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

You would think from the news coverage that the only people who have a strong view on the idea of a Galloway National Park, are farmers (who don’t want it) and that everyone else either doesn’t care or stands in solidarity with their agricultural neighbours. 

The battle for Galloway has seemed like the National Farmers Union versus the Scottish Government and NatureScot; the No Galloway National Park Campaign against the Galloway National Park Association; farmers versus what are sometimes styled as the faceless bureaucrats.

But the news today that the John Muir Trust is backing the park, reminds us that there are other groups and organisations with strong feelings.

The Trust’s entry into the debate also serves as a reminder that 110 years after the death of John Muir, the Scot who became the father of National Parks, there are still only two national parks in his birthland.

Thomas Widrow, head of campaigns for John Muir Trust said: "We stand by communities who fight to protect and celebrate the wild places they love. We must protect and restore natural processes to tackle the joint nature and climate crises. Designating a new National Park will help Scotland do exactly that.“ 

It may be hard to remember, but once upon a time, there was enthusiasm for National Parks. In 2022, NatureScot carried out an opinion survey of the Scottish adult population, carried out for NatureScot in 2022, showed that 89% of  people in Scotland either strongly support  or tend to support  the creation of one or more new National Parks, with only  3% opposing.

But the latest survey to hit the news, a poll by NFU Scotland, found that 73% of 2,000 respondents, only 33% of which were farmers, were against the bid.  What happened in the intervening period? Or is it just that the recent survey was chiefly received by those sympathetic to the farming cause?  

As a farmer’s daughter, who grew up lambing and driving tractors, I feel some sympathy. Farmers feel a significant threat to their livelihoods. The fear that the National Park will impact rural communities and future food production is real, and comes amidst a perfect storm of other factors - not least the latest news about inheritance tax.    

There is also the worry that this park is simply going to be imposed. NFU Scotland President Martin Kennedy wrote last week to the Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs, Land Reform and Islands, questioning NatureScot’s impartiality in delivering the consultation.

“NatureScot," he wrote, "committed to conducting its investigation in an open, transparent and inclusive way. But unfortunately, its clear bias is preventing this from happening.

“Our members in the Galloway and Ayrshire regions feel that their views are not represented, their voices are not heard, and their opinions do not matter. They feel the matter on whether Galloway should become a new National Park has already been decided by a small minority.”

But let's not forget that the bid for Galloway to host the next new National Park came about because a significant coalition of other people thought there were things in it for them and their communities - and among those things were jobs and money.

Sandra McDowall, vice chair Galloway National Park AssociationSandra McDowall, vice chair Galloway National Park Association (Image: Colin Hattersley)

Galloway was chosen by the Scottish Government following a bid made by the Galloway National Park Association jointly with the Ayrshire UNESCO Biosphere and backed by all three councils and the South of Scotland Enterprise Partnership.

The bid was also supported for the Scottish Campaign for National Parks, which published a report in 2013 identifying Galloway as one of seven potential national park sites in Scotland.

There is money in parks. Overall Scotland’s National Parks regularly generate over £700 million of economic impact per annum.

Jobs certainly were mentioned by the Galloway National Park Association in its original bid to be considered as site of Scotland's third National Park.

 “By conservative estimates," it said, "the new Park should bring an additional £92m spend and a further 1,500 FTE jobs. The additional value to the area would be over £250m pa with the creation of 2,000 FTE jobs.” 

Many of those jobs would be in tourism, as they are in other parks. For instance, in the Cairngorms National Park, around 43% of jobs are in the sector, and tourism supports 6,200 jobs in the Loch Lomond and The Trossachs National Park.

READ MORE: 

Back in Dumfries and Galloway, currently only around 11.6% of jobs in Dumfries and Galloway are in tourism. Agriculture is a bigger and significant employer, with data from 2022 showing that the second largest industry sector in Dumfries was agriculture, forestry and fishing industries, with 9,000 employees and 13.4% of total employment. 

Among those individual voices who have recently come out in support are those in tourism. For instance, in a recent interview in Business Insider, Matthew Wallace, the hotelier behind the Cairndale hotel, said: "I see the potential Galloway National Park as a great opportunity to bring more visitors to the area - it could really improve awareness of the region and make things a bit less seasonal.”

When it comes to who loses or gains, farmers matter. But they are not the only people who count. It's also worth examining what exactly the National Park will mean for farmers.

One answer to this can be found in paper published by Scottish Environment LINK, which points out that many key elements are the same for farmers inside a national park as they are outside.   

The Scottish Government’s rural payments system and land management regime, including the Agri-Environment Climate Scheme, are the same inside as outwith, but some additional funding is available within National Parks for land managers to carry out work which supports the aims of the National Park.

Some extra restrictions do exist. There is a ban on the building of wind farms in the National Parks. There are also greater restrictions on the development of agricultural buildings than there are outside the park. But overall the picture painted is one of some benefits. 

However, the paper doesn’t touch on the dissatisfaction of farmers - and undoubtedly there are some within the Cairngorms who are aggrieved. I spoke to a few of them following a protest outside the Cairngorms National Park Authority offices in January. A key area of concern was rewilding and what they called "the carbon clearances".  

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

One said:  "I see the National Park as an extension of the Scottish Government which seems to have forgotten about food production. That is a lot of the feeling – that food production in this mad rush for net zero seems to have taken a back seat."

Their words suggest that there is a wider campaign needed to incentivise farmers to get on board with new measures around nature and carbon, whether within National Parks or outside them.

There's also no doubting that this new National Park would need to take farmers, the providers of our food, with it. It needs to create something like a just transition. That, as much as anything, is its biggest challenge.