Berwickshire Roxburgh and Selkirk
2010 Results:
Conservative: 16555 (33.78%)
Labour: 5003 (10.21%)
Liberal Democrat: 22230 (45.35%)
SNP: 4497 (9.17%)
UKIP: 595 (1.21%)
Others: 134 (0.27%)
Majority: 5675 (11.57%)
2005 Results:
Liberal Democrat: 18993 (41.8%)
Conservative: 13092 (28.8%)
Labour: 7206 (15.9%)
SNP: 3885 (8.6%)
Other: 2212 (4.9%)
Majority: 5901 (13%)
Boundary changes prior to 2005 election: Name of seat changed from Roxburgh and Berwickshire.
2001 Result
Conservative: 6533 (22.7%)
Labour: 4498 (15.6%)
Liberal Democrat: 14044 (48.8%)
SNP: 2806 (9.7%)
Other: 916 (3.2%)
Majority: 7511 (26.1%)
1997 Result
Conservative: 8337 (23.9%)
Labour: 5226 (15%)
Liberal Democrat: 16243 (46.5%)
SNP: 3959 (11.3%)
Referendum: 922 (2.6%)
Other: 244 (0.7%)
Majority: 7906 (22.6%)
No Boundary Changes:
Profile:
Current MP: Michael Moore(Liberal Democrat) born 1965, Dundonald. Educated at Jedburgh Grammar School and Edinburgh University. Chartered accountant. MP for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale since 1997. Transport spokesman 1997-2001, deputy foreign affairs spokesman 2001-2005, Lib Dem shadow defence secretary 2005-2006, foreign secretary 2006-2007, for international development since 2007 (more information at They work for you)
John Lamont (Conservative) Born 1976. Educated at Kilwinning Academy and Glasgow University. Solicitor. Contested Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk 2005. Member of the Scottish Parliament for Roxburgh and Berwickshire since 2007.
Ian Miller (Labour) Carpet retailer. Chairman of Scottish Co-operative Party. Midlothian councillor. Michael Moore(Liberal Democrat) born 1965, Dundonald. Educated at Jedburgh Grammar School and Edinburgh University. Chartered accountant. MP for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale since 1997. Transport spokesman 1997-2001, deputy foreign affairs spokesman 2001-2005, Lib Dem shadow defence secretary 2005-2006, lib dem shadow foreign secretary 2006-2007, lib dem shadow secretary for international development 2007-2008, Lib Dem Scottish and NI spokesman 2008-2010. Secretary of State for Scotland since 2010 (more information at They work for you)
Paul Wheelhouse (SNP) born 1970, Dundonald. Educated at Stewart`s Melville College, Aberdeen University and University of Edinburgh Management School. Economic consultant.
Sherry Fowler (UKIP)Chris Black (Scottish Jacobite Party)2001 Census Demographics
Total 2001 Population: 89370
Male: 48.2%
Female: 51.8%
Under 18: 21.9%
Over 60: 24.9%
Born outside UK: 2.7%
White: 99.4%
Asian: 0.2%
Other: 0.2%
Christian: 67.2%
Graduates 16-74: 18.8%
No Qualifications 16-74: 35.4%
Owner-Occupied: 59.2%
Social Housing: 25.3% (Council: 14.5%, Housing Ass.: 10.8%)
Privately Rented: 10.5%
Homes without central heating and/or private bathroom: 7.2%
‘This is the West Lothian question at its worst. It stinks.’
well the only way forward is some devolution for England I suppose.
I only just realised how bad Michael Moore’s remarks sounded…. substantially worse than Cable as most people had an idea about what Cable felt about Murdoch before.
I quite agree, A. Brown.
The trouble is that the English regions currently used are quite ridiculous and unfair, particularly with regard to the South East. it is quite understandable that David Cameron, as an Oxfordshire MP who was right on the edge of the South Eastern gerrymander, acted quickly to get rid of unelected regional bodies. The problem is that the North Easterners’ sensible action in voting down a bad proposal for regional devolution is now used by Westminster as an excuse for excessive, economically and socially crippling, centrailzation of power in Westminster, instead of as a reason for coming up with something sensible, that people would vote for, by way of English regional devolution.
Actually, the LibDems, with ideas about federalism, are probably the most sensible of the three major parties on regional devolution. Labour and the Tories are just burying their heads in the sand on this matter.
As a Borders MP, MIchael Moore, together with his neighbour Alan Beith in the English seat of Berwick upon Tweed, are at the sharp end of inequalities resulting from Scottish devolution. At a practical level, sooner or later one or the other of these MPs is going to get electorally embarrassed by publicity about inequality for similarly placed people just on either side of the constituency boundary between the two seats. Indeed searching for such cases could be a more ethical journalistic exercise than undercover investigation of LibDem ministers and MPs.
By the way, I am posting from England, but I have a Scottish university degree.
The problem is exacerbated by the centralising of power in London which is by far the least English part of England.
@Frederic Stanfield. I agree fully with you
I agree with what you’ve said, I support real devolution for England. Certainly proper constitutional reform would have to be properly thought through, not be rushed and be either Tri-partisan or non partisan.
It’s a shame that Moore did not abstain on the tuition fees bill as that it would have thrown a spanner in the works and people wanted that sort of problem from a hung parliament.
The point is not to criticise the Scottish parliament but to ask why a chunk of Labour politicians and nearly the whole of the tory party are ducking electoral reform for self interest.
An even bigger issue is that English Westminster MPs are getting sidetracked by the establishment into getting bogged down by individual casework that really ought to be dealt with at local or regional level. The appalling economic and military decline of the UK is largely due to inadequate scrutiny of the executive, and of a parliament that does not attact the best and brightest to climb the political ladder . One indication of this is the recent trend to elect leaders, including all of Cameron, Clegg and Miliband who have little parliamentary experience.
And people who will rock the boat when desirable (but not too often) increasingly fail to get through the major parties’ selection procedures.
Perhaps unusually, I also agree with Frederic. In fairness, it’s not easy to divide England up into regions of fairly equal size, but there’s no excuse for the ridiculous South East region.
In some areas of the country, the city-region proposals make a lot of sense, but it’s not obvious how they could translate to areas with no major city, or to the vast area dominated by London.
Anyway, I’d fully support devolution to elected bodies covering English regions which don’t appear to have been thrown together at random. Does anyone have any proposal for dividing up the whole country?
I devised some regions some time ago which were to some extent based on the old Heptarchy and otherwise gave better recognition to natural regions, breaking up the unwieldy and illogical southern regions while keeping those in the midlands and north broadly the same.
Northumbria: Northumberland; Tyne & Wear; Durham; Hartlepool; Stockton
capital Newcastle or Durham
Yorkshire: Middlesbrough; Redcar; N Yorkshire; East Yorkshire; Hill; W Yorkshire; S Yorkshire
capital Leeds or York
Lancastria: Cumbria; Lancashire; Gtr Manchester; Merseyside; Cheshire (same as current NW)
capital Manchester or Lancaster
West Mercia: Shrpshire; Herefordshire; Worcestershire; Warwickshire; West Midlands; Staffordshire (same as current West Midlands)
capital Birmingham or Tamworth
East Mercia: Derbyshire; Nottinghamshire; Leicestershire; Rutland; Lincolnshire (including N & NE Lincs); Northamptonshire; Peterborough
capital Nottingham or Lincoln
Essex-East Anglia: Huntingdonshire; Cambridgeshire; Norfolk; Suffolk; Essex
capital Cambridge
Thames-Chiltern: Hertfordshire; Bedfordshire; Buckinghamshire; Berkshire; Oxfordshire
capital Oxford
Sussex-Kent: Surrey; Kent; East Sussex; West Sussex
capital Brighton
Lower Wessex: Hamsphire; Isle of Wight; Dorset
capital Southampton or Winchester
Upper Wessex: Wiltshire; Gloucestershire; Bristol; Somerset
capital Bristol
Devon & Cornwall: Devon; Cornwall
capital Plymouth
my choices of capitals in some regions depend on whether people would wish to go for the major metropolis or some small but historcally significant town. I personally favour the former
I would have Cumbria in a Northumbria rather than Lancastria.
You should also have the regional capitals in the historic towns and not the biggest cities.
Having Leeds as Yorkshire’s capital would be hated in Sheffield and Bradford especially.
Would Colchester be a better capital for East Anglia rather than ladidah Cambridge?
Yes I think Colchester could be a contender. I imagine there’d be rival bids from various towns. And then the powers that be would probably choose Haverhill or somewhere like that
Colchester would have the history – Romans etc and it would help ‘bind’ Essex into the rest of East Anglia.
Re the Anglo-Saxon Heptarchy, were the capitals:
Northumbria – York
Mercia – Tamworth
Wessex – Winchester
East Anglia – Norwich ?
Essex – Colchester ?
Sussex – ?
Kent – Canterbury ?
The capital of the Kingdom of Essex was London.
The capital of Sussex (and I didn’t know this but according to Wikipedia) was Selsey. East Anglia is not specified ?
There’s a big campaign to get the recently discovered Anglo-Saxon treasure housed in Tamworth given the town was capital of the Kingdom of Mercia as Richard points out.
Looks very much like Christine Grahame will win the Midlothian South, Tweeddale and Lauderdale seat this year. A shame, I don’t like that woman, and by the look of the Scotland votes website (or something like that, can’t remember now) the residents of Penicuik aren’t too fond of her either! There seems to have been something of a tactical onslaught to make sure the LDs held the seat last time. However, with Gorebridge and Newtongrange being added to the seat this time, I can’t see the LDs holding on, particularly given how poorly they are polling at present.
@ Calumsmith
Yes, there is hardly any chance of the lib dems gaining Midl S & Tweeddale even they maintain most of their support in the latter area.
I’m not sure exactly what will happen in Ettrick, Rox & Berw though. Certainly a Tory hold but will be interesting to see if LD support drops below 30% or not.
I’ve mad my views on regional government know on this site before. I’ve got no problem with the current boundaries. To me, the regions are there to sub-devide England into small units that are roughly the size of the home nations.
Although maybe the South East should be split in two with the South East region covering just Kent, East Sussex, West Sussex and Surry and a new South Central region covering Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire, Berkshire, Hampshire and Isle of Wight.
I’ve always believed in regional government, but the problem is that there are veriouse different possible forms of it.
I agree that county councils should be abolished and local government re-organisaed into unitary councils that are larger than current districts but smaller than current counties.
The problem with regional assemblies is that they could either have:
A) very limited powers similar to county councils at the moment. But this effectivly recreates the two-tier local government system created in 1974 with the top-tier covering a larger area.
or
B) Powers similare to the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly. But this would mean devolution for the whole of the UK and there would be only a few policy areas decided by the Westminster Parliament. This could rist breaking up the UK, which, as a unionist, I don’t want to see happen.
So, the solution is:
Have a system of regional offices for each region. These would function in the same way as the pre-devolution Welsh and Scottish offices. Policy would be decided by Westminster and would be implimented by the regional offices. These could also co-operate with the unitary councils to co-ordiante some public services on a region wide basis. This may also lead to some small variations in public services delivered in each region, like there were small differences between Scotland and England pre 1999.
Each regional office would be funded using the headed by a regional minister who would be a junior minister at a ‘Department for the Regions and Nations’. The Secratery of State for the Regions and Nations would be a cabinet minister and the roles of secratery of state for Scotland and Wales would be abolished. Scotland and Wales would however still have junior ministers at the DRN.
Sorry, typing error. That should have been: funded using the Barnet formula and headed by a Secratery of State for the Regions and Nations, at the top of the last paragraph.
Sorry, but we are the People’s Republic of Merseyside and nothing else will do. Lancastria can have Southport, though
@A Brown
From what I have seen there is considerable anger at the Lib Dems betraying their voters. I am certain their vote will be well below 30% and picking Robson again was a big mistake – seen as a flop prior to losing to Lamont in 2007.
There has been some erosion of the Tory vote too, due to disquiet at the scale of cuts. As to what the final percentages will be, it is far too early to say.
