THERE is a certain irony in The National’s Tuesday headline “Fury over plan to cut number of Scots MPs”.
I was always under the impression, perhaps wrongly, that the SNP was in the business of securing a situation where there were no Scottish MPs at Westminster.
It seems the regular reshuffle of constituency boundaries to suit population changes, and ignoring community boundaries, has resulted in a possible reduction of two Westminster seats, both probably held by the SNP. No doubt this will result in the usual game of political musical chairs as MPs battle to retain a seat (any seat) under the new arrangements.
READ MORE: Maps reveal planned changes to Scotland's constituencies as two MPs to be cut
I was also under the impression that, depending on the outcome of the current Supreme Court case, we would either be having a referendum in October 2023 or the next UK General Election in tandem with a referendum. In either case, should we not assume that the future number of Scottish seats in the Westminster Parliament is of little relevance? Does it matter that the next UK Parliament has 57 or 59 Scottish seats, or do I detect a little hedging of bets in case the referendum is lost for a second time?
The contributions of the current SNP MPs, regardless of their merit, are completely ignored by Westminster. I only wish a little more of their fury, time and effort could be diverted from the green benches of Westminster and into getting a second independence campaign fully under way before it is too late.
Iain Wilson
Stirling
THE Westminster Parliament’s rules on constituencies are based on the democratic principle of the vote of every person being of equal weight to that of every other person. Constituencies based on population size continue in the same vein, with each MP serving roughly the same number of people.
However, the independent boundary commissions are tightly bound by rules, the main one being a requirement to give primacy to the number of voters in each constituency, although they may also consider other factors.
READ MORE: UK referendums may require 'supermajorities' under MP's proposed law
Unfortunately these rules are set by parliament, where the majority of members represent urban areas and do not place sufficient weight on other factors such as the diversity within constituencies or the geographical areas involved; consequently those living in large, diverse, low-population-density areas in rural England, Scotland and Wales are being inexorably disenfranchised at each boundary revision. The overall proposals for 2023 would result in the migration of 15 seats from elsewhere to south of a line from the Bristol Channel to The Wash.
The strict population limits of between 70,000 and 76,000 per constituency are plainly ridiculous. There is one MP covering 4,600 square miles in Ross, Skye and Lochaber and another MP covering 2.5 square miles in Islington North – one of the 73 MPs covering a total of only 600 square miles in the whole of Greater London.
READ MORE: Will there be a by-election in Dumfries and Galloway as Alister Jack to join Lords?
Finally, the UK’s first-past-the-post voting system throws all this pseudo-democracy out the door because we are told that the UK needs a government with an overall majority in the Westminster parliament to ensure stability.
The UK has evolved into a country where the leader of the largest party selects ministers to govern free from the limitations of a written constitution while every aspect of the lives of the people are controlled by an ever-increasing plethora of detailed restrictive laws, rules and regulations.
Yet another reason for Scotland, which has smelt the coffee of devolution, to take one more step and throw off the burden of being shackled to this isolationist, restrictive and unstable Westminster government.
John Jamieson
South Queensferry
WHEN our country is seen to be plummeting into a deep recession, why is this government wasting our money on boundary changes for the Westminster parliament? Where could our money be better spent?
At this point I would expect, in a normal conversation, a person to pipe up about democracy and evening out the equality of voters to constituencies across the UK.
My retort to the person would be “Democracy! – Ha! Don’t make me laugh.”
READ MORE: Poppy politicisation is 'crass', unless the Tories are doing it ...
Now I do understand that changes to population distribution mean that changes can be required to the constituency make-up, but if I am to believe all of the statements made by UK Government ministers and officials, we all need to “hunker down” and prepare for the ongoing “hard times” ahead.
If this is all true, which I believe, why would any reasonable organisation not wish to redeploy these employees (independent from government they may be, but we still pay their salaries) to speed up the benefit or disability claims or heating item claims which people are waiting for?
What benefit will these changes bring to people needing help? Absolutely nothing, nada, nowt.
Alistair Ballantyne
Birkhill, Angus
I AM so weary of reading all this stuff when we’re supposed to be working to wrench ourselves free from greedy clutches of power in London. How bad is is going to get before the Scottish Government finds the nerve to press the “go” button?
Hazel Rodgers
via thenational.scot
I WOULD have thought that Pete Wishart, rather than criticising independence supporters for burning copies of the Treaty of Union, would have advised them to invest in as many copies as they could afford (maybe even ask for contributors to help) and send them down to the House of Commons with the addition of a Saltire in any medium superimposed on them. This would have done his image less harm.
James Ahern
East Kilbride
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel