DOCSLIB.ORG

Coincidence of Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries in Scotland and the Consequences of Change

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Coincidence of Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries in Scotland and the Consequences of Change House of Commons Scottish Affairs Committee Coincidence of Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries in Scotland and the Consequences of Change First Report of Session 2003–04 Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 21 January 2004 HC 77 Incorporating HC 1256–i to iii, Session 2002-03 and HC 77–i Published on 3 February 2004 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £15.50 The Scottish Affairs Committee The Scottish Affairs Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Scotland Office (including (i) relations with the Scottish Parliament and (ii) administration and expenditure of the office of the Advocate General for Scotland (but excluding individual cases and advice given within government by the Advocate General)). Current membership Mrs Irene Adams MP (Labour, Paisley North) (Chairman) Mr Alistair Carmichael MP (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland) Mr Peter Duncan MP (Conservative, Galloway and Upper Nithsdale) Mr David Hamilton MP (Labour, Midlothian) Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger MP (Conservative, Bridgwater) Mr John Lyons MP (Labour, Strathkelvin and Bearsden) Mr John MacDougall MP (Labour, Fife Central) Ann McKechin MP (Labour, Glasgow Maryhill) John Robertson MP (Labour, Glasgow Anniesland) Mr Mohammed Sarwar MP (Labour, Glasgow Govan) Mr Michael Weir MP (SNP, Angus) Powers The committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk. Publications The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/scottish_affairs_committee.cfm. A list of Reports of the Committee in the present Parliament is at the back of this volume. Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are Mike Clark(Clerk), Diane Nelson (Committee Assistant) and Joanne Larcombe (Secretary). Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Scottish Affairs Committee, House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 6295; the Committee’s email address is [email protected]. Coincidence of Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries in Scotland and the Consequences of Change 1 Contents Report Page 1 Introduction 3 2 The Size of the Scottish Parliament 3 3 Coterminosity of Constituency Boundaries 5 4 Voting Systems and Methods 7 Four Voting Systems? 7 New Voting Methods 9 5 The Scottish Parliament (Constituencies) Bill 10 Conclusions and recommendations 11 Formal minutes 12 Witnesses 15 List of written evidence 16 Publications from the Scottish Affairs Committee since 2001 17 Coincidence of Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries in Scotland and the Consequences of Change 3 1 Introduction 1. In March 2002 the Boundary Commission for Scotland published provisional recommendations which would reduce the number of Scottish constituencies represented at Westminster from 72 to 59. On 18 December 2002 the then Secretary of State for Scotland announced that the Government would be seeking to amend the Scotland Act 1998 so that the number of Members of the Scottish Parliament would not, as a consequence, be reduced pro rata.1 The Committee announced on 16 September 2003 that it would be undertaking an inquiry into the consequences for Scotland’s governance and political life, including the implications for voters, of the creation of different constituency boundaries in Scotland for elections to the United Kingdom and to the Scottish Parliament. 2. The Committee held four sessions of oral evidence, taking evidence from representatives from the Scottish Labour Party, the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party, the Scottish Liberal Democrats, the Scottish National Party, the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA), the Scottish Trades Union Congress , the Electoral Commission, the Association of Electoral Administrators (AEA), Professor Robert Hazell and Dr David Butler, Patricia Ferguson MSP, Minister for Parliamentary Business, the Scottish Executive, and Rt Hon Alistair Darling MP, Secretary of State for Scotland. 3. Whilst the Committee was conducting its evidence sessions, the Scottish Parliament (Constituencies) Bill was introduced, and received its formal first reading, on 27 November 2003. The Bill will “replace Schedule 1 to the Scotland Act 1998 making new provision in relation to the constituencies for the Scottish Parliament”,2 removing the present link between the constituencies for the Scottish Parliament and those for the House of Commons.3 The Committee’s view on how the Bill’s further stages should be dealt with is set out at the end of this Report. 