Governance and Bureaucracy
Yes to local accountability, No to central government control.
National Parks are run by a Park authority, a non-departmental public body. As such, they are directly accountable to Scottish Ministers, not the local community.
The consultation proposes options for the proposed Park Board: “At least 60% of Board members would be local representatives” to “strengthen local representation and participation in decision-making.”
Superficially, this appears to offer local control and accountability; however, Government Guidance for Board Members, and experience of locally elected Board members demonstrates that this is a smoke screen. The Minister ‘calls the shots’ and ‘this effectively renders the Board to be mere puppets of the Government.’
Read the thought paper on Governance and Bureaucracy here
Conservation
Yes to protecting nature, No to unmanageable tourism.
Proponents of a new National Park describe potential for economic development through increasing tourism. They refer to ‘the National Park brand’ and the support this could offer to local businesses. This approach conveniently disregards widely acknowledged negative impacts of increased tourism and recreational activities on natural heritage. This contradiction lies at the heart of National Park aims and what is being presented in the consultation.
The National Park ‘brand’ is seen as a positive force for conservation, based on early international models, when Parks were established to protect wilderness areas. The reality for the natural environment inside UK National Parks is rather at odds with this.
Read the thought paper on Conservation here
Consultation
Yes to having our views heard, No to a biased process.
Many concerns about the consultation process have been raised. Primary among these are the suitability of NatureScot to fulfil the role as unbiased Reporter and their failure to meet the National Standards for Community Engagement.
The process is tied to a political agenda to designate a park before the 2026 elections, rather than aiming to get things right for the community who will be most affected – those who live and work in the area.
International experience indicates that these initiatives are only successful if there is sufficient dialogue with communities and they are not perceived to be imposed. This consultation process does not allow that to happen.
Read the thought paper on consultation issues here
Infrastructure and Investment
Yes to investment in infrastructure and services, No to costly bureaucracy.
Towns and villages in our area need inward investment. Our infrastructure is not fit for purpose and local public services are over stretched.
The funding for a new National Park could be around £10 million which seems appealing. However, this is the same level as the annual cut facing Dumfries and Galloway Council’s budget for the next three years.
Spending in other Parks also indicates that around two thirds of the Park budget will go on the Board and staffing costs. At the same time, Councils remain responsible for key services and infrastructure, which will come under more pressure from increasing tourism. Overall, less funding but significantly increased demand.
Housing
Yes to affordable housing, No to second homes and holiday lets.
The availability of affordable housing in Scottish National Parks is constrained by several issues including high prices.
In Loch Lomond and The Trossachs National Park, 75% of households cannot afford average house prices. Prices have been driven by demand, in part for second homes and holiday rentals which remove affordable homes from the local housing system. NatureScot accept this is a ‘significant concern’. However, no solutions are offered and, if a Park did go ahead, housing would remain a local authority responsibility.
Dumfries and Galloway declared a ‘Housing Emergency‘ in the region earlier this year. A National Park would add stress to this significant issue, making it harder for younger generations or low-income families to stay in the area.
Employment and Economy
Yes to sustainable employment and training, No to low wage seasonal jobs.
Being a designated National Park does not automatically boost local economies. Local businesses that don’t cater for tourists will not see economic gains and may even face competition for resources.
Seasonal tourism dependency creates an unstable economic environment with erratic employment opportunities and unreliable income throughout off-peak seasons.
Fergus Ewing MSP writes, “Cairngorms and Lomond and Trossachs National Parks have now existed for 21 years. Perhaps uniquely for any MSP, I have lived within both areas and represented a large part of Cairngorms Park over the whole of that time. National Parks have been, in my view, a brake on development, and have not delivered benefits for the people who live and work there.”
Agricultural and land-use restrictions
Yes to supporting farmers, No to oppressive regulation.
Being a designated National Park brings restrictions on land use, affecting farmers, crofters and landowners. Crippling environmental regulations limit grazing, hunting, forestry, and energy development.
National Park authorities dictate what buildings farmers can erect, as if they know better how to run a farm.
Galloway is not a wilderness, but a mature rural economy with extensive dairy interests. Anything which interferes with rural business will be catastrophic for local prosperity.
