lanarkshire councils has already caused a split in the Uddingston identity. The one remaining representation they share is their Member of the Scottish Parliament, ending this would split that identity further.
I see some inconsistency in the way the boundaries where constituencies meet are drawn. For example, where a river is the boundary, sometimes the line is drawn down the middle and other times it drawn on one of the banks. I believe it is most appropriate for these boundaries to be drawn down the centre of the river. Where there are small islands in these rivers, the boundary should cross the island unless it is much closer to one of the banks, where it should be included in that constituency. The same situation occurs with road boundaries. I believe roads with residences should be wholly in the one constituency, to keep neighbours together. Where these roads are uninhabited, such as motorways and major A-roads, they should be split down the middle. Where boundaries are in undeveloped areas, they should follow natural elements such as rivers or burns — rather than fields, for example — so as to be as unambiguous as possible.
I do however accept the strong links Bothwell and Uddingston have to Hamilton and don’t think it’s inappropriate for these areas to be joined as one constituency. I also understand that due to the population restrictions on constituencies, this would necessitate changes elsewhere as well. I would also say that, while I have the above-outlined issues with the changes, they are favourable when compared to those of the Boundary Commission for Scotland (a separate, UK Government body) which would see us lumped-in to the Rutherglen constituency for UK Parliament elections.
Cllr Cal Johnston-Dempsey 