England has 9 constituencies <60K. 533 MPs for an electorate of 38,371,400 or one MP per 71.9K
Scotland has 5 constituencies <60K59 MPs for an electorate of 3,925,800 or one MP per 66.5K
If the electorate of Na h-Eileanan an Iar (21.7K) and Orkney and Shetland (34.5K) are subtracted along with their two MPS the figure for Scotland is one MP per 67.8K which is close to that of England. A mere 5.7% difference to England.
Wales has 29 constituencies <60K. 40 MPs in total for an electorate of 2,230,100 or one MP per 55.7K. 22.5% difference to England.
If anywhere is over represented it is Wales...
I didn't, and I don't.
Be thankful for that...
England has better Sunday trading than certain parts of Scotland 
Although some hotels, bars and restaurants and a garage open on Sunday, most shops, unlike Ms Rawlinson’s, keep their doors firmly closed.
Shop owner ‘harassed’ for opening on Sundays
And Scotland.
Especially given the significant devolved powers the Scottish parliament has.
To repeat again, any accusations that Scotland doesn't have democratic representation ring hollow.
England, especially the north west, is also over represented....
Proposals for the reduced number of constituencies have now been put forward. If approved, England will lose 32 of its 533 constituencies, Wales loses 11 of its 40, Scotland loses six of its 59, and Northern Ireland loses one of its 18.
In England, the number of constituencies will fall by seven in the North West, but only by one in the Eastern region.
Shifting boundaries: what would reducing the number of MPs mean?
No one here is making that accusation.
England is not "over represented".
And the proposal you refer to is to reduce parliament to more equal size constituencies across the UK with 600 seats rather than 650. It isn't to correct constituency sizes in England. If it was just evening things up, England would get more seats.
Cough.
The Scottish government has significant devolved powers without any interference from Westminster.
Rather than "take no notice of views they hold on any subject" the Scots have powers they can use as they see fit.
And for powers exercised across the UK they have a disproportionate voice in Westminster.
Ah, so Scotland is over represented in your opinion but the parts of England with a smaller or similar population per MP aren't...
@Squiffy proudly ignoring facts and figures if they have anything to do with Scotland.
In ascending order of electorate per MP:
Wales, an electorate of 2,230,100 with 40 MPs or one MP per 55.7K
The North East, an electorate of 1.9 million with 29 MPS or one per 65.5K
Scotland, an electorate of 3,925,800 with 59 MPs or one MP per 66.5K
If deducting the two constituencies which by nature of their geographical location fall outside the proposed changes that is one MP per 67.8K.
The West Midlands, an electorate of 4 million with 59 MPs or one per 67.79K.
The North West, an electorate of 5.1 million with 75MPs or one per 68K
Yorks and Humber, an electorate of 3.7 million with 54 MPs or one per 68.5K
London, an electorate of 5.1 million with 74 MPs or one per 69.8K
It is to correct constituency sizes in all of the UK including England which is why England looses 31 MPS in the proposals. It is evening things up, and England gets less seats...
proposals were laid before parliament to reduce the number of MPs from 650 to 600 at the next election, and to redraw constituency boundaries to make them more evenly sized
https://www.avforums.com/data/attachments/1106/1106799-9fd15d71ff2c35cf95c481a97260b986.jpg
How exactly?
Please tell how in your opinion 59 Scots MPs have a disproportionate voice in a chamber of 650 MPs, while 29 North East MPs, 59 West Midlands MPs, 75 North West MPs, 54 Yorks and Humber MPs plus 40 Wales MPs don't.
Are not separate countries.
Wales though 
How utterly disingenuous.
I've clearly talked about England compared to Scotland.
So let's look at those figures.
Shifting boundaries: what would reducing the number of MPs mean?
The average number of registered voters in a constituency was higher in England (73,000) than in Scotland (67,000) and Northern Ireland (69,000), and Wales (57,000).
There are the facts laid bare. Scotland is over represented compared to England. That's an incontrovertible fact.
The purpose of the legislation is to reduce the cost of politics by reducing the number of MPs. At the same time they are seeking to make the number of voters per constituency more equal.
Which is why England is losing 6% of its seats and Scotland is losing 10% - because when you even out the size Scotland loses the over representation it currently has.
Because 59 is too many for the number of voters in Scotland compared to the number of voters in England.
And Scotland has its own Parliament with significant devolved powers with no say from Westminster.
What does that have to do with anything? They are all MPs for a constituency in a joint UK Parliament.
The issue being discussed is whether Scots MPs are over represented for the electorate they represent. MPs are not elected for a region or country they are elected for a constituency via FPTP.So I fail to see why whether that constituency is in a regional area of England vs Scotland, Wales or Northen Ireland is relevent.
The constituencies are grouped into areas either regional ones of England or by country.
Thus it is valid to answer an opinion that a country is over represented by doing a fact based comparison to the other countries and the regional areas of the country which has the largest number of MPs.
As shown previously the 14.7 million electorate of the noted English regions have a very similar level of electorate to MPs representation as the 3.9 million Scots electorate. Thus if the 3.9 million Scots electorate are over represented, so are 14.7 million of the English electorate (39.4% of the total English electorate).
Because we are talking about whether countries are over or under represented.Micro-dissecting it into regions is pointless as that's not how Parliament works.You may as well keep drilling down into constituencies or polling stations...
Can we pick and choose regions of Scotland?
Yes, exactly.
It certainly seems relevant when it comes to complaints that Scotland has no voice.
You literally just said it isn't relevant. Make your mind up.
Meanwhile I'll continue to point out that Scotland is over represented for its population size compared to England. It's just a simple fact that all your twisting and turning doesn't stop it being true.
And what of the other 60.6%? Or indeed England as a whole compared to Scotland as a whole?