2 The Size of the Scottish Parliament 4. The first issue the Committee addressed in its inquiry was whether there should be any change in the current number of 129 Members of the Scottish Parliament.4 When the representatives of the four main Scottish political parties appeared before the Committee, they were asked whether they were in favour of retaining the number of MSPs at 129 (the figure arrived at during the discussions in the 1990s in the Scottish Constitutional Convention), in particular as a means of keeping the Committees of the Scottish Parliament functioning properly and in providing the Parliament with some stability. Dr Derek Barrie of the Scottish Liberal Democrats answered: 1 See Official Report, 18 December 2002, cols. 859-872 2 Bill 4 3 Bill 4–EN, para. 3 4 73 MSPs are elected for constituencies, with the remaining 56 being elected from one of eight regional lists 4 Coincidence of Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries in Scotland and the Consequences of Change “Yes. The committee system seems to be working very well in the Scottish Parliament and any time there is talk of reducing the numbers of Committees people claim that that will greatly increase the workload.”5 Cllr Mark McInnes of the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party stated: “To make up the shortfall in Committees, we would see the Scottish Parliament working longer days rather than the present timetable to make up for those lost Members.”6 For the Scottish National Party, Mr Grant Thoms said: “When it comes to the number of Scottish Parliament Members, certainly 129 has been the minimum working arrangement, and experience has shown that, in terms of the Committee structure, it has been important to keep to that sort of level.”7 However, later on in his evidence, he said that, should full powers be returned to the Scottish Parliament, then: “…I would see a proportionate number of Members to the Scottish Parliament to make it workable for the increased workload that is there—not to say 600, but even 200 might cover the whole of Scotland in terms of the full powers that a Scottish Parliament could be looking at.”8 Mrs Lesley Quinn, for the Scottish Labour Party responded: “The Scottish Labour Party’s position at the moment is that the Scottish Parliament should remain at 129, and that has more to do with the stability of the Parliament in the first term, because there are a number of issues, and we believe there should be a full term to try and get some stability.”9 The Scottish Parliament’s Minister for Parliamentary Business said that both the Executive and the Scottish Parliament held the view that 129 MSPs was the correct number: “The Scottish Executive took the opportunity to respond to the consultation that was put under way by the then Secretary of State for Scotland on the issue and commented that 129 seemed to us to be the right number for the moment. In addition, the Scottish Parliament itself debated the issued and came to the same conclusion. We do have a shared view in that respect.”10 5 Q17 6 ibid 7 ibid 8 Q28 9 Q17 10 Q220 Coincidence of Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries in Scotland and the Consequences of Change 5 During his evidence, the Secretary of State for Scotland stated: “I am not aware of a great clamour in Scotland to increase the number of MSPs at all. That is not to say there may not be one or two, but I think people in Scotland will probably take the view that 129 is fine…”11 He continued: “It is fairly settled that the number of 129 will stay for the time being.”12 5. During its evidence sessions, the Committee was not made aware of any good case for the current number of MSPs to be either reduced or increased. We are satisfied, therefore, that the number of MSPs should remain, for the time being, at 129. 3 Coterminosity of Constituency Boundaries 6. There was consensus amongst witnesses that having coterminous boundaries for Westminster and Holyrood assisted political parties organisationally. In response to a question asking if coterminous boundaries would be desirable, representatives from the parties responded: “Within the Labour Party’s organisation, yes.”13 (Mrs Quinn) “Ideally, we would all agree with Lesley and we would like terms that make our lives easier.”14 (Cllr McInnes) “I agree with that. There is no doubt that, if we do not have coterminosity, there will be far more problems for the party hacks amongst us than for other people.”15 (Dr Barrie) 7. Whilst convenience for political parties is one benefit of having coterminous boundaries, it is far from being the most important. In his evidence, Grant Thoms of
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Durham Research Online
    Durham Research Online Deposited in DRO: 11 October 2011 Version of attached le: Published Version Peer-review status of attached le: Peer-reviewed Citation for published item: Masterman, R. and Mitchell, J. (2001) 'Devolution and the centre.', in The state of the nations 2001 : the second year of devolution in the United Kingdom. Thorverton: Imprint Academic, pp. 175-196. Further information on publisher's website: http://www.booksonix.com/imprint/bookshop/ Publisher's copyright statement: Additional information: Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. Durham University Library, Stockton Road, Durham DH1 3LY, United Kingdom Tel : +44 (0)191 334 3042 | Fax : +44 (0)191 334 2971 https://dro.dur.ac.uk 8 Devolution and the Centre' Roger Masterman and James Mitchell INTRODUCTION Much of the debate on devolution before the enactment of the various pieces of devolution legislation was parochial. It had been parochial in concentrat- ing on the opportunities, problems and implications of devolution within Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland; little attention had been paid to devo- lution's impact UK on the as a whole or on the `centre' - Whitehall and Westminster.
