No National Park for Ayrshire as Scottish Government drop plans
Plans for a third national park in Scotland which would take in parts of Ayrshire have been dropped by the Scottish Government.
Rural Affairs Secretary Mairi Gougeon today, Thursday, May 29, confirmed to the Scottish Parliament that the plans for the Galloway National Park would not progress.
Opposition to the nomination alongside the Reporter's recommendations against it mean the region will not get national park status.
The decision has been condemned by a number of groups including Action to Protect Rural Scotland, the Scottish Campaign for National Parks and Ramblers Scotland.
A consultation by NatureScot found that 54 per cent of people opposed a national park and 42 per cent were in favour, with the majority of those responding from Galloway and Ayrshire.
Speaking in the Scottish Parliament, Ms Gougeon said: 'While there is substantial support for a National Park and what it could deliver for the southwest of Scotland, there is also significant opposition. I realise that this decision will be very disappointing for those who have been campaigning for a new National Park in Galloway over many years.
'I also recognise the huge amount of work and time that has been invested by a great many people throughout this process. I would like to thank everyone involved, including members of the Galloway National Park Association and the Galloway and Southern Ayrshire UNESCO Biosphere.
'I would also like to thank NatureScot for its work carrying out such an important and extensive public consultation in a robust and professional way that was commended in the review of the process carried out by the Scottish Community Development Centre. The consultation raised some really important issues that local people care deeply about and we now have the opportunity to look at how we can address these.
'The Scottish Government remains committed to our existing National Parks and the vital leadership role that they play in tackling the climate and biodiversity crises, promoting sustainable land management and supporting the economic and social development of local communities. Our National Parks are achieving for people and nature.'
Kat Jones, director of Action to Protect Rural Scotland, said: 'The news that Galloway is no longer under consideration to be Scotland's next National Park should send a chill down the spine of everyone campaigning to make the world a better place.
'That a policy so popular with the public, and a designation with so much promise for the region, has been dropped, seemingly in response to a well funded media campaign spreading fear and misinformation, is a tragedy.
'But this is not just a tragedy for the people of Galloway and southern Ayrshire, who were set to benefit most from the National Park, this decision impoverishes all of us.
'National Parks are a recognition of the best of our Nation's landscapes and this decision will impact Scotland's standing as a country that values and protects its nature.
'This decision is a betrayal of the Galloway people who have worked tirelessly for seven years to bring well deserved, national recognition for the special landscapes of their area.
'If the Scottish Government can't muster the energy to get a policy as popular, with as many co-benefits, and with such cross-party support, as a National Park over the line, how will we make the far more challenging changes we will need to stave off the nature and climate emergencies?'
John Thomson, chair of the Scottish Campaign for National Parks, said: 'It is deeply sad that misunderstandings about the role and impact of National Parks, together with intensive and often misleading lobbying, should have deprived Scotland's people of the third National Park that they were promised little more than three years ago.
'The country's two existing National Parks are already at the forefront in tackling the ever more pressing climate and biodiversity emergency, and in leading the way to the greener, healthier and happier wellbeing economy that the Scottish Government said it was pursuing.
'A new National Park for Scotland was supported by all political parties. The Ministers' decision represents a major failure to capitalise on Scotland's peerless combination of natural and cultural assets.
'For Galloway it is a huge missed opportunity to secure not only profile and resources but a stronger say over its future.
'All those with the region's interests truly at heart will now have to redouble their efforts to protect its precious landscapes and habitats from the many threats that they face".
Ramblers Scotland director, Brendan Paddy, said: 'Scotland has waited for two decades for its third national park, so we are disappointed to see this major opportunity missed.
'A new Galloway National Park, if delivered well, had the potential to attract funding, promote responsible outdoor recreation and support people from all backgrounds to walk in this beautiful corner of Scotland.
