Changing the International Territorial Level Geography for Scotland

Page 1 of 5

Closes 1 Oct 2024

Proposed changes to International Territorial Levels

Proposed changes to International Territorial Level 3 (ITL3)

The main purpose of the proposed changes outlined in this consultation is to produce ITL regions that align with Local Authority boundaries and whose population falls within the recommended population constraints as far as possible.

The current definition of the ITL3 geography divides Scotland into 23 regions. We now propose to reduce the number of ITL3 regions to 18, while also aligning boundaries with Local Authority Boundaries.

Currently 7 of the existing 23 regions have populations below the 150,000 minimum population recommended for ITL3 regions. Under the proposed changes, only one region (Dumfries and Galloway) is slightly below the recommended minimum population. Population tables based on National Record of Scotland Mid-year population estimates for 2021 have been included in [annex 1 of the consultation document].

This reduction in the number of regions and rebalancing of populations has been achieved by making the following changes to ITL3 regions.

Proposed changes to International Territorial Level 2 (ITL2)

As for the ITL3 Level, the proposed changes at ITL2 are motivated by a desire to align boundaries with Local Authorities and the balance populations across the regions.

The current definition of the ITL2 geography divides Scotland into five regions. Three of these five regions have populations within the recommended population range of 800,000 to 3,000,000.

The two regions whose population is below the recommended range are ‘Highlands and Islands’ (population 472,899) and the ‘North Eastern Scotland’ (490,120). It might have been possible for example to combine these regions to produce a new region with a population within the recommended limits. However, given the differing geographical characters of these regions, and the large area of the new region this would create, this option has not been considered.

New East Central Scotland and East Scotland regions

The existing ‘Eastern Scotland’ region has a population of 2,014,400. While this is within the recommended population limits, it is considerably larger than the other ITL2 regions. For example, the next largest region, ‘West Central Scotland’, has a population of 1,526,440, and the third largest, ‘Southern Scotland’, has a population of 950,207. In terms of population, ‘Eastern Scotland’ is more than four times as large as the smallest region, ‘Highlands and Islands’.

In addition, this region is geographically large and diverse. It is created by combining 11 Local Authorities. These are:

  • Angus
  • Dundee City
  • Clackmannanshire
  • Fife
  • East Lothian
  • Midlothian
  • City of Edinburgh
  • Falkirk
  • Perth and Kinross
  • Stirling
  • West Lothian

This consultation then proposes to create a sixth ITL2 region by dividing the ‘Eastern Scotland’ region into two now regions. These are:

  • East Central Scotland – This combines the Local Authorities of City of Edinburgh, East Lothian, Midlothian, West Lothian, and Falkirk. It has a population of 1,077,010.
  • Eastern Scotland – This combines the Local Authorities of Angus, Dundee City, Clackmannanshire, Fife, Perth and Kinross, and Stirling. It has a population of 937,390.

Creating these two new regions will produce regions that are more balanced with respect to population, and which better reflect the differing characters of the regions. In particular, the new East Central Scotland regions captures the east side of Scotland’s ‘central belt’, dominated by the city of Edinburgh and surrounding areas. Eastern Scotland meanwhile captures the region north of the Firth of Forth.

1. Do you support the principle of changing the ITL2 and ITL3 geographies so that each region is an exact grouping of Local Authorities?
2. Do you support the proposed groupings at the ITL2 level?
3. Do you support the proposed groupings at the ITL3 level?
4. Are there specific statistical products that you currently use that would be negatively affected by these proposals?
5. Do you have any other comments, suggestions or alternative proposals for the ITL geographies?