GIFFNOCK, Clarkston, Newton Mearns and Paisley...Barrhead has voted with all of them in the past when it comes to Westminster elections.

But under new proposals put forward by the Boundary Commission for Scotland, residents in Barrhead, Neilston and Uplawmoor could be voting for their politicians alongside the people of Erskine, Kilbirnie and even Dalry, in North Ayrshire.

Last week, the commission outlined its final plans for the shake-up of Scotland’s UK Government constituencies, with the number of MPs from north of the border being reduced to 53.

And while East Renfrewshire currently doubles as a local authority and UK voting area, the proposals would see Barrhead and Neilston join a new Renfrewshire West and Garnock Valley patch.

This plan would mean the area’s MP representing people within Renfrewshire, East Renfrewshire and North Ayrshire – the joint most local authorities of any proposed constituency in Scotland.

Previous versions of the Boundary Commission’s proposals had grouped Barrhead and its two adjacent villages with Paisley, within the traditional county of Renfrewshire, but this has been scrapped in favour of the new suggestions.

Barrhead’s current MP Paul Masterton, who would face his constituency being cut in two and having to choose an area in which to seek election, has spoken out about the potential changes.

He said: “The Boundary Commission is completely independent of government and any political party. It comes to its own conclusions as it cuts down the number of MPs from 650 to 600.

“Nothing is final yet. These proposals will still have to pass a House of Commons vote and we will have to wait and see what they do.

“It would be disappointing to see the constituency split in two but we will have to wait and see the outcome of the vote.”

As well as the splitting up of traditional local areas, other political voices have argued that the proposals will diminish the voice of Scotland in Westminster, with fewer MPs representing the country.

Former East Renfrewshire MP Kirsten Oswald, who lost her seat in 2017, believes a number of Barrhead residents will be concerned about the potential effect this could have on established communities.

She added: “These proposals to reduce the number of Scottish MPs by 10 per cent – from 59 to 53 – would diminish Scotland’s voice at Westminster.

“If they want to reduce the costs of politics, the Tories would do better to abolish the unelected, undemocratic House of Lords.

“People in East Renfrewshire will rightly judge this proposal to be an unhelpful distraction and one which does not attract local support, with people understandably concerned about the impact of the proposed changes locally upon their families and communities.

“At a time when it is more important than ever to hold this hapless Tory government to account, Theresa May wants to cut the number of Scottish MPs at Westminster. It is completely unacceptable that the Tories consider boundary changes a priority when they have their own chaotic Brexit to deal with.”

Concerns were also raised last year about the splitting up of the current East Renfrewshire constituency, which has existed with its established boundaries since 1983, when it was named Eastwood.

East Renfrewshire’s current local authority, which was established in 1996, was created with the same boundaries as the UK Government constituency.

Initial proposals were released by the Boundary Commission for Scotland in October 2016 but several changes have since been made, following a public consultation.

These include ditching plans to introduce a new constituency called Cunninghame East.

Lord Matthews, deputy chair of the Boundary Commission for Scotland, said: “The Commission is extremely grateful to all those who assisted us in developing our final recommendations by submitting views or attending public hearings.

“We listened carefully to comments made on our revised proposals and made a number of changes to boundaries and to constituency names. We believe our final recommendations meet the requirements of the legislation governing the review and, within those constraints, fairly reflect the views expressed to us during our consultations.”