This article appears as part of the Winds of Change newsletter.

For those of us who have enjoyed visiting Dumfries & Galloway’s rugged cliffs, dark sky park and sweepingly tidal beaches, the news that it has been proposed as the site of the new National Park may seem like some grand award bestowed on a part of Scotland that is a secret pleasure.

But the story, of course, is not so simple, as the reaction to the announcement last week has shown.

This is, as yet, only at proposal and consultation phase, but a backlash has already begun that makes clear that not all who live there are happy about a possible plan for a park that takes in a stretch from the Mull of Galloway, the Galloway Forest Park, the River Nith and some of the coastline of the Solway Firth.

Some farmers have been highly vocal in their opposition. The NFU Scotland stated it would continue to oppose the creation of a new national park, calling it “unacceptable” and noting that this was a “view supported by 93 per cent of our members”. 

NFUS vice president, Alasdair Macnab said: “Based on the experience of many farmers and crofters currently living and working in either the Cairngorms National Park or the Loch Lomond and Trossachs National Park, it is clear that existing parks have failed to make a positive contribution to farming and crofting. The consultation process now starting must be transparent, credible and inclusive – which it has not been in Galloway to date.”

Read more:

Winds of Change | Sewage is back in the news – but it's not just poo we should be worried about

But a further question is how others, from foresters to hospitality businesses feel. A recent blog by Galloway hill farmer and author, Patrick Laurie, observes that he sees no huge positive backing.  

“It’s likely,” he says, “that public opinion is quietly, calmly against the idea of a new National Park in Galloway – but it’ll be interesting to watch the debate unfold if the current battleline of “retired people vs furious farmers” is allowed to deepen and heat up.

Whilst it's true that it’s hard to find many voices on social media backing the plan, it is also clear that the original campaign to be home to the park did have political backing. Dumfries & Galloway, South Ayrshire and East Ayrshire Councils all voted to confirm their support in principle for the Galloway bid. 

That’s not surprising given the economic case that has been made for it. One report, for instance, stated that “increased visitation and spending would benefit the Dumfries and Galloway economy by between £30 million and £60m p.a.” in the early years and could grow beyond that over time.

Given the already strong feeling, it’s highly important that the consultation which now takes place is real and effective – and that people feel it to have properly engaged and been ‘transparent’, as Macnab points out.   

All of this means that whether the people of Galloway want it or not has to be one of the questions, as well as exploration of what policies might make them want it. 

Read more:

Winds of Change | Deindustrialisation versus just transition. What will win at Grangemouth?

Since farmers are the chief objectors it also means working hard to engage with them, as well as other communities more inclined to support the bid. This is, after all, about a form of Just Transition.   

But also caught up in this debate is how people feel about tourists and tourism, rapidly becoming a dirty word, as Mallorca protests the mass influx of visitors and there are warnings that Spain could be a cautionary tale for the Scottish Highlands.

Whether national parks are about tourism, and the money that brings in, and if tourism is something that needs itself to be reinvented and redefined, as well as what its footprint is, are no doubt issues that will be thrashed out.


It’s worth, given all this, reminding ourselves what, according to the Scottish Government, the purpose of a National Park is. The National Parks Act (2000) states that the aims are the following: to conserve and enhance the natural and cultural heritage of the area; to promote sustainable use of the natural resources of the area; to promote understanding and enjoyment (including enjoyment in the form of recreation) of the special qualities of the area by the public; to promote the sustainable economic and social development of the areas’ communities.

I remember being struck by a comment made by a speaker at a NatureScot conference held 18 months ago, that the “next national park would be special because of the people who live in it”.

But which people? As well as nature, all of Scotland’s national parks revolve around people, who are, after all, part of nature. They are not areas fenced off, without human footprint. They contain farms and grouse moors as well as woodland restoration, forests, villages and towns with businesses that revolve around tourism. The needs of the people involved with these matter, and, when change is sought, how to make it work for them must be central. 

In Scotland, where, in global terms, the population density is high, and uninhabited areas are relatively small, about people. They are far from being some untouched wilderness. A key, and dominant animal that lives in these habitats is homo sapiens: tourists, hotel staff, farmers, gamekeepers, ecologists, foresters and more. 

But a national park does not exist in isolation. Many of the problems faced by the people who live in them – from inflated land prices through to aging populations – also exist in other rural parts of the country, and are part of a wider economic climate that includes everything from carbon credits and tree planting through to second homes and Airbnb. 

Sign up for the Winds of Change newsletter and get a weekly update on all things climate and energy.


It’s a complex economic and biological ecosystem in which a major challenge is to meet the needs of all – and to succeed in all those goals.

But there is a tension here too. How to ensure that the element of national parks that is about nature protection and restoration, is not lost in the debate? This is, after all, a highly important matter in a Scotland that is, according to last year’s RSPB State of Nature report, one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world. In the last decade alone, it said, 43% of species have declined strongly.  

One in nine species, it said, are threatened with national extinction. The health of nature ought to be the biggest goal of National Parks – or why bother?