    [Show full text]
  • THE DEMOGRAPHY of SCOTLAND and the IMPLICATIONS for DEVOLUTION — EVIDENCE from POPULATION Mattersi
    THE DEMOGRAPHY OF SCOTLAND AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR DEVOLUTION — EVIDENCE FROM POPULATION MATTERSi Key Points • Scotland’s population is growing, but more slowly and ageing more quickly than the remainder of the United Kingdom. • Scotland has lower fertility than the remainder of the United Kingdom. • Both the United Kingdom and Scottish populations are consuming ecological resources at an unsustainable rate. • The focus should be on managing the transition to a sustainable, stable population with a different demographic profile, not on trying artificially to maintain an existing demographic profile. • Responses to demographic change require long-term policies and plans. • Population must be given more attention in government through the appointment of senior ministers who have responsibility for this across departments. • Policies to encourage more efficient use of the existing labour pool and to reduce unintended pregnancies should be introduced. • The Scottish Government has significant policy levers; however, the devolving of powers over employment should be considered because of the differing nature of the demographic challenges in Scotland and the remainder of the United Kingdom. Reasons for Revision A first version of this evidence paper was submitted to the Scottish Affairs Committee in February 2016. Since this time, new population data for Scotland and the UK has become available, and the UK has voted in a national referendum to leave the European Union. In light of these recent developments, Population Matters has decided that it is appropriate that we revise our evidence report, including the most recent data, and the impact that the EU referendum result is likely to have on Scottish and UK demographics.
    [Show full text]
  • Demography of Scotland and the Implications for Devolution: Government Response to the Committee’S Second Report of Session 2016–17
    House of Commons Scottish Affairs Committee Demography of Scotland and the implications for devolution: Government Response to the Committee’s Second Report of Session 2016–17 Fourth Special Report of Session 2016–17 Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 16 January 2017 HC 938 Published on 20 January 2017 by authority of the House of Commons The Scottish Affairs Committee The Scottish Affairs Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Scotland Office (including (i) relations with the Scottish Parliament and (ii) administration and expenditure of the offices of the Advocate General for Scotland (but excluding individual cases and advice given within government by the Advocate General)). Current membership Pete Wishart (Scottish National Party, Perth and North Perthshire) (Chair) Deidre Brock (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh North and Leith) Mr Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch) Mr Jim Cunningham (Labour, Coventry South) Margaret Ferrier (Scottish National Party, Rutherglen and Hamilton West) Mr Stephen Hepburn (Labour, Jarrow) Chris Law (Scottish National Party, Dundee West) Ian Murray (Labour, Edinburgh South) Dr Dan Poulter (Conservative, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) Anna Soubry (Conservative, Broxtowe) John Stevenson (Conservative, Carlisle) The following Members were also members of the Committee during the Parliament: Mr David Anderson (Labour, Blaydon), Kirsty Blackman (Scottish National Party, Aberdeen North) and Maggie Throup (Conservative, Erewash) Powers The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No. 152. These are available on the internet via www.parliament.uk.
