YOUR VIEWS: Third national park is a litmus test for local democracy
Register for free to read more of the latest local news. It's easy and will only take a moment.
The SNP /Green Government have pledged to create a new national park in Scotland by 2026.
Yet are they planning to afford the people that actually live within its boundaries a real say in this decision ? As Eliza Doolittle famously said: ‘Not bloody likely’.
Our two existing parks , Loch Lomond and the Trossachs , and Cairngorms, were created following law passed in 2000.
As a young (ish) MSP, I then moved an amendment, unsuccessfully, that no park be established without support demonstrated by a referendum of the local people – the people most impacted by its decisions.
What has happened in the two decades since? In Cairngorms, there are real concerns and anger about the park authority, as I well know, having represented people there ever since it was set up in 2003.
Indeed, in Aviemore and Spey Valley community forum, in a referendum they held just last month, a massive 92 per cent (444 votes), said the park ‘was not working well’. Only a pitiful three per cent (10 votes) said the park was working well.
Many local farmers in my constituency are concerned at the failure to advance their interests as they had hoped from the park in the early days.
Beavers are introduced without their consent with the risk of major damage to farm land and injury of livestock.
Regulations are stricter within its boundaries than elsewhere. No real effort has been made to promote local produce.
Instead, tens of millions of pounds have been thrown on projects such as that to ‘save’ the capercaillie whose population has reportedly fallen by about half in the last five years.
They have refused the essential control of predators which regard caper eggs as breakfast, lunch and tea.
Local housing projects have all too often been snarled up in bureaucracy and a proposed new town, An Camus Mor, was strangled at birth.
When the park was first created, locals were assured their ‘cultural heritage’ and ‘way of life’ would be preserved. Now it’s no longer a priority. Most folk then believed that visitors’ facilities – for example for littering and toilets – would improve. Instead they have become worse.
The Cairngorms park is just not popular amongst large swathes of locals. The few truly local representatives on the CNPA board over the years have all too often been spurned , side-lined or ignored.
Surely, before any more such parks are created there should first have been an independent review of how the two existing parks have performed? But no. And let’s not forget the pledge was in the Bute House Agreement not in the SNP 2021 manifesto so there is no national mandate for the policy.
So, will the Scottish Government now allow the people a proper say in a local referendum in whichever of the nominated areas is chosen by them as the new park.
The five remaining on the shortlist are Lochaber, Tay Forest, Loch Awe, Galloway and the Borders. Already, several parts of Scotland have opted out of the process namely, Skye and Raasay, Affric and Loch Ness, Ben Wyvis and Glen Affric, because of local concerns.
Furthermore, our farmers have recently held demonstrations in many parts of rural Scotland against a new park. Expect much more of the same.
Has the Minister in charge, Lorna Slater, recognised any of this? