Chamber and committees

As we know, diversification gets into tourism, about which we have heard, wind turbines, solar farms, battery storage—yes, okay. Back to you, convener.

Which is fine, as long as you do not state that one of your aims is response to local community demand. If it is a policy decision that this must happen, that is up to the Scottish Government, but you cannot then say that it is because the community supports it, I would argue. It reeks a bit of George Orwell’s “1984”. Ian McKinnon, would you like to come in?

On the definition of a national park, do the witnesses in the room think that the people of Galloway understand what is being presented, and is there a clear vision of what a national park would be? Wrapped around that question, what formal processes have NatureScot or the Scottish Government conducted to date?

Where was the hub?

It strikes me that it would be beneficial for the Scottish Government, via NatureScot, to come up with a vision that provides the detail of the Galloway national park that would allow communities to make a decision. It sounds as though communities are being asked to sign a blank cheque for something when they do not know how it is going to impact on them. The concept of national parks could be different for different people, and therefore people’s assessments with regard to whether or not they support a national park could be radically different. It seems that, as it is envisaged, the consultation process will not allow communities to come to a conclusion on any of that. In some ways, asking for the level of local community demand for something when people do not know what something is, is an impossible task. Do you have thoughts on how to square that circle?

Thank you. Mhairi Dawson, I have a final question for you. From a land management and farming perspective, are there potential benefits to farming and crofting as a result of the new national park, based on your discussions with NatureScot?

From the evidence that we have heard so far, it strikes me that perhaps the starting point in all this is to have a definition of a national park and what it should achieve. For some people, it might be a pristine landscape without any land management, in which case, biodiversity will undoubtedly reduce. Loch Lomond and the Trossachs clearly has lots of tourism—Loch Lomond Shores has amazing facilities to attract tourists—but then the national park did not want more tourists to go there. Before we get to the stage of presenting to the people of Galloway, we need a starting point as to what we are presenting.

Nick Kempe has touched on this, but, based on the two existing national parks, is there an adequate definition of what a new national park might look like and what the experience would be for both visitors and local residents?

One of our other petitions is about what are colloquially referred to as pylons. We have heard that that consultation basically said, “These are coming, so there’s no option here.” I know that the formal consultation period for the park has not started yet but, from what you have seen so far, has the consultation been framed in a way that says that the national park is coming and that the options are, in essence, about what the boundaries will be?

Mhairi Dawson, we have heard that there is not a clear understanding of what NatureScot and the Scottish Government propose for Galloway and that the consultation process thus far has been inadequate. What is your assessment?

I am quite interested in the public consultation and, if you like, the definition or the proposal. In consultations from local authorities, the Scottish Government or, indeed, non-departmental public bodies, it is often quite difficult to understand exactly what the proposal is and what it means. I know that the formal consultation is about to start, but, from your assessment, is NatureScot able to say, for example, “We know that Loch Lomond and the Trossachs has Loch Lomond shores and Cairngorms has Aviemore; this is the version of that in Galloway, which will mean economic and tourism benefits, but these are the downsides in relation to house prices or congestion,” or, “There will be a commitment from the Scottish Government to upgrade the A75 as a result of this”? Can that vision be presented over the next couple of weeks and throughout the consultation process?