    [Show full text]
  • National Framework for Service Change in the NHS in Scotland
    National Framework for Service Change in the NHS in Scotland Drivers for Change in Health Care in Scotland National Planning Team May 2005 Contents. 1. Introduction 2 2. The changing population, patterns of ill-health 3 and the health service response 3. Health Inequalities 35 4. Patient Expectations 39 5. Remoteness and Rurality 42 6. Finance and Performance 44 7. Workforce 48 8. Clinical Standards and Quality 65 9. Medical Science 70 10. Information and Communication Technology 75 11. Conclusion 80 1 1. Introduction This paper pulls together, for the first time, the key factors driving change in Scotland’s health care system. Much of the information is already in the public domain but in this analysis we attempt to examine the inter-dependency of the various drivers and to seek to provide some clarity about what they mean for the future shape of the health service in Scotland. The position is complex. Not all of the factors driving change point in the same direction. But the implications are obvious: • change is inevitable • given the complexity of the drivers, planning for change is essential • “more of the same” is not the solution – to meet the challenge of the drivers will require new ways of working, involving the whole health care system in the change process. We do not attempt in this document to provide solutions. Rather, we seek to inform a debate about what those solutions might be. That debate needs to involve patients, the public, NHS staff and our clinical leaders. Its outcome will have considerable influence on the development of the National Framework for Service Change and its subsequent implementation.
    [Show full text]
  • Electoral Statistics for Scotland As at 1 December 2018
    Electoral Statistics for Scotland as at 1 December 2018 Published on 22 March 2019 This statistical report provides information on the number of people registered to vote in UK Parliament, Scottish Parliament and Local Government elections. Electoral Statistics, Scotland, December 2018 Summary Electorates in Scotland Number of people registered to vote (millions) have decreased in 2018 4.11 The decrease in electorate compared with 2017 is 0.6% for the UK Parliament electorate in Scotland and 0.4% for the 3.99 Scottish Parliament 3.97 Scottish Parliament and Local and Local Government Government electorate. The 3.93 decrease in 2015 was caused by the introduction of Individual Electoral Registration (IER). UK Parliament 2001 2018 Number of attainers Number of attainers (thousands) remains similar to the previous year Attainers are people who will become old enough to vote (18 44.2 UK Parliament for UK Parliament, or 16 for 44.0 41.3 Scottish Parliament and Local Government elections) before December 2019. Since the Scottish Parliament voting age was lowered in and Local Government Scotland, there have been more 20.2 attainers for UK Parliament elections than for Scottish Parliament and Local 2008 2018 Government elections. Most electoral wards Change in electorate over previous year see a decrease Greater than 3.5% 5 wards compared to their 2.5% to 3.5% 6 wards electorate in 2017 electorate increasing 1.5% to 2.5% 16 wards Electoral wards are the sub- 0.5% to 1.5% 41 wards council level areas that are used -0.5% to 0.5% 111 wards to elect councillors for Local -1.5% to -0.5% 110 wards Government elections.
    [Show full text]
  • Immigration and Scotland
    House of Commons Scottish Affairs Committee Immigration and Scotland Fourth Report of Session 2017–19 Report, together with formal minutes relating to the report Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 4 July 2018 HC 488 Published on 11 July 2018 by authority of the House of Commons The Scottish Affairs Committee The Scottish Affairs Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Scotland Office (including (i) relations with the Scottish Parliament and (ii) administration and expenditure of the offices of the Advocate General for Scotland (but excluding individual cases and advice given within government by the Advocate General)). Current membership Pete Wishart MP (Scottish National Party, Perth and North Perthshire) (Chair) Deidre Brock MP (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh North and Leith) David Duguid MP (Conservative, Banff and Buchan) Hugh Gaffney MP (Labour, Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) Christine Jardine MP (Liberal Democrat, Edinburgh West) Ged Killen MP (Labour (Co-op), Rutherglen and Hamilton West) John Lamont MP (Conservative, Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) Paul Masterton MP (Conservative, East Renfrewshire) Danielle Rowley MP (Labour, Midlothian) Tommy Sheppard MP (Scottish National Party, Edinburgh East) Ross Thomson MP (Conservative, Aberdeen South) Powers The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No. 152. These are available on the internet via www.parliament.uk. Publication Committee reports are published on the Committee’s website and in print by Order of the House. Evidence relating to this report is published on the inquiry publications page of the Committee’s website.