Its a long shot on the notional figures, but perhaps Labour cannot be altogether ruled out in Midlothian South and Tweedale
Pete, I would be very suprised if Labour were to even come close in South Midlothian, Tweeddale and Lauderdale. Their candidate has good local Labour connections in the Midlothian area, but he is not an effective performer and I think he will be heavily squeezed. I could be worng, but not based on what I have heard so far he will not win.
Thus demonstrating you should proof read….
- based on what I have heard so far, he will not win.
Squeezed by whom? There’s not an awful lot of squeezing of the Labour vote going on in Britain at the moment; many voters are still ill-disposed enough towards Labour to oppose the party, but that’s a different matter altogether.
Labour are strong in the Midlothian South ward so they should poll 55-60% there.
They should also recover a lot of ground from the lib dems in Penicuik from last time.
I don’t know what will happen to the lib dem vote in Galashiels etc as their campaign/MSP office is based there
A, I think that Penicuik would perhaps still be better for the SNP than Labour, given that they came third here in the 2007 local elections. I would not rule out a Labour gain though, since as you say Newtongrange and Gorebridge are solidly Labour. It will be an interesting result though, given that there is a degree of support for all four main parties here – each should get at least 15% of the vote anyway.
@Calum Smith
Fair enough, the SNP did win the most votes in Penicuik in 2007, the council result in Penicuik was:
SNP 34.7
LD 29.6
Lab 23.3
Con 10.4
My point is that there will be competition between labour and the SNP to win a plurarity of votes there.
No offence to those on this site who support English devolution but I don’t THINK a lot of English people particularly care about it.
Why? Well, several referendums for regional assemblies in different parts of England have been voted down. Also, given that much legislation concerning Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales has been devolved to their respective parliament/assemblies isn’t the UK Parliament now more or less the English parliament with a few add- ons for the UK as a whole? Some in Scotland, where I live, argue that the Scottish Parliament has in fact led to over-governance.
It is true that the fact that Scotland and Wales are getting additional perks such as free prescriptions is causing resentment in England. However, remember that both nations receive BLOCK GRANTS. Basically, there has been no increase in funding just to pay for that new perk. Money in some other Scottish/Welsh budget will have been cut to compensate. England may not have free prescriptions but they will doubtless have better services somewhere else.
On the West Lothian question I do agree some change is needed though. It is unfair that Scotland and Wales can vote on issues that cannot possibly affect them. A recent example of this, as pointed out above, was Michael Moore voting for increased tuition fees, even though this matter will never concern any of his constituents. (unless they attend some English university…). Should this change be implemented, I am sure that at least some of the resentment would fade.
Supreme result for John Lamont. Tories must feel confident about decapitating Moore at the next election.
Mundell might have to move here.
John Lamont Conservative 12,933 44.9 +5.8
Paul Wheelhouse SNP 7,599 26.4 +8.6
Euan Robson Liberal Democrat 4,990 17.3 -16.5
Rab Stewart Labour 2,986 10.4 +2.1
Jesse Rae No Description 308 1.1 0
But a reasonable result for Jeremy Purvis
Christine Grahame SNP 13,855 43.5 +9.6
Jeremy Purvis Liberal Democrat 8,931 28 -2.2
Ian Miller Labour 5,312 16.7 -2.6
Peter Duncan Conservative 3,743 11.8 -4.
It is a rather astounding fact that following this year’s elections to the Scottish Parliament it is a Conservative seat (Ettrick, Roxburgh & Berwickshire) which has the largest majority of any constituency held by an opposition party… Not a Glasgow Labour seat or a Highlands and Islands Lib Dem seat.
“Mundell might have to move here”
I’d have thought John Lamont would have a good chance of being selected as Tory candidate again.
Of course we’ll have to see what boundary changes do.
‘I’d have thought John Lamont would have a good chance of being selected as Tory candidate again.’
Unlikely I would have thought because he is probably in the running for leader of the Scottish tories.
If Mundell stays where he is they’ll probably find a reasonable councillor candidate though I’d assume.
Michael Moore could be in deep toilet. If he’s still Scottish Secr. he would be the first Scottish Secr. to lose their seat since Michael Forsyth in 1997!
