Green Spaces To National Parks
A query
Recently I got an email about my local National Park consultation: the proposal of designating a lovely, natural area in my county as a new national park. I was asked what my response was, either as an individual, or as a (sometimes) Green Party representative. This was my reply, which I’m sharing because it includes some useful considerations for any land-use issues of this type, and perhaps makes a good companion piece to Saving Green Spaces.
I'm not sure what the official local Green Party policy is: I think they are still debating it.
As you can imagine, there are pros and cons. And a lot of conditionals. If it leads to extra litter and unnecessary car journeys, I’d be against it. If it leads to protecting nature and wildlife, I’d be for it. So some of that depends on lots of fine print and future policy, which I can only guess at.
Personally, what things are called has little significance to me. Is it a lovely green area? Protect it! (Regardless of whether it is called a National Park or not.) Is there room for some sustainable tourism? Then do that! (Regardless of whether it is called a National Park or not.) People get too caught up on labels, rather than the intrinsic value and qualities of a thing. It reminds me of how some towns want to be “honoured” by being renamed cities. It makes no sense to me: cities are dead and dirty places that can’t sustain themselves. I’d rather see towns fight to get downgraded to villages. :-)
The North Coast 500 existed before it got an official “name”. And since it got that assignation it has apparently been plagued with traffic and litter, and people “doing” the 500 in camper vans and not contributing anything but problems to the local communities. It has led to a massive increase in car use, which is always a negative. The power of a name can be destructive. All UK national parks have problems. They pull people to one place, and other beautiful places get ignored.
However! It is also worth looking at who is campaigning against it. And we find lobbyists amongst big farmers, and massive rich landowners like Alistair Jack (who has apparently connected to the No campaign). Why are they against it? Because being a National Park might prevent them doing damaging agriculture (leaking slurry, fertiliser run-off etc), with more limits on huge buildings, maybe restrictions on cruel factory farming, and certainly closer scrutiny of their practices. They don't want regulation, oversight, or having to follow eco policies that might follow it becoming a National Park. Hence they are orchestrating a campaign against it. So, if I was on the fence, then knowing Alistair Jack is against it immediately makes me want to support it. He was useless as my MP (replaced with another equally useless Tory), and someone I always thought was vile in his beliefs and policies (e.g. supporting Israel's terrorism, wanting to put nuclear power in Scotland, opposing Scottish independence). So, if he is against something, then it may well be a good thing to do it. (And if he is for something, it’s probably bad, and maybe more about enriching himself.)
Just my personal views and musings, not anyone’s policy.
The reply I got:
Thanks so much for taking the time to share your very considered thoughts.
One of our group discovered the Jack connection through an article in the Ferret. Like you this would make me want to support the idea of creating a National Park here in Galloway.
I am a supporter of Galloway Against Pylons and we have just learned that the Scottish government has rejected the findings of a report the group commissioned, objecting to the construction of a new pylon line through Laurieston Forest. The current line goes through land on the other side of the river Dee, belonging to another member of the Jack family. This could have been upgraded instead of an entirely new one being constructed. No prizes for guessing where the influence came from.
This all ties in to inequality of money, land and power. All three need reforming before there is any hope of calling us civilised.