    [Show full text]
  • Scottish Independence Referendum Report on the Referendum Held on 18 September 2014
    Scottish Independence Referendum Report on the referendum held on 18 September 2014 December 2014 ELC/2014/02 This report is laid before the Scottish Parliament in pursuance of Section 27 of the Scottish Independence Referendum Act 2013. ELC/2014/02 Translations and other formats For information on obtaining this publication in another language or in a large- print or Braille version please contact the Electoral Commission: Tel: 020 7271 0500 Email: [email protected] We are an independent body set up by the UK Parliament. We regulate party and election finance and set standards for well-run elections. We work to support a healthy democracy, where elections and referendums are based on our principles of trust, participation, and no undue influence. The Scottish Independence Referendum Act 2013 gave the Commission a number of responsibilities for the referendum, for which we report directly to the Scottish Parliament. Contents Foreword 1 Executive Summary 4 1 Introduction 22 2 The referendum legislation 28 3 Information for voters about the referendum 42 4 The experience of voters 58 5 Campaigning at the referendum 82 6 Was the referendum well-run? 119 7 The cost of the referendum 145 Appendices Appendix 1 - Research methodology 150 Appendix 2 - List of registered campaigners 151 Appendix 3 - Summary of referendum results 152 Appendix 4 - Electoral Commission Voting Guide 154 Foreword As part of the legislation passed by the Scottish Parliament enabling the historic referendum on independence for Scotland on 18 September 2014, the Electoral Commission was tasked with producing a report on the conduct of the referendum and our associated expenditure.
    [Show full text]
  • Devolution and the Centre Monitoring Report
    EVOLUTION ONITORING ROGRAMME 2006-08 Devolution and the Centre Monitoring Report January 2009 Robert Hazell The Constitution Unit www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit ISSN 1751-3898 The Devolution Monitoring Programme From 1999 to 2005 the Constitution Unit at University College London managed a major research project monitoring devolution across the UK through a network of research teams. 103 reports were produced during this project, which was funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (grant number L 219 252 016) and the Leverhulme Nations and Regions Programme. Now, with further funding from the Economic and social research council and support from several government departments, the monitoring programme is continuing for a further three years from 2006 until the end of 2008. Three times per year, the research network produces detailed reports covering developments in devolution in five areas: Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, the Englsh Regions, and Devolution and the Centre. The overall monitoring project is managed by Professor Robert Hazell at The Constitution Unit, UCL and the team leaders are as follows: Scotland: Dr Paul Cairney University of Aberdeen Wales: Prof Richard Wyn Jones & Prof Roger Scully Institute of Welsh Politics, Aberystwyth University Northern Ireland: Professor Rick Wilford & Robin Wilson Queen’s University, Belfast English Regions: Prof Alan Harding & Dr James Rees IPEG, University of Manchester The Centre: Prof Robert Hazell, The Constitution Unit, UCL The Constitution Unit and the rest of the research network is grateful to all the funders of the devolution monitoring programme. All devolution monitoring reports are published at: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution- unit/research/devolution/devo-monitoring-programme.html Devolution and the Centre Monitoring Report January 2009 Robert Hazell Devolution and the Centre Monitoring Report January 2009 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS 5 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Nations and Regions: the Dynamics of Devolution
    Nations and Regions: The Dynamics of Devolution Quarterly Monitoring Programme Devolution and the Centre Quarterly Report February 2003 by Guy Lodge The monitoring programme is jointly funded by the ESRC and the Leverhulme Trust 1 Contents Contents Key Points 1 Devolution and Westminster 1.1 House of Lords Debate on the Constitution 1.2 New Breakaway Conservative Party 1.3 House of Lords Constitution Committee 1.4 Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill 1.5 Parliamentary Questions to the Wales Office 1.6 The Work of the Territorial Select Committees 1.7 The Work of the Grand Committees 1.8 Select Committee on the Lord Chancellor’s Department 1.9 Minority Party Representation on Select Committees 1.10 Barnett Formula 1.11 House of Lords Reform 2 Devolution and Whitehall 2.1 Edwina Hart accuses Whitehall of obstructing National Assembly 2.2 Helen Liddell Announces Decision on MSP Numbers 2.3 The Future of the Territorial Offices 3 Intergovernmental Relations 3.1 Meeting of JMC (Europe) 3.2 British-Irish Council Summit 3.3 Meeting of the British-Irish Council Environment Group 3.4 Meeting of the British-Irish Council Drugs Group 3.5 UK Government and the Devolved Bodies Launch the Animal Health and Welfare Strategy Consultation 2 Key Points • Assembly Finance Minister Edwina Hart criticises Whitehall civil servants • Lord Norton debate on the British Constitution in the House of Lords • Helen Liddell announces that the number of MSPs will remain at 129 in the outcome of the consultation on the size of the Scottish Parliament. • House of Lords Constitution Committee publishes Devolution: Inter- Institutional Relations in the United Kingdom • House of Lords debate on the Barnett Formula • Second Reading and Committee Stage of the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill • Seven options for Lords Reform fail to gain a majority.
