SIR, When will the great and the good realise that the people of Galloway are neither so stupid nor so gullible as they appear to think.

You recently published an open letter from Professor Russel Griggs which yet again re-iterates that 'nothing has been decided', 'We are not asked to consider whether we want to have a National Park that looks like existing Parks, or to recreate those structures'.

A Galloway National Park would be set up under the National Parks (Scotland) Act 2000, it will indeed be set up under a very similar structure to existing Parks since there is no option in that Act for any other structure.

I amongst many others in the proposed Park area have an email response to an inquiry made to Mairi Gudgeon which contains the following text:

“The Scottish Government is committed to the designation of a new National Park within the lifetime of the current Parliament. This will help to address the climate and biodiversity crises, support the social and economic development of rural communities and promote progressive land use”

As most will be aware this parliament will end in 2026 and the Galloway Proposal is the only one on the table. They should also be aware that this 'consultation' is being carried out by an organisation (NatureScot) which is firmly in favour of National Parks and which was extensively represented on the panels which recommended proceeding with this application – an organisation which considers a total of 600 feedback forms collected over a period of 6 years as being 'significant' evidence of local support.

So people can make their own judgement as to whether or not anything has been decided.

According to Professor Griggs, 'We, as a region, have been given the unique chance to create the one we want, if that is what we decide'.

With all due respect to the Professor that is far from clear from the consultation to date – indeed NatureScot’s presentation appears to be very much along the lines of existing Parks

There are two opportunities to design a bespoke Park – firstly when the designation order is laid before Parliament and secondly during the development of the Park Plan – well before either point is reached the decision as to whether or not there will be a Park has been well and truly made.

A Park board will indeed have 60% local representation from the region – however two thirds of that representation will have been appointed by Scottish Ministers following nomination by the Regional Council, the remainder of the board will be directly appointed. Professor Griggs also omits to mention that the Scottish Government recently consulted on changes to the constitution of Park Boards with the aim to reduce local representation, although in fairness nothing has yet been brought forward.

The purpose of the board is of course to draft a Park Plan and appoint a chief executive, both of which will also, of course require the approval of Scottish Ministers. In other words the Park Plan will be written to the satisfaction of the government of the day and a chief executive acceptable to them will be appointed to deliver that Park Plan

A Park Board has four statutory duties under the legislation – in efficiently carrying out these duties they cannot do other than to monitor (and interfere where they consider it appropriate) all planning applications, whether they have a statutory planning role or not.

As the professor also points out we do indeed have many designations already within the area e.g. the UNESCO Biosphere which he highlights, one cannot help but wonder then why we need another level of designation, or how such a further level will assist in conservation efforts. I am not at all sure how these existing designations can be reconciled with a drive to significantly enhance and encourage tourist footfall in the western end of the region in particular, or how infrastructure which is already stretched is expected to cope.

People should be in no doubt that a National Park is exactly what it says on the tin – a Park for the nation and not for the people living and working within it whose interests will be discounted wherever they clash with what is perceived to be the national interest.

On one thing we are agreed - there is indeed plenty of time and scope to consider what is the right model for this area and its people – and the time to do that is before this proposal goes any further forward.

If we are to have a Park designed for the people of Galloway by the people of Galloway then let us see firm proposals along those lines – and let us see a commitment to ask them if those proposals are acceptable.

Brian McAllister