I’m surprised John Lamont hasn’t gone for the Scots Tory leadership I would have thought he’d be in with a shout. Maybe he has his eyes set on this seat again.
With a independence referendum looming ever nearer, I wonder if it time to beef up the Scotland Office by placing more resources in. One secretary of state and one minister of state simply isn’t enough to tackle the ongoing problem of retaining the union and more resources would strengthen the case for a No vote. I think Annabel Goldie should be ennobled and placed into the Scotland Office as a minister of state.
The Conservatives have historically failed to win easy seats but gained an unexpected one.
In 2001 the Conservatives failed in Ayr, Edinburgh Pentland and Eastwood but gained the more secure SNP seat of Galloway & Upper Nithsdale.
In 2005 the Conservatives lost out in their top target Dumfries & Galloway but gained a safer Labour seat of Dumfriesshire Clydesdale & Tweeddale.
I could see the Conservatives taking this seat even in losing out it Galloway & Carrick. Here they are not up against Labour or the SNP but against the Lib Dems.
Its possible that after the next election there wont be any LibDem MPs between Sheffield and Edinburgh.
Does that mean that you think Edinburgh West is safe Richard? Not so sure given the huge swing to Lab at the GE and to SNP at Scottish Elections. Interesting that in one of Scotland’s most affluent seats the Tories are nowhere.
I think Ming’ll hang on if he stays so my prediction is Sheffield and Fife…
Ill raise that to Sheffield and CharlesKennedyLand
‘I think Ming’ll hang on if he stays so my prediction is Sheffield and Fife…’
What about Berwick Upon Tweed or Westmoreland? I know both seats have been substantially redrawn but I would have thought the huge swing to the Lib Dems in Westmoreland at the last election shows that like him or loathe him, Tim Farron is quite a formidable opponent
It’s good that the same people who got it so wrong last time round about Lib Dem losses are quite prepared to come back and repeat their assertions
Yes, there is no question about Westmorland. I think Farron will retain it by around 7000.
The LDs also may still have an outside chance of holding Berwick and Morpeth even with Beith’s retiral although probably a tory gain there.
This seat probably should be a formality for the tories based on recent electoral history but they should not get complacent and they should fight very hard to remain the largest party on Scottish Borders council next year.
With Sir Alan’s retirement. the Lib Dems will have diffuculties retaining the new Berwick & Morpeth seat but I don’t think they are necessarily brown bread in this seat
One problem the Tories face from becoming so electorally unsuccessful in Scotland is a lack of credible candidates
Liberals will probably come 3rd in Berwick if Beith retires. Westmorland correct if Im wrong has been heavily altered and not the safe seat of 2010.
There’s no way those boundaries for Westmorland will be adopted as all 3 main parties are against it. Their counter-proposal of Westmorland and Penrith to stay largely as they are while Copeland and Workington are merged to become Whitehaven is far more likely to be implemented. I think Farron is one of the Lib Dems more likely to keep his seat. He’ll certainly get a swing against him but it won’t be enough to defeat him. I do think Michael Moore is more vulnerable in this seat though.
‘Liberals will probably come 3rd in Berwick if Beith retires.’
Labour achieved 13.7% in 2010 in Berwick and the only significant change is adding the prosperous town of Morpeth – which I presume would have more Tory voters than Labour ones
Like most lonmg standing MP’s Beith obviously has a fairly substantial personal vote but I’d still expect the Liberals to be competitive at the next election
Morpeth is hardly properous, in the 3 Morpeth local election results in 2008 ( A v good tory year) The Tories were on 9.6% in Stobhill, 22.4% in North and 14.1% in Kirkhill. (Av about 15%) Admittley slightly beating Lab (12% av), but in any normal year Labour should beat Tory in Morpeth
I thought Morpeth itself was a prosperous commuter town, which stuck out like a sore thumb because it’s surrounded by former pit and ship yard towns that hug the southern corner of the Northumerland coast – like Newbiggin, Bedlington, Ashington and Blyth – which are solidly Labour
The Lib Dems are or were popular at a local level but I assumed their vote in Morpeth was largely tactical as the old Alliance was quite competitive in the Wansbeck seat in the 1980s