Bringing It Together: Why All This Matters

The New Reform Package - TOC

1. Is There No Alternative?
2. A Swift Kick in the Ballots
3. Does Size Matter?
4. Bringing It Together: Why All This Matters

The last three posts have all been about plans for electoral reform: voting systems, Constitutional processes, electoral boundaries. To many, it's dry stuff. It's dull, it's pointless. It's a distraction from the real issues.

I disagree.

Because these things are the foundations of politics, and if you get these details wrong, you get the structures wrong, and if you get the structures wrong, you get the policies wrong.

When I argued my case for independence, I argued that while where we are governed shouldn't be the be-all-and-end-all of politics, it has a direct impact on how we are governed. Think of all the policy areas where Scotland has gone a different way since devolution, or the areas where there would be a differnece if Holyrood had more or ll possible powers. While the many new public spending commitments might now be under threat, try telling a student who no longer has to pay tuition fees, or an OAP receiving free personal care, or the fishing fleet exasperated at the UK Government performance in the last set of CFP negotiations, or the families of troops in Iraq or Afghanistan, that the constitution is irrelevant. It isn't: the present constitutional state that has contributed to the position they are in. Where things are done affects what things are done.

The same is true of the voting system. had PR been in place, the final outcome of, well, pretty much every Parliamentary election would have been different: there would have been fewer - if any majorities in the Commons and that would have had a profound effect on the Governments formed and what they could have done. Blair at the head of a Labour-LibDem Coalition would be remembered differently to the one in our history books. Imagine a Tory-led Government in the 1980s with the worst excesses of Thatcherism curbed, or perhaps a 1980s run by a Coalition of Labour and the Alliance. Even the end of this inconclusive election would have been different: a mathematically viable Labour-LibDem Coalition would have been possible, and the LibDems would have had greater bargaining power with more seats. Even if the votes cast were the same - which we know wouldn't be the case as voting behaviour would be altered: no need for tactical voting, more and more viable options to choose from - Parliament would be different, so the Government would be different, so Government policy would be different and that would affect everyone.

And even with FPTP, the boundaries matter. We know this as we know that Labour notional majority, based on the 2005 result applied to the new boundaries, was smaller than their actual majority on based the constituencies in place. nd we see it at Holyrood: the proposed boundary changes, if applied in 2007, would have cost the SNP one seat and Labour two, with the LibDems gaining one and the Tories two. Now with the outcome so finely balanced, that would have changed the direction of the Parliament, particularly in 2009, when the Budget that was rejected on the Presiding Officer's casting vote would have been passed by a majority of two votes, so the Scottish Government's spending priorities would have been different and that would again have affected all sorts of policy.

And that's what I'm trying to say: the Constitution, the voting system, the boundaries, they all affect who represents and governs us, so all affect what our Government does. And that affects nearly all of us.

This wonkery, this geekery, this process story that only excites the political village? It's at the heart of everything. It all matters.

Does Size Matter?

The New Reform Package - TOC

1. Is There No Alternative?
2. A Swift Kick in the Ballots
3. Does Size Matter?
4. Bringing It Together: Why All This Matters

What do the Tories get in exchange for electoral reform? They get a smaller Parliament, with the Commons reduced to around 600 from 650 (yet it's funny: they object to the SNP's proposal to reduce the number of MP's by 59!), a new boundary review with the focus on near-total electoral parity at the expense of everything else, and, in effect, a 'rolling review' with boundaries constantly subject to change and with less time to reflect on proceedings.

Now the size issue is one thing, and given that Germany, for example, has a larger population but a smaller Bundestag (and seeing as they use AMS, that means constituencies more than twice the size of those in the UK, and the Germans don't seem to mind), while the US House of Representatives is about two-thirds the size of the Commons but the US has a population about five times the size of the UK, one could argue that this isn't the worst idea in the world.

But the boundaries?

The Tories complain that the current boundaries see smaller-than-average electorates (coupled with smaller-than-average turnouts) in Labour seats than in Tory ones, and want to see total parity. But if you want to see where that gets you, look at the initial proposals for the Scottish Parliament: Clydebank being tied with Renfrewshire springs to mind as a particularly crazy proposal from that draft, but also spare a thought for the Lanark, Shotts & Whitburn constituency which never made it off the drawing board. Had it done so, its hapless MSP would have had to deal with three different local Councils, and the initial plans for the regions saw the drive for equality drop Dumbarton in with the Highlands and see the other Dunbartonshire constituencies lumped in 'East Central Scotland'. That's where the obsession with equality gets you.

And the Tories have already accepted that it can only go so far: Orkney & Shetland and Na h-Eileanan an Iar will be protected (yet the Isle of Wight, will be carved up only to see one part of it lumped in with the mainland - that MP's going to have a hard time for sure) and there are plans for there to be a maximum land area restricting the size of Highland constituencies, with a knock on effect that seats in urban Scotland will have to be even larger.

So already, the idea that size isn't the only thing that matters has crept in, but still the Tories persist.

And the new approach to reviews is equally dotty: effectively the boundaries would be in a state of semi-permanent flux. Now I agree that the current system isn't ideal: the boundaries that only just came in this year for Westminster are based on electorate figures from 2002 if I recall correctly, so by the time they're out of use they'll be based on population patterns that are older than some of the people on the electoral roll.

But at least there's a chance that a community will have a fighting chance of knowing who their MPs is: it allows Parliamentarians, candidates and their parties to develop lasting local links and given the nature of the system, that's surely a good thing, and it can't be achieved if the boundaries are subject to constant change.

And by streamlining the review, you enhance the possibility that seats like North Renfrewshire & Clydebank, or Lanark, Shotts & Whitburn do get off the drawing board: combinations and divisions that no one except Boundary Commissioners would ever think viable would become the norm. Again, one MP represents an entire community, so it really does help if they're representing an actual community.