'We hope that the next Parliament will work to rebuild confidence that national parks are a key part of how Scotland's finest environments can be managed for the mutual benefit of residents, visitors and nature.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
North Wales Chronicle
20 minutes ago
- North Wales Chronicle
Asylum seekers to be removed from Essex hotel as council granted injunction
Epping Forest District Council had asked a judge to issue an interim injunction stopping migrants from being accommodated at the Bell Hotel in Epping. The injunction sought by the council meant the hotel's owner, Somani Hotels Limited, would have had to stop housing asylum seekers there within 14 days. The hotel has been at the centre of a series of protests in recent weeks after an asylum seeker who was staying there was charged with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl. In a ruling on Tuesday, Mr Justice Eyre granted the temporary injunction, but extended the time limit by which the hotel must stop housing asylum seekers to September 12. He also refused to give Somani Hotels the green light to challenge his ruling, but the company could still ask the Court of Appeal for the go-ahead to appeal against the judgment. In his judgment, he said that while the council had not 'definitively established' that Somani Hotels had breached planning rules, 'the strength of the claimant's case is such that it weighs in favour' of granting the injunction. He continued that the 'risk of injustice is greater' if a temporary injunction was not granted. A further hearing on whether the injunction should be made permanent is expected to be held at a later date, and is expected to last two days. Several protests and counter-protests have been held in the town since a then-resident at the hotel was accused of trying to kiss a teenage girl. Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu has denied charges against him and is due to stand trial later this month. A second man who resides at the hotel, Syrian national Mohammed Sharwarq, has separately been charged with seven offences, while several other men have been charged over disorder outside the hotel. The council said last week it was seeking an injunction due to 'unprecedented levels of protest and disruption' in connection with asylum seeker accommodation. Chris Whitbread, leader of the council, said the situation 'cannot go on' but the Government 'is not listening'. At a hearing on Friday, barristers for the council said that the site's 'sole lawful use' was as a hotel and that Somani Hotels had breached planning rules by using it to house asylum seekers. Philip Coppel KC, for the authority, said the situation was 'wholly unacceptable' and provided a 'feeding ground for unrest'. He said: 'There has been what can be described as an increase in community tension, the catalyst of which has been the use of the Bell Hotel to place asylum seekers.' Mr Coppel continued: 'It is not the asylum seekers who are acting unlawfully. It is the defendant, by allowing the hotel to be used to house asylum seekers.' He added: 'It really could not be much worse than this.' Piers Riley-Smith, for Somani Hotels, said that 'disagreement with Government policy' did not justify a 'draconian' injunction and that there would be 'hardship' caused to the company and those housed at the hotel. He also said that contracts to house asylum seekers were a 'financial lifeline' for the hotel, which was only 1% full in August 2022, when it was open to paying customers. Mr Riley-Smith said: 'It is clear that recent protests have expanded far beyond the local community and have gone into concerns about wider ideological and political issues from those outside the community. 'Those particular ideological, non-community concerns are not relevant to planning.' Following the ruling, Mr Whitbread said: 'I am delighted. This is great news for our residents. The last few weeks have placed an intolerable strain on our community but today we have some great news.' He continued: 'Home Office policy ignores the issues and concerns of local residents that the council represents. 'Today we have made a step towards redressing the imbalance and showing that local people do have some say, whatever the Home Office thinks.' Before judgment was handed down on Tuesday, barristers for the Home Office asked to intervene in the case, citing the 'substantial impact' caused to the Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, in performing her legal duties to asylum seekers. Edward Brown KC, for the department, told the court that moving asylum seekers in 'extremely short order' would cause a 'very significant operational burden' and 'particular acute difficulties' for the Government. But Mr Justice Eyre dismissed the Home Office's bid, stating that the department's involvement was 'not necessary'.
