CAMPAIGNERS opposed to a plan for a new national park in Galloway fear the Scottish Government consultation run by its Nature Scot agency is already “tainted with bias in favour”.
The No Galloway National Park movement has pointed out the close relationship between Nature Scot and Scottish Environment Link (SEL), which has published a supportive report on national parks.
They say recent accounts show SEL had an income of £124,000 in the year to March 2023, of which £50,500 came from Nature Scot.
Liz Hitschmann, co-founder of No Galloway National Park, said: “The link between Nature Scot and what is wafer-thin propaganda to support the plan for a national park in Galloway is shocking, and Nature Scot should disassociate itself from SEL’s claims if it is to retain any semblance of impartiality.
“We are also concerned that the wording of Nature Scot’s consultation is loaded in favour. The first question asks what a National Park should do, and the options don’t include not having it at all. The process already looks like it’s tainted with bias.
“All of the benefits SEL claims to be attributed to national parks can be achieved without the need for an expensive, controlling bureaucracy, and nothing in the report suggests why only a national park can deliver the badly needed improvements our region needs.”
The opponents also believe upgrading the A75 and A77 should be a national priority, and argue that with the existing Galloway Forest Park and Galloway International Dark Sky Park, a national park costing over £10 million a year is unnecessary to boost tourism.
And they say two recent surveys, by NFUS and Scottish Land and Estates, have exposed “massive resistance” to the plan.
Denise Brownlee, co-founder of the movement, added: “We are dismayed that even the title of a supposedly neutral consultation strongly suggests the Scottish government’s policy of creating a third national park should just be accepted, and this consultation is only about a few nips and tucks to make it work.
“Since the very beginning we have questioned the ability of a government agency to be truly unbiased when being tasked to consult on implementing government policy, and it appears our fears are already being borne out.”