Maybe things do need to be changed, but in this case, it's the wrong change to make.

The Boundaries are A-Changin' Again

While we've all been agog at the Snow Coup and the Iris Stew, the Boundary Commission set out their revised recommendations for the Scottish Parliamentary regions. Like the Constituency plans, the revisions are considerable when compared with the initial plans, but what they effectively mean is that the changes from current boundaries are considerably more limited than the Commission initially envisaged.

The bottom line is this: had the 2007 Election been fought on these boundaries, I believe that the result would have been SNP 46, Labour 44 (so they have most to lose from these changes), Conservative 19, LibDems 17, Greens 2 and of course, Margo on her own. Here's how I get there:

Central Scotland

The initial plans saw this referred to as East Central Scotland and were somewhat messy (no matter how many times you say it, nowhere in Dunbartonshire can be considered 'East Central Scotland'). The revised new region is effectively the old one minus Kilmarnock (with some fraying around the edges), consisting of Labour-held Airdrie & Shotts; Coatbridge & Chryston; Cumbernauld & Kilsyth; East Kilbride; Falkirk East; Hamilton, Larkhall & Stonehouse (formerly Hamilton South), Motherwell & Wishaw and Uddingston & Bellshill (formerly Hamilton North & Bellshill), as well as the SNP's Falkirk West.

The additional seats work out as 5 SNP seats, 1 Tory (a reprieve for Margaret Mitchell, who on the initial plans either had to move Constituency or go up against Annabel Goldie and Jackson Carlaw in the West selection) and 1 LibDem. Overall, then, there's a net loss of one seat for the SNP, which is unsurprising, given that an SNP seat moves out of the region. In effect, this region is no change.

Glasgow

This region wasn't altered by the revisions (no one complained about it), so still consists of the eight Glasgow seats plus Rutherglen. By my reckoning, that makes eight Labour seats and one SNP (Glasgow Southside). The list seats come to 4 SNP, 1 Tory, 1 LibDem and 1 Green, so no change there. Effectively a net Labour loss of one seat, coming about through the dismemberment of Glasgow Baillieston.

Highlands & Islands

Given what I can only imagine was a helluva lot of post on the matter, the Commission has reversed its earlier suggestion call Dumbarton a Highland seat, so again, this seat is now largely as it is, save a couple of minor adjustments around the edges, with four SNP seats (Argyll & Bute, Inverness & Nairn, Moray and Na h-Eileanan an Iar) and four LibDem seats (Caithness, Sutherland & Ross, Orkney Islands, Shetland islands and Skye, Lochaber & Badenoch). The list comes to 3 Labour, 2 SNP and 2 Tory, so status quo.

Lothian

A westward shift in this region has been averted: Linlithgow rejoins the fold, with East Lothian staying out of the region. That means there'll be three Labour seats (Edinburgh Northern & Leith, Linlithgow and Midlothian North & Musselburgh) three LibDem seats (Edinburgh Central - which is a notional LibDem seat on the new boundaries - Edinburgh Southern and Edinburgh Western). The SNP hold Almond Valley and Edinburgh Eastern, while the Tories retain Edinburgh Pentlands. Now, the LibDems still have an overhang (which the Scottish system can't correct), and the shift in boundaries sees the SNP stay ahead of Labour, and produces a List result like the current one: 3 SNP, 1 Labour, 1 Tory, 1 Green and Margo. That means a net loss of one for Labour and net gain of one for the LibDems.

If I were in Labour I'd be hopping mad at this one, and would feel cheated at the under-representation. Similarly, if I were a Tory, my eyebrow would be raised at the LibDems having more seats in the region than the Tories despite having (notionally) fewer votes in what is supposed to be a proportional system. Those less charitable to Labour than I would consider this change to be poetic justice, given the over-representation of Labour in the 1999 and 2003 Parliaments given their constituency haul, but two wrongs don't make a right and Labour have good reason to feel aggrieved.

Mid Scotland & Fife

Like Glasgow, this wasn't included in the inquiry, so there are no changes to the first proposals, and the only real change to the region is a chunk of North Tayside (the part in Angus) leaving for North East Scotland and a small bit of Angus (the part of the seat that's in Perth & Kinross Council) coming in. As on the old boundaries, it works out as five SNP seats, two Labour and two LibDem, with three Labour List seats, three Tory and one SNP. No change overall.

North East Scotland

This one wasn't in the inquiry either, so there are still ten constituencies including the new one straddling Angus and Aberdeenshire. It still works out as seven SNP constituencies, two LibDem and one Labour. The List still works out as 3 Tories, 2 Labour, 1 SNP and 1 LibDem, so that's a net gain for the Tories of one seat.

South Scotland

The initial plans envisaged this being the 'baby' region, but that has changed: it retains (Labour-held) East Lothian, along with Carrick, Cumnock & Doon Valley, Clydesdale and Dumfriesshire - the region still loses Cunninghame South. South still gains SNP-held Kilmarnock & Irvine Valley which is joined in the notional SNP column by Midlothian South, Tweeddale & Lauderdale, the successor seat to Tweeddale, Ettrick & Lauderdale. Three Tory seats - Ayr; Ettrick, Roxburgh & Berwickshire and Galloway & West Dumfries - complete the line-up.

The List sees the SNP with three seats (down two, but only as a result of there now being two SNP seats in the region, which will make next year's List ranking interesting reading), two LibDems (compensation for the conversion of Tweeddale, Ettrick & Lauderdale into an SNP seat), one Labour (as a result of a Labour seat being lost and an SNP one coming in) and one Tory. Overall, that means no change to the seat tally here.