South Wales Guardian
20 minutes ago
- South Wales Guardian
Asylum seekers to be removed from Essex hotel as council granted injunction
Epping Forest District Council had asked a judge to issue an interim injunction stopping migrants from being accommodated at the Bell Hotel in Epping. The injunction sought by the council meant the hotel's owner, Somani Hotels Limited, would have had to stop housing asylum seekers there within 14 days. The hotel has been at the centre of a series of protests in recent weeks after an asylum seeker who was staying there was charged with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl. In a ruling on Tuesday, Mr Justice Eyre granted the temporary injunction, but extended the time limit by which the hotel must stop housing asylum seekers to September 12. He also refused to give Somani Hotels the green light to challenge his ruling, but the company could still ask the Court of Appeal for the go-ahead to appeal against the judgment. In his judgment, he said that while the council had not 'definitively established' that Somani Hotels had breached planning rules, 'the strength of the claimant's case is such that it weighs in favour' of granting the injunction. He continued that the 'risk of injustice is greater' if a temporary injunction was not granted. A further hearing on whether the injunction should be made permanent is expected to be held at a later date, and is expected to last two days. Several protests and counter-protests have been held in the town since a then-resident at the hotel was accused of trying to kiss a teenage girl. Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu has denied charges against him and is due to stand trial later this month. A second man who resides at the hotel, Syrian national Mohammed Sharwarq, has separately been charged with seven offences, while several other men have been charged over disorder outside the hotel. The council said last week it was seeking an injunction due to 'unprecedented levels of protest and disruption' in connection with asylum seeker accommodation. Chris Whitbread, leader of the council, said the situation 'cannot go on' but the Government 'is not listening'. At a hearing on Friday, barristers for the council said that the site's 'sole lawful use' was as a hotel and that Somani Hotels had breached planning rules by using it to house asylum seekers. Philip Coppel KC, for the authority, said the situation was 'wholly unacceptable' and provided a 'feeding ground for unrest'. He said: 'There has been what can be described as an increase in community tension, the catalyst of which has been the use of the Bell Hotel to place asylum seekers.' Mr Coppel continued: 'It is not the asylum seekers who are acting unlawfully. It is the defendant, by allowing the hotel to be used to house asylum seekers.' He added: 'It really could not be much worse than this.' Piers Riley-Smith, for Somani Hotels, said that 'disagreement with Government policy' did not justify a 'draconian' injunction and that there would be 'hardship' caused to the company and those housed at the hotel. He also said that contracts to house asylum seekers were a 'financial lifeline' for the hotel, which was only 1% full in August 2022, when it was open to paying customers. Mr Riley-Smith said: 'It is clear that recent protests have expanded far beyond the local community and have gone into concerns about wider ideological and political issues from those outside the community. 'Those particular ideological, non-community concerns are not relevant to planning.' Following the ruling, Mr Whitbread said: 'I am delighted. This is great news for our residents. The last few weeks have placed an intolerable strain on our community but today we have some great news.' He continued: 'Home Office policy ignores the issues and concerns of local residents that the council represents. 'Today we have made a step towards redressing the imbalance and showing that local people do have some say, whatever the Home Office thinks.' Before judgment was handed down on Tuesday, barristers for the Home Office asked to intervene in the case, citing the 'substantial impact' caused to the Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, in performing her legal duties to asylum seekers. Edward Brown KC, for the department, told the court that moving asylum seekers in 'extremely short order' would cause a 'very significant operational burden' and 'particular acute difficulties' for the Government. But Mr Justice Eyre dismissed the Home Office's bid, stating that the department's involvement was 'not necessary'.
The Guardian
20 minutes ago
- The Guardian
More applause for Nicola Sturgeon, please
While I await an assessment of Nicola Sturgeon's career from a non-unionist perspective from the fair-minded Guardian, I'll take issue with Martin Kettle on just one of his criticisms (Nicola Sturgeon's immense political talent is undeniable, 14 August). He states that Sturgeon's 'gender recognition reforms were dogmatic and divisive'. After lengthy consultation, the gender recognition reform (Scotland) bill was passed by the Scottish parliament with a significant majority, the Conservatives being the only party voting against. If it had been enacted, Scotland would have aligned with the majority of European countries on this issue. However, the UK government used section 35 of the Scotland Act to stop it. So the dogma and divisiveness came from the UK, not Sturgeon or the Scottish government, and Scotland and the UK remain conservative outliers in Europe with regard to trans WarburtonEdinburgh It was the fact that Nicola Sturgeon was a personable working-class woman with strong values that made the contrast between her and Boris Johnson so stark. Is it her support for independence that led to cold treatment in the British media? The headline on Martin Kettle's article suggests so. But this raises the question of whether being pro-union is really less nationalistic than being pro-independence. In any case, many Scots remember Nicola fondly, something that can't be said for many of this island's recent political MacraeInverness Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
