Calendar An icon of a desk calendar. Cancel An icon of a circle with a diagonal line across. Caret An icon of a block arrow pointing to the right. Email An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of the Facebook "f" mark. Google An icon of the Google "G" mark. Linked In An icon of the Linked In "in" mark. Logout An icon representing logout. Profile An icon that resembles human head and shoulders. Telephone An icon of a traditional telephone receiver. Tick An icon of a tick mark. Is Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes. Is Not Public An icon of a human eye and eyelashes with a diagonal line through it. Pause Icon A two-lined pause icon for stopping interactions. Quote Mark A opening quote mark. Quote Mark A closing quote mark. Arrow An icon of an arrow. Folder An icon of a paper folder. Breaking An icon of an exclamation mark on a circular background. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Caret An icon of a caret arrow. Clock An icon of a clock face. Close An icon of the an X shape. Close Icon An icon used to represent where to interact to collapse or dismiss a component Comment An icon of a speech bubble. Comments An icon of a speech bubble, denoting user comments. Ellipsis An icon of 3 horizontal dots. Envelope An icon of a paper envelope. Facebook An icon of a facebook f logo. Camera An icon of a digital camera. Home An icon of a house. Instagram An icon of the Instagram logo. LinkedIn An icon of the LinkedIn logo. Magnifying Glass An icon of a magnifying glass. Search Icon A magnifying glass icon that is used to represent the function of searching. Menu An icon of 3 horizontal lines. Hamburger Menu Icon An icon used to represent a collapsed menu. Next An icon of an arrow pointing to the right. Notice An explanation mark centred inside a circle. Previous An icon of an arrow pointing to the left. Rating An icon of a star. Tag An icon of a tag. Twitter An icon of the Twitter logo. Video Camera An icon of a video camera shape. Speech Bubble Icon A icon displaying a speech bubble WhatsApp An icon of the WhatsApp logo. Information An icon of an information logo. Plus A mathematical 'plus' symbol. Duration An icon indicating Time. Success Tick An icon of a green tick. Success Tick Timeout An icon of a greyed out success tick. Loading Spinner An icon of a loading spinner.

Highland election plans in doubt as MSPs reject council boundary shake-up

Highland Council HQ

MSPs have rejected a controversial council ward boundary shake-up in the Highlands amid concerns it could undermine efforts to halt depopulation.

The Scottish Parliament’s local government committee voted unanimously on Tuesday against proposals put forward for the Highland Council area by Boundaries Scotland.

The vote has left a questionmark hanging over the arrangements for next year’s local government election in the region.

Proposals for Argyll and Bute were also opposed by the MSPs, but the recommendations for Orkney, Shetland and the Western Isles were approved.

The committee had previously been urged to reject the plans by Highland Council leader Margaret Davidson, who said elected members at the local authority had been left feeling “deeply unhappy and dismayed” by the recommendations.

One of the concerns highlighted by Ms Davidson related to a plan to reduce the number of councillors in the North, West and Central Sutherland ward from three to two, and in Wester Ross, from four to three.

Council leader's school investment plan in Highland gets the okay
Highland Council leader Margaret Davidson

She described it as a “real contrast” to the Scottish Government’s policies designed to tackle depopulation, arguing that “this is only going to make matters more difficult”, because “we believe that the challenges of representing these vast wards needs more than two and three councillors”.

Reacting to the committee’s decision on Tuesday, Ms Davidson said: “I would like to thank the MSPs for taking account of our genuine concerns and unanimously rejecting these proposals.

“The council has been strongly opposed to these proposals from the beginning and have been very clear, that these changes to wards did not take into account the unique circumstances of Highland and would have resulted in a significant democratic deficit for many of our communities.

“We are keen to work constructively with Boundaries Scotland on a new review after the local government elections next May which takes into account the issues of sparsity of population, rurality of our geography as well as parity.”

We are keen to work constructively with Boundaries Scotland on a new review after the local government elections next May which takes into account the issues of sparsity of population, rurality of our geography as well as parity.”

Boundaries Scotland chairman Ronnie Hinds had previously defended the plans, telling MSPs that the changes suggested in the north were not “dramatic” and they were unlikely to have a “significant impact” overall.

Reacting to the vote on Tuesday, he said: “We will read the committee’s report with interest so that we can seek to understand the justification for their rejection of the statutory reviews carried out by an independent commission.”

Before the vote, Deputy First Minister John Swinney told the committee: “Were parliament not to approve the regulations, I cannot conceive alternative propositions could be put in place in advance of the 2022 local authority elections, in any circumstance where parliament did not approve the regulations as part of this process.

“I don’t think there is sufficient time to do that.”

Covid Scotland briefing John Swinney
John Swinney, deputy first minister

Last week, committee convener Ariane Burgess, a Highlands and Islands MSP, asked Mr Hinds what Boundaries Scotland would do if the parliament were to reject one or more of the proposed regulations.

He responded: “It is not entirely clear what we could do.

“It is clear what we could not do, because there would not be time to carry out a full review of a whole council area ahead of the elections that are scheduled for next year.

“That would mean that a given area would go into those elections with the current form of representation that they got through the previous reviews.

“For some, that might not be such a difficulty—that would not change anything at all for Orkney, for example. However, the proposed changes are significant in Highland in particular, as well as in Argyll and Bute.

“The levels of disparity in those areas do not serve the electorate well and it would be a mistake to allow that to prevail for the coming elections.”

It is not entirely clear what we could do. It is clear what we could not do, because there would not be time to carry out a full review of a whole council area ahead of the elections that are scheduled for next year.”

He added: “The main point is that we could not do anything in advance of the elections. That would be the price of rejecting the regulations.

“What happens after that would be new ground for all of us. We are not entirely sure about that, but the commission stands ready to act on instructions from ministers and, ultimately, the parliament about what has to happen following the reviews that we have just completed.”

 

Already a subscriber? Sign in

[[title]]

[[text]]

More from The Courier Scottish politics team

More from The Courier