West Scotland

The rather radical initial plans (which saw the constituencies north of the Firth of Clyde being shed) have been dropped, and now the only change to the current line up save some more fraying around the edges is the addition of Labour-held Cunninghame South, making this a ten-seat region. Cunninghame South joins the other Labour seats: Clydebank & Milngavie; Dumbarton; Greenock & Inverclyde; Paisley; Renfrewshire North & West; Renfrewshire South and Strathkelvin & Bearsden. The region is completed by SNP-held Cunninghame North and the altered Eastwood seat, which loses Barrhead and changes from a Labour to a Tory constituency.

The re-drawn region also keeps the List at four SNP seats, two Tories and one LibDem. So all in all, that makes a net gain of one for the Tories.

Summary

The winners in this review are the Tories, who gain a List seat in North East Scotland and whose gain of Eastwood isn't punished with the loss of a List seat in the West, along with the LibDems, who gain Edinburgh Central at no expense elsewhere, with the loss of a constituency in the Borders being compensated by an extra List seat in South.

The losers would be Labour, losing a Glasgow constituency and seeing Edinburgh Central change hands with no compensation on the Lothian List, and to a lesser degree the SNP, losing that seat in Central Scotland. However, seeing as that one-seat lead over Labour becomes a two-seat lead (and remember that the initial plans put the two parties neck-and-neck), I don't envisage SNP strategists being too disappointed.

And here's something else to think about: remember last year's Budget, which had to be re-submitted after the first attempt failed? On these boundaries, the SNP, Tories and Margo combined would have had 65 votes (assuming Alex Fergusson would still have been elected Presiding Officer, so costing the Tories a vote), an absolute majority. There would have been no need for a second Budget.

The Boundaries are A-Changin: Overview

TOC

East Central Scotland
Glasgow
Highlands & Islands
Lothian
Mid Scotland & Fife
North East Scotland
South Scotland
West Central Scotland

Well, the figures are done. We have an idea of how people may have voted had the Boundary Commission's revised proposals been in law by May 2007.

In reverse order:

Margo MacDonald would have been re-elected.

The Greens would have two MSPs on my figures.

The LibDems would stay level on 16: they would lose one in South Scotland but gain one in Lothian.

The Tories would go up by one seat to 18: they would stay level everywhere but North East Scotland, where the extra seat would fall in their favour.

Labour would stay on 46: they would gain one in East Central Scotland and the Highlands & Islands as a result of the re-arrangement of constituencies. However, they would lose a seat in Glasgow as a result of one constituency being eliminated, and a seat in West Central Scotland due to Barrhead being taken out of Eastwood.

You'll notice two things: I have the Tories gaining a seat, Labour, the LibDems, Greens and Margo staying where they are and I haven't mentioned the SNP. I think you know where I'm going here. The re-arrangement of constituencies costs them a seat in East Central but wins the party an extra List seat in West Central. In Lothian, however, I project that 324 LibDem votes in Edinburgh Central and 224 Labour List votes will conspire to cost the SNP a Regional seat. That sees the Party defending a notional 46 seats, not 47 as actually happened.

Can you imagine if this had actually been the case?

46-46. Bloody hell.

The words 'ferrets' and 'sack' spring to mind.

The Boundaries are A-Changin: East Central Scotland

There's quite a lot of chopping and changing in the layout of this seat, though the internal boundaries don't change as much as we might have expected. The loss of Hamilton, Larkhall & Stonehouse, East Kilbride and Kilmarnock & Irvine Valley and their replacement with Clydebank & Milngavie, Strathkelvin & Bearsden and Linlithgow cause this rather odd shaped region, though in fairness, Central Scotland had a bit of an odd shape about it as well. You know how Italy is described as The Boot? Central Scotland could have been described as The Sock. East Central Scotland looks more The Briefs.

Anyway.

Airdrie & Shotts is saved from the carving up that it received in the provisional proposals - and it's still very marginal between Labour and the SNP: Labour have a notional lead of just 400.

Clydebank & Milngavie may move, but it doesn't change much (though it would have done - Milngavie would have been paired with Bishopbriggs while Clydebank nearly ended up in a cross-Clyde constituency): a majority of 3,000 for Labour.

Coatbridge & Chryston - another seat which would have seen serious chopping and changing - survives with a 4,300 majority for Labour.

Cumbernauld & Kilsyth would also have seen major changes (and would have been turned into an ultra-marginal SNP seat had it lost Kilsyth and picked up a chunk of Airdrie) but instead continues largely as is - that means a 2,000 notional majority for Cathie Craigie.

Falkirk East stays red, and maintains a majority of just short of 2,000 for Labour, while Falkirk West retains an SNP lead of just under 700.

Linlithgow, of course, moves into the region, and has a notional Labour majority of 600, so Mary Mulligan is not on secure ground. However, eyes will be on Fiona Hyslop: will she stick with Linlithgow, and pitch for a spot on this region's List? Or will she find a seat further East, and stay in Lothian? There is a third possibility, of course: she could take a 'win-or-bust' approach, fight Linlithgow and sod the List, but that would doubtless freak various senior SNP figures out were it actually attempted. As long as she's in the Cabinet, anyway.

Motherwell stays solid Labour, with a majority of 6,000. The question is, who will inherit it? David Whitton probably won't need to: he has a notional majority of around 3,500 in Strathkelvin & Bearsden.

The last constituency in the region - and the last of all of them alphabetically - is Uddingston & Bellshill, with a notional Labour lead of 5,700.