    [Show full text]
  • Scottish Devolution: Identity and Impact and the Case of Community Care for the Elderly
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Ulster University's Research Portal SCOTTISH DEVOLUTION: IDENTITY AND IMPACT AND THE CASE OF COMMUNITY CARE FOR THE ELDERLY GORDON MARNOCH This article examines the emergent identity and impact of devolution in Scotland. Using the case of community care for the elderly, a model is set out for capturing the different interpretive perspectives evident in relation to a particular policy area in 1999–2001. The political story of the ‘free personal care’ issue, in which the Scottish Executive were unexpectedly forced into adopting a markedly different policy from the rest of the UK, is examined in some detail. Setting the episode in a broader con- text, four discursive thematics are identified in relation to the policy case. A model is demonstrated for examining different aspects of devolution including constitutional level and sub-system aspects of post-devolution governance. Conclusions are drawn as to the meaning which should be ascribed to the discourse associated with devolu- tion and community care for the elderly. INTRODUCTION This article sets out a scheme for comprehending the emergent identity and impact of Scottish devolution. The legislative work of the Labour Govern- ment in its first year of office produced arguably the greatest constitutional upheaval since the Great Reform Act in 1832. While it is tempting to discuss devolution in the constitutional language in which the settlement was conceived, actual policy processes observed are seen to be every bit as dependent on an understanding of the language of low politics used in the sub-systems of government.
    [Show full text]
  • Tell Us What You Think About MEMO!
    5 December 2016 ISSUE 505 Minority Ethnic Matters Overview MEMO is produced by the Scottish Council of Jewish Communities in partnership with BEMIS - empowering Scotland's ethnic and cultural Supported by minority communities. It provides an overview of information of interest to minority ethnic communities in Scotland, including parliamentary activity at Holyrood and Westminster, new publications, consultations, forthcoming conferences and news reports. Contents Immigration and Asylum Other News Community Relations Bills in Progress Equality Consultations Racism, Religious Hatred, and Discrimination Job Opportunities Other Scottish Parliament and Government Funding Opportunities Other UK Parliament and Government Events/Conferences/Training New Publications Useful Links Note that some weblinks, particularly of newspaper articles, are only valid for a short period of time, usually around a month, and that the Scottish and UK Parliament and Government websites been redesigned, so that links published in back issues of MEMO may no longer work. To find archive material on these websites, copy details from MEMO into the relevant search facility. Please send information for inclusion in MEMO to [email protected] and requests to be added to circulation to [email protected] Tell us what you think about MEMO! SCoJeC, in association with Bemis, and with the support of the Scottish Government, has published MEMO for more than 11 years. During that time we have received a lot of positive feedback but we would love to hear from more of our readers. Please tell us what you think of MEMO, how you use it, whether you pass it on, and what you think of the range of topics we cover.
    [Show full text]
  • Population and Household Projections for Scottish Sub-Council Areas (2012-Based)
    Population and Household Projections for Scottish Sub-Council Areas (2012-based) Population projections by age and sex, and household projections by age group and household type, at sub-council area level Published on 23 March 2016 Experimental Statistics: data being developed These statistics are currently being developed and have been published to involve users and stakeholders in their development, and to build in quality and understanding at an early stage. Contents Main Points .......................................................................................................................... 5 1. Background ............................................................................................................ 8 2. Uses and limitations of projections ....................................................................... 15 3. Sub-council area projection results ...................................................................... 17 4. Methodology and assumptions ............................................................................. 55 5. Further information ............................................................................................... 77 6. Notes on statistical publications ......................................................................... 142 7. Related organisations......................................................................................... 144 List of Tables Table A: Project milestones..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]