Changing the International Territorial Level geography for Scotland: consultation analysis

The consultation received 21 responses. 11 responses were received from organisations, and 10 from individuals. Note however that Highlands and Islands Enterprise (HIE) and Highlands and Islands Regional Economic Partnership (HIREP) provided duplicated submissions.

This section summarises the responses to the 5 questions included in the consultation.

Question 1. Do you support the principle of changing the ITL2 and ITL3 geographies so that each region is an exact grouping of Local Authorities?

• Yes - 16 (76%)
• No - 5 (24%).

Respondents who answered ‘No’ were asked to provide further information on why they did not support the proposals.

Most respondents supported the principle of aligning ITL geographies with local authority boundaries. The five responses that did not support the principle related to the islands of Arran and Cumbrae. This issue is considered in more detail later in this report.

Question 2: Do you support the proposed groupings at the ITL2 level?

• Yes - 14 (67%)

• No - 6 (29%)
• Did not answer – 1 (5%)

As for the previous question, the main objections highlighted in response to this question related to the islands of Arran and Cumbrae. This is considered in more detail later in the report.

Question 3: Do you support the proposed groupings at the ITL3 level?

• Yes - 12 (57%)
• No - 8 (38%)
• Did not answer – 1 (5%)

As for the previous questions, the main objections related to the inclusion of Arran and Cumbrae in the Highlands and Islands ITL3 region.

Some responses expressed concern that combining existing regions would remove access to ‘sub-regional’ statistics, particularly in the Highlands and Islands region. This includes access to data for the island local authorities (Comhairle nan Eilean Siar , Orkney and Shetland). Some respondents sought reassurance that sub-regional statistics will continue to be made available using an alternative geography. This is considered in more detail later in this report.

Some respondents highlighted that the ITL3 and ITL2 regions for Highlands and Islands are identical, which reduces the distinctiveness of the ITL levels. As noted in the consultation document, the proposed ITL3 region has been created so that its population aligns with the population specification for ITL3 regions, thus ensuring it is broadly comparable with other ITL3 regions. While the ITL2 Highlands and Islands region is below the recommended population for ITL2 regions, given the large geographical area this region covers the proposals did not consider merging it with other regions.

Perth and Kinross suggested that their local authority should be an ITL3 region. It is currently combined with Stirling in the ‘Perth and Kinross, and Stirling’ region. They instead proposed grouping Stirling with Falkirk and Clackmannanshire to more closely match City Region Deals and Regional Growth Deals. This would mean that a proposed ‘Stirling, Falkirk, and Clackmannanshire’ ITL3 would no longer nest into the Eastern Scotland ITL2 region, so this proposal has not been adopted.

Question 4: Are there specific statistical products that you currently use that would be negatively affected by these proposals?

• Yes – 5 (24%)
• No – 13 (62%)
• Not answered – 3 (14%)

Most responses did not consider that any statistical publications that they currently use would be negatively impacted. Of those who responded yes to this question, a number of the responses did not identify any specific statistical publication that would be impacted.

The main users who said they be impacted by the changes were Highlands and Islands Enterprise (HIE) and Highlands and Islands Regional Economic Partnership (HIREP). In particular they highlighted a number of economic statistics outputs. They noted that statistics currently produced using ITL geographies align with the boundaries used by Highlands and Islands Enterprise.

Question 5: Do you have any other comments, suggestions or alternative proposals for the ITL geographies?

This question was an open question to allow respondents to provide any other comments on the proposals.

Some respondents used this question to reiterate their view that Arran and Cumbrae should be included in the Highlands and Islands.

Additional comments not already discussed included:

• The inclusion of Moray in the proposed ITL3 region was supported, as the current region aligining Moray with part of Highlands did not align with local authoirity boundaries.
• Some responses stated that an Island Communitiies Impact Assesment should be created to assess the impact the proposals might have on islands communities. The consultation process was intended to inform the production of an assessment. That Island Communities Impact Assesment has now been completed.