Now, the List stays as is: the SNP will have five seats notionally and one thing that a number of incumbent MSPs may have to consider is whether to follow their constituency into a new region, or find a new base and stay in relatively familiar territory. It will be easy for Gil Paterson to come in: his 2007 constituency comes over the border and was a Central Scotland MSP in the first term of the Parliament. Linda Fabiani has made three attempts to win East Kilbride and will have to move to West Central if she wants to make it four. And of course, Fiona Hyslop has some thinking to do. One thing to note though: the departure of two Labour seats and one SNP seat, and their replacement with three Labour seats mean that this region effectively sees a net SNP loss of one, offset with an additional seat in West Central Scotland.

For the Tories, they retain one seat, but Margaret Mitchell has to find a new Constituency or move west along with Hamilton, Larkhall & Stonehouse, so facing a selection contest for the List there that will involve Annabel Goldie and - notionally - only one slot with Eastwood going blue and probably electing Jackson Carlaw. Now of course, Mitchell is the Tories sole backbencher (the only one not to be a spokesperson or deputy spokesperson for something or other) and exiled in the Convenership of the Equal Opportunities Committee, much to Helen Eadie's disgust, as we know, so her future in the Parliament at all may potentially be at risk if members in Central are particularly exasperated at having an MSP who is at best an outrider and at worst a passenger. Going west and falling to second or (more likely) third in the rankings wouldn't make re-election impossible, but it could offer a more dignified exit than de-selection (assuming she finds a Constituency, would she even get the #1 spot on the East Central list?).

The LibDems, however, find it simple. There's no change in their one seat, and there are no potential challengers from incumbent MSPs linked with an incoming constituency. Hugh O'Donnell to hold on if he wishes and the members agree.

The Boundaries are A-Changin: Glasgow

This region sees a very significant change. Well, the boundaries don't shift greatly, apart from at the edge of Rutherglen, but the region loses a seat in the City itself. As it's Baillieston which has fallen victim to the Commissioners' red crayons, one can sympathise with Margaret Curran's desire to decamp to Westminster.

Anyway. Glasgow Anniesland stays Labour with a majority for Bill Butler of 4,700. Glasgow Cathcart also stays Labour, with a notional majority of just under 2,000, while Glasgow Kelvin stays Labour by just 700.

Glasgow Maryhill & Springburn stays Labour by 4,000 for Patricia Ferguson; Glasgow Pollok stays Labour by 4,600 for Johann Lamont and Glasgow Provan stays in the red column with a whopping 5,100 majority for Paul Martin. Glasgow Shettleston stays Labour, with Frank McAveety defending a notional majority of around 4,500.

I want to take time to discuss Glasgow Southside. I get a lead for Nicola Sturgeon of just under 200 votes. However, it's only right and proper that I direct you to Yousuf, who gets a Labour lead of just over 300. Now, on that basis, our results are probably within each other's margin of error, but the bottom lines that we reach are very different indeed.

Now, we both have concrete figures handed to us on a platter by the Scotland Office ballot box by ballot box dataset on the 2007 elections. However, they don't tell the whole story: it's possible that we've allocated some polling districts in wards split between seats to different constituencies; it's possible that we've treated results in amalgamated ballot boxes (where the individual boxes contained less than 200 votes) differently where they cover areas that are divided by the proposals; and it's a racing certainty that we've handled postal votes differently as they're presented on a constituency-wide basis.

The synopsis of this little discussion is that we can't both be right (and I think it's fair to say that we both acknowledge the possibility of error). Luckily, these figures are only realy a basis for projecting the outcome of opinion polls and a way comparing the 2011 results with what went before. So regardless of the outcomes we get now, what matters that should Nicola Sturgeon win Southside (or should the SNP be projected to win it based on an opinion poll), I'll be posting it as an SNP hold while Yousuf will see it as an SNP gain. Should Labour win it, he'll see it as a hold and I'll see it as a Labour gain. Given that any other conclusions we reach are based on something that didn't happen - i.e. we're imagining what would have happened if these boundaries had been in place in time for the last elections, which as we know, isn't the case - I advise against treating these figures as conclusions. They are only starting points which allow us to make conclusions later. I had to put that caveat somewhere and this seems like a suitable place for it.

The last constituency is Rutherglen. Now, Rutherglen was removed from Glasgow in the last change to the local government map, when it was placed in South Lanarkshire, and it has to be said that the locals are probably reasonably happy with that turn of events. However, despite that change being reflected in the dropping of the word Glasgow from the consituency name, it's still lumped in with the rest of the City. I'm not sure what the locals think of that, but there you are. It stays Labour by 5,000 votes.

As for the List, with the Region's external boundaries changing only slightly, and Labour arguably over-represented at constituency level, it's little surprise that the SNP keep four seats, and the LibDems, Tories and Greens keep one between them. If, however, Southside were to be considered Labour, the SNP would have five seats - the extra one coming at the expense of Patrick Harvie.

The Boundaries are A-Changin: Highlands & Islands

The most significant change in the Highlands is that the region acquires Dumbarton, which I never really thought of as particularly Highland in character and I suspect that the locals will be just as surprised as I am. If the revised Regional proposals are going to depart in any major form from the initial ones, this will probably be one of the changes. But we're into the realms of speculation now.

Anyway. With the exception of Dumbarton, the best way to sum up the region is 'as you were'. While there's a great deal of chopping and changing in the three Highland seats, and some fraying at the edges of Moray, neither doesn't affects the arithmetic.

Consequently, Jim Mather retains a majority of 800 over the LibDems. The enlarged Caithness, Sutherland & Ross yields a notional 3,000 majority for Jamie Stone - that's a larger figure than at present, but vote share figures barely change.

Dumbarton may go Highland, but it retains its Labour status on the notional figures, though a 3% swing to the SNP would change that.

Inverness & Nairn sees Fergus Ewing's majority goes down to 4,000 (and a lot of MSPs would love it if 4,000 was what their majority fell to) but again, vote share doesn't change much.

