Mike Rumbles MSP has today congratulated the Boundary Commission for Scotland for their impartial and fair review of UK constituencies in the North East of Scotland.
Mr Rumbles said: “The Boundary Commission for Scotland have made some quite reasonable suggestions for changes to our constituency boundaries in the North East. I have written to them today urging them not to be influenced by partisan politics.
“Their current proposals for the review better reflect the historic connections of communities than the current boundaries. So it beggars believe the Conservative Party are playing partisan politics by attempting to move Banchory into the new Gordon constituency.
“In truth there will be virtually no effect on the day to day lives of constituents, their ties to surrounding communities will remain the same as will the way they are represented in the House of Commons. Any suggestion otherwise is quite frankly ludicrous.
“Banchory Conservatives in the area have organised a letter campaign from their supporters so they can sway the Commission for their own political advantage. What makes matters worse is that they have made no suggestion whatsoever of who else might be kicked-out of the constituency if the 8500 extra voters from Banchory are included. They face a similar problem with a potential shortfall in Kincardineshire.
“I urge the Commission to withstand the conservative lobby and continue to provide a fair and impartial review of the existing boundaries.”
Notes for editors:
- Mike Rumbles MSP’s submission to the Boundary Commission for Scotland 2018 Review:
2018 Review of UK Parliament Constituencies Secondary Consultation
I take this opportunity to respond to the secondary consultation of the boundary review of UK Parliamentary constituencies. In my initial submission I commended the work of the Commission in designing the new Parliamentary boundaries for the North East of Scotland in the way that it had. In particular, I commended the Commission for basing the Kincardine and Angus East constituency on the historic County of Kincardineshire, so that towns such as Banchory, Inverbervie, Laurencekirk and Stonehaven would be within this historic county once again. Upper Deeside always was part of the old Aberdeen County and distinct from Banchory which was in Kincardineshire.
My one comment for improvement on the Commission’s findings was that the name of the Gordon and Deeside Constituency be changed to Gordon and Upper Deeside to more accurately reflect the geographical reality.
I have examined the submission of my Scottish Parliamentary colleague Alexander Burnett MSP and noted his ‘write in’ campaign which he has organised to ask the Commission to remove the town of Banchory from the suggested Kincardine and East Angus constituency and place it in the constituency of Gordon and Deeside.
His argument and that of the 200+ people who have ‘written in’ supporting his proposition have completely failed to address the problem which arises by adding the 8,549 electors of the Banchory ward to the Gordon and Deeside seat. They remain silent as to where the 8,500 voters that will need to be removed from the Gordon and Deeside constituency should be put!
The residents of Banchory who have objected to the town being ‘separated’ from the other communities of Deeside represent about 2 per cent of the Banchory population and amongst the other 98 per cent, this issue is not exactly a burning one. It isn’t really an issue since Banchory itself is not being ‘separated’ from the rest of the communities of Deeside as suggested by the ‘write in’ campaign, as day to day life cannot be really affected by the drawing of a Parliamentary boundary line. I have had my home for over 20 years on Deeside, my children attended Banchory Academy and I had my constituency office in Banchory for 12 years. I know the people of Banchory very well indeed and I am not convinced by this ’write in’ campaign and I would urge the Commission not to give undue attention to it.
In my view the ’write in’ campaign organised by the Conservative Party based in Banchory is politically motivated and should be dealt with on that basis. - Mike Rumbles MSP