Moray's small adjustments project an SNP majority for Richard Lochhead of 7,000.

Na h-Eileanan Iar has been Gaelicised but that's the only change: the possibility of it being connected with the mainland was ruled out very early on in the process and so I can comfortably state that Alasdair Allan is defending a majority of 687.

Similarly, changes to Orkney and Shetland are precluded by law, though the two seats will be officially known as 'Orkney Islands' and 'Shetland Islands', with LibDem majorities of 2,476 and 4,909 respectively.

Meanwhile, Skye, Lochaber & Badenoch (the successor to Ross, Skye & Inverness West) remains notionally LibDem, but with a majority slashed to 1,200. This will be a keenly fought contest.

The List is, like the outcome of the constituencies, a model of the status quo. The addition of Dumbarton does not affect Labour's three seats, the SNP retain two and so do the Tories, with the LibDems not needing any.

The Boundaries are A-Changin: Lothian

With Linlithgow moving into East Central Scotland and East Lothian coming in from South of Scotland, the region gets shifted eastwards, and the way things play out is guaranteed to cause ructions.

First comes Almond Valley, the successor to Livingston, which initially sounded rather pretty but now I can't shake the feeling that it sounds like it should be the name of a dodgy processed foods company. I just have the image of a recent sufferer of food poisoning taking a box (that once contained some form of chicken balti) into his GP for him to take a look at before he sends it off to Environmental Health, and written in small print on one of the sides are the words "Produced in the EU for Almond Valley Foods (UK) Ltd". Anyway, flight of fancy over, it's still notionally SNP. Just.

The newly relocated East Lothian stays Labour, which is probably a good thing for Iain Gray who would almost certainly have to decamp to safer ports were this in jeopardy.

Edinburgh Central, however, is not: it goes LibDem, but only just. Edinburgh Corstorphine & Forth (because Edinburgh West just didn't sound middle-class enough), meanwhile, is safe LibDem, as you'd expect.

Edinburgh East & South (why couldn't they have just called it Edinburgh South East? I know parts of it aren't South East, but parts of the current Edinburgh South West aren't South West, South or West, and the Edinburgh East Westminster Constituency contains Tollcross, which in no way could be considered even remotely East...) is still SNP, but by a whisker.

Edinburgh Pentlands (the name has been reprieved) stays Tory, while Edinburgh Southside (which is misleading as the bit of the City considered to be the Southside rather than, say, Newington is actually in Central) stays LibDem. Edinburgh Trinity & Leith (which sounds like a fixture in a local football league) stays Labour by my reckoning, as does Midlothian North & Musselburgh.

This is where things get hairy. Under the old Lothian region, the SNP led on the Regional Vote. On the new one, there appears to be a Labour lead of just over 200 votes. This comes into play on account of the LibDems picking up a third constituency (giving them more seats in Lothian than the Tories, who pick up more votes). Now, Labour notionally gain a List seat to compensate for Central changing hands, but as the LibDems don't have a Regional seat to lose, it has to come at someone else's expense. It would come at the expense of the SNP. Accordingly, the only way for both Ian McKee and Shirley-Anne Somerville to have been elected on the List (OK, OK, Ian McKee and Stefan Tymkewycz if we're splitting hairs) would have been for Fiona Hyslop to decamp to East Central with her Linlithgow stomping grounds.

The Boundaries are A-Changin: Mid Scotland & Fife

Like North East Scotland, Mid Scotland & Fife sees only limited changes, and the most significant of those is triggered by North Tayside losing quite a large tract of land in the Angus area. The next most significant is the transfer of Dunblane from Stirling to the new Clackmannashire & Dunblane. That sentence may seem a little redundant until you realise that there's notihing about the name 'Stirling' which tells you that it contains Dunblane when other parts of the Council area presently find themselves in Ochil.

Anyway. The aforementioned Clackmannanshire & Dunblane is SNP by about 400 votes.

Cowdenbeath stays Labour by 4,000 votes - so Calum Cashley's 'Eadie to Leadie' campaign is still on track.

Dunfermline stays LibDem by 500 votes, while Kirkcaldy has a notional Labour majority 3,000 and Mid Fife & Glenrothes has an SNP majority of 1,800. North East Fife (it had an 'and' between the North and East in the initial proposals) has a LibDem majority of just shy of 5,000.

Perthsire North (the heavily revamped North Tayside) gives John Swinney a majority of just under 6,000, while Roseanna Cunningham's notional majority in Perthshire South & Kinross-shire is just over the 2,000 mark. And I get Bruce Crawford staying ahead in Stirling despite the loss of Dunblane - but only just!

So with no change in the distribution of constituencies, it's no surprise that the allocation of List seats doesn't change either, making this the most boring region of the eight.

The Boundaries are A-Changin: North East Scotland

It's hard to say whether or not the North East's redrawing is quite slight, or massively radical: on the one hand, one the one hand, Angus is no longer paired with Perth & Kinross as it was for the purposes of drawing new boundaries, so a large chunk of North Tayside comes into the region, and the region has one more seat than it did there isn't really an exchange of constituencies in the way that most other regions face, so there's only the large tract of North Tayside coming in (and some chopping and changing around the edges alongside the boundary with Moray) and the extra seat is a result of population changes in the area rather than a significant re-drawing of the region.

Aberdeen Central stays Labour, but by a flea's bollock: the SNP require a swing of 0.07% by my reckoning. But a fair chunk of Aberdeen South brings the LibDems into play, and there's less than 500 votes between first place and third.

Aberdeen Donside is the pretty new name for Aberdeen North and it's still fairly secure for Brian Adam.

Aberdeen South & North Kincardine (the pattern for the position of compass points in this review appears to be that if it comes before an 'and', the compass point goes second, and comes first after an 'and') stays LibDem by just under 2,000 votes, much like Alex Salmond's notional majority in Aberdeenshire East. Aberdenshire West, however, is pretty solid for the LibDems.

The new seat is Angus North & Mearns, and offers the SNP a seat with a majority of around 3,800. Angus South, meanwhile, as a 7,400 majority for Andrew Welsh.

Banffshire & Buchan Coast (looks very fancy with its new 'shire' and 'Coast', no?) would see Stewart Stevenson elected on a majority of about 12,000.

In the City of Discovery, the SNP majorities aren't quite that high, but the party is notionally ahead by 4,500 votes and 2,000 votes in Dundee City East and West respectively.

On the List, it's as you were for Labour and the LibDems - just as on the constituencies. The newly-formed SNP constituency means the party has one Regional seat fewer, restoring the third Tory seat that they party lost in 2007.

The Boundaries are A-Changin: South Scotland

South Scotland (it loses the 'of') may have seen more radical changes had Commissioners persisted with a Cumnock & Clydesdale seat which looked more like a Rorschach test than a Parliamentary Constituency. But while the constituencies themselves don't go through many convulsions, the region does: it loses East Lothian to Lothian (well, it was hardly going to move into Highlands & Islands, was it?), it loses Cunninghame South to West Central Scotland and gains Kilmarnock & Irvine Valley from Central Scotland. More eagle-eyed readers will have spotted that this leaves South one constituency short. They'd be right: it will now apparently contain only eight, making it the 'baby' region instead of the now even larger Highlands & Islands.

Ayr stays pretty much comfortably Tory, while Carrick, Cumnock & Doon Valley stays pretty solid Labour. Clydesdale stays Labour, but with a majority of around 1,300 - less than half what it was, potentially giving Aileen Campbell a very nice target, which will definitely come in handy.

As you can see, Dumfriesshire gains the letters s, h, i, r and e but loses a good part of the town of Dumfries, to Elaine Murray's chagrin. She won't be too chuffed about her majority plummeting from 2,800 to just 200 either. If there's just the slightest hint of a Cameron honeymoon in Scotland in 2011, she's out.

Ettrick, Roxburgh & Berwickshire (formerly Roxburgh & Berwickshire) stays Tory, as does Galloway & West Dumfries. Though the good folk of Upper Nithsdale might be hacked off that they no longer get a mention.

The incoming Constituency, Kilmarnock & Irvine Valley, stays SNP.

The last seat is the most significant: LibDem-held Tweeddale, Ettrick & Lauderdale becomes notionally-SNP Midlothian South, Tweeddale & Lauderdale. Could Christine Grahame have finally scored her victory? I suspect Jeremy Purvis will not be thrilled by that prospect.

Then comes the List: the arrival of Kilmarnock and gaining of MSTL causes something of a headache for the SNP: it has a notional three List seats, giving the party a total of five, but with six incumbent MSPs operating in the new region. Even if we assume that Willie Coffey maintains his 'win or bust' approach in Kilmarnock, the likelihood is that unless Alasdair Morgan decides that 66 is a good age at which to retire, the rankings could well be bad news for one of the current five Regional MSPs. And remember, this region contains two Government Ministers, one Deputy Presiding Officer, one grande dame of the SNP and one rising star. This selection contest has echoes of the 'Group of Death' that appears in every Champions' League or World Cup.

For Labour, things are clearer: the departure of two Labour seats to other regions to be replaced with an SNP constituency offers them two List seats (so two vacancies in the area) for the first time. So Jeff's scenario of MPs defeated at the next General Election heading to a Holyrood List near you might emerge, if Russell Brown were to lose his Dumfries & Galloway seat to Peter Duncan, with one other.

The Tories see no change, but the LibDems face a problem: on the previous setup, the loss of Tweeddale etc. would give them an extra List seat as compensation (as happened in Roxburgh & Berwickshire). With one seat fewer available for the parties to play with, that is no longer the case: if they lose Tweeddale, they don't have enough notional votes to get it back.

The Boundaries are A-Changin: West Central Scotland

Well, we now have revised proposals from the Boundary Commission for the new Holyrood Constituencies, and with them, initial proposals for the Holyrood Regions, giving us a better idea of the electoral landscape going into 2011, and meaning that we now have actual figures to apply to opinion polls. But the main detail that we have now is a better understanding of how we think people would have voted had the new boundaries been in place.

Let's take a look at the new West Central Scotland region - the successor to West of Scotland. It loses Dumbarton (whose good burghers will get a shock when they get their polling cards and discover that they're now Highlanders), Clydebank & Milngavie and Strathkelvin & Bearsden (both of whose residents will be surprised to learn that for electoral purposes, they are now seen as being in the East). In their place, the region gains Cunninghame South (re-uniting North Ayrshire into one region), East Kilbride and Hamilton, Larkhall & Stonehouse.

One observation: it's interesting that despite Boundary Commissioners considering the Clyde a natural boundary for constituencies in Glasgow, they thought nothing of a possible seat straddling the Clyde with the two parts (North Renfrewshire and Clydebank) being connected solely by the Erskine Bridge, which crosses the Clyde at a far more Firth-like point than the various bridges in Glasgow. It's also worth noting that the reaction to that idea appears to have been so hostile that now, not even the West Central region straddles the Clyde.

Anyway. Cunninghame North looks like it would still be SNP by a proverbial ba' hair, while Cunninghame South would still be Labour by around 2,000 votes.

East Kilbride, Andy Kerr's stomping ground, stays Labour and changes add about 600 votes to Kerr's majority. But here's the thing: this is not just Kerr's patch. Linda Fabiani has been an SNP ever-present here, standing in East Kilbride in 1999, 2003 and 2007. She faces a choice: stay with EK or stay with (East) Central Scotland. She cannot do both. She could do a stright swap with Gil Paterson (who stood in Clydebank & Milngvie last time, and was also a Central Scotland MSP for four years), but how would SNP members in the West react?

Eastwood, meanwhile, poses a problem for Labour: with the loss of Barrhead and Neilston to the new Renfrewshire South seat comes the loss of Labour's majority and a notional majority of 2,000 for the Conservatives. Ken Macintosh might want to look into possible escape routes: unless a Tory Government at Westminster draws almost instant and venomous hostility in Scotland (obviously the Tories got less and less popular the last time around, but it took the 1997 Election for Eastwood to switch), expecting him to stay on here is effectively de-selecting him.

Greenock & Inverclyde stays fairly safe Labour.

Another newcomer to the region, Hamilton, Larkhall & Stonehouse, gives Tom McCabe a majority of just over 3,000. It also gives potential food for thought to a number of Regional MSPs: Christina McKelvie fought the predecessor, Hamilton South, in 2007. Does she follow the Constituency or the Region? John Wilson had originally been the candidate here in 2007, but stood down from the Constituency election to contest the local election in Coatbridge, where he won a seat, but is quitting to focus on Holyrood. Does he follow the Region (he could conceivably contest Coatbridge & Chryston, I suppose), or attempt to secure the Constituency selection? Then there's the Tories' Margaret Mitchell, candidate here in every Scottish electon since 1999, and Regional MSP for Central Scotland since 2003. Which does she choose? Will she even stand again? Would she stand a snowball's chance in Hell of a high enough ranking in the same Region as Annabel Goldie and Jackson Carlaw?

Anyway. Paisley is united under one Constituency rather than being split into North and South, each with a bit of the environs attached. Most of Paisley South goes into here, while North gets carved up fairly comprehensively, so you'd view this more as Hugh Henry's balliwick. Which may pose a problem in the (probably) unlikely event that Wendy Alexander wants to stand again. Put simply, her seat has ceased to be, and if she wants another, this is probably her best shot. And it's not a bad one for any incumbent Labour MSP to contest: they have a notional majority of 4,000.

Renfrewshire North & West is a possible plan B for Wendy Alexander should she want (or need) one, though strictly, Trish Godman is the incumbent in this neck of the woods. And she faces an improved lot, with notional vote (and majority) increasing by 1,000. That's indifferent news for Bill Wilson, SNP Regional MSP: his vote stays largely where it is and that moves him into second place. It's bad news for Tory Leader Annabel Goldie: having just snatched second place in 2007, and requiring less than a 4% swing to gain the kudos of a Constituency in the next Parliament, approximately 1,300 Tory voters go up the swannee and leave her languishing in a rather grim third place and needing an 8% swing to win - twice what she needed before.

Then there's the 'new' seat, Renfrewshire South, made from the offcuts of surrounding seats. If Hugh Henry can secure Paisley, this offers Ken Macintosh his meal ticket for 2011-15: Barrhead stays in the seat, which would have a Labour majority in excess of 5,000 votes.

So that gives us 7 Labour constituencies, 1 SNP and 1 Tory. What of the List?

Labour's Constituency performance rules out amy List seats anyway, giving them a net loss of one seat compared with the old West region. The SNP have something to cheer here: notionally, they gain an extra List seat, giving them five to play with. But if we have sitting Regional MSPs sticking with Constituencies they were pegged with in the run-up to 2007, the party still has a problem: Gil Paterson could keep fighting Clydebank and so move into East Central, creating two vacant slots. But there are three MSPs potentially moving from Central Scotland to fill them: Linda Fabiani, Christina McKelvie and John Wilson. If the remaining MSPs for the West do not lose out, one of these three must. One of them must find a new patch of East Central Scotland.

The Tories, meanwhile, face something of a disappointment: on the current Region, they were unfortunate not to get an extra seat - Labour picking up eight constituency seats when the strength of their vote merited seven across the region prevented the Tories from gaining seat number 3. Despite gaining Eastwood, and Labour going down to the expected level, the Tories do not gain that extra seat, which instead goes to the SNP.

The LibDems (I feel like I've been ignoring them, but the reality is that I can't see many talking points involving them in this new region) stay where they are. They'll have things (good and bad) to chew on in other regions, however.

Every dog has his breakfast

...and today, Fido's tasty morsels come to him from the Pedigree Boundary Commission range. Delights include Clydebank and North Renfrewshire, which straddles the Firth of Clyde, the decison to replace names of specific areas of Glasgow with compass points - and North Central Glasgow is one of the crappest names for a constituency ever conceived - and the decision to have seats named East Aberdeen and East Aberdeenshire. Indeed, the names will probably get the biggest protests and will go through several revisions until the final proposals come on the table. Good thing us electoral geeks have our wits about us!

Anyway, I've had to spend only the evening digesting the new boundaries, so ASwaS has done most of the hard work already, and it would be idiotic of me not to point you in his direction when most of what I say will be on similar lines.

So instead, let's indulge in some mindless speculation - who'll seek election where?

The North East sees Aberdeen basically swallowed and sicked up again (much like a dog's breakfast, in fact): Goodbye Aberdeen North and Aberdeen Central, hello West Aberdeen and East Aberdeen, both of which ASwaS estimates to be SNP seats, so Lewis Macdonald might be advised either to pick one, start schmoozing the minute the Westminster election finishes and hope for an SNP implosion, or try to displace Marlyn Glen on the List. Brian Adam can go for one Aberdeen seat, but what of Schools Minister Maureen Watt? Will she go for the other, and defend a notional constituency, or will she take aim at South Aberdeen and North Kincardine, and go toe to toe with Nicol Stephen instead? The former would probably be the most sensible. Also, the North East sees the creation of a new seat, with the development of West Angus, and East Angus & Mearns. Both of these are rich pickings for the SNP, and if SNP eleder statesman Andrew Welsh - he's the last member of the First Eleven still to be a member of any parliament - fancies carrying on, EA&M would be tempting for him.

Assuming that Labour forcibly retire Trish Godman, then Wendy Alexander would probably be a cert for the Central Paisley & West Renfrewshire selection, if she is still Leader and wants to stay on. The big question is then, will Annabel Goldie want to keep this as her stomping ground? If so, and if Alexander survives the various bear-traps that seem to be a feature of her Leadership, then we're looking at two major party leaders going head to head on the same ballot paper. Unfortunately for Bella, the presence of any part of Paisley makes it likely that she will come off second best, so she has every reason to decamp. But she might face resistance from fellow West of Scotland Tory MSP Jackson Carlaw, who was the candidate in Eastwood last time, so ought to have first dibs on the new look East Renfrewshire seat, which has a notional Tory lead. Ken McIntosh could try and move to South East Paisley and Barrhead (so he'd keep a few constituents), but Hugh Henry might have something to say about that. The selection battles in Renfrewshire will be a joy to behold.

Edinburgh goes through very few traumas, except that East Edinburgh loses Musselburgh, but gains Gilmerton and Moredun. Otherwise, the Commission's report lists the wards and seems to follow nearly every ward number with '(part)'. I am therefore forced to conclude that a Commissioner's four year old niece took personal charge of the Edinburgh proposals, deploying her favourite red Crayola to put her case together.

The South East is another area with interesting changes - Musselburgh finds itself linked with North Midlothian, but the biggest news is that Christine Grahame could finally do it in 2011: the SNP have a notional lead in in South Midlothian, Tweeddale & Lauderdale. LibDem MSP Jeremy Purvis - who stands to lose his job through this - is already crying foul and demanding changes.

And Central Scotland is the usual free-for-all. Karen Whitefield might find Lanark, Shotts and Whitburn a pleasant home, thus freeing Coatbridge & Central Airdrie for Elaine Smith. This creates a Labour slot in Kirkintilloch, Chryston & Kilsyth which would be just right for Cathie Craigie. Why? Because Cumbernauld & East Airdrie looks like an SNP notional, so Craigie staying in KCK would enable her to be on a ballot and avoid getting beaten by Jamie Hepburn. However, the big news, and perhaps the biggest surprise of this review is the evolution of Milngavie & Bishopbriggs, which could best be described a four-party free-for-all with, and again I cite ASwaS, the Tories squeaking ahead in first place. David Whitton at risk - to a Tory candidate as well? Could he try and chicken run to KCK? Will Cathie Craigie let him?

However. I've saved the most entertaining contest till last: the Glasgow selection battle. At first glance, this looks like a potential row between Frank McAveety and Margaret Curran's Hands, but my guess is that either Bill Butler or Patricia Ferguson will lose out. One of them will be lucky and get West Glasgow. This will make space for Paul Martin to fight North Glasgow, give Margaret Curran's Hands a clear run in East Glasgow and allow Frank McAveety to avoid a direct confrontation with Her With The Aggressive Hand Gestures. Govan seems to schlorp into South Central Glasgow, which will be a big ask. But she must fancy her chances. After all, who would the Labour candidate there actually be?!

While I'm here, a few final notes on those places that stay the same: Orkney and Shetland are protected by law; the Western Isles was not and was considered a possible seat for the chop, but Commissioners deemed it impractical to absorb it into another seat. They have, however, Gaelicised it to Na h-Eileanan an Iar. And the only changes to Falkirk East and Falkirk West is that they become East Falkirk and West Falkirk. Otherwise, they are the only mainland Constituencies not to be amended.

For once, I am actually looking forward to Valentine's Day

No, my expectations of romantic success haven't shot up, but the 14th is when the Boundary Commission for Scotland publishes its provisional proposals for the First Periodical Review of Scottish Parliament Boundaries. ASwaS has already picked up on this, and I'm now getting excited to the point where I'm toying with the idea of taking the 14th off work, using the extra flexitime hours I've accrued by getting a lift with someone who gets there at 7:30, so I can go through it.

Anyway, the principles guiding the review are as follows:

1. The new boundaries have to pay attention to Council area boundaries.

2. However, as far as possible, the constituencies have to have more or less equal electorates, so some Councils have to be grouped together.

3. In some cases, though, practicality and common sense may mitigate against these rules actually working in practice, so the Commission can throw them out the window when necessary (the Highlands and Islands).

4. Orkney and Shetland have their own rules: they're guaranteed one seat each.

5. The Western Isles are not, but common sense and the actual practicality (or lack of it) of a seat that covered the Western Isles and a large tract of the Highlands might just save the seat.

6. For the first time, and as a result of the new larger STV wards, Council wards are no longer necessarily the building blocks for Constituencies. While I imagine that the Commission will use them as a template to a large degree, don't be too surprised if you see wards split into two for review purposes.

So what do we know about the review? We know that Glasgow will lose one of its nine seats (by the way, anyone who tells you that Glasgow has ten seats is in error... despite the name, "Glasgow Rutherglen" is almost entirely in South Lanarkshire, so there!). However, for every loss, there's a gain: ASwaS has been looking at where it might be, and I rather fancy the idea of a seat straddling Aberdeenshire and Angus. That will make a mouthwatering prospect for the SNP.

And then there are the Regions, but we won't know about them until the Constituencies are settled.

I'm a total geek. I freely admit that. And right now, I can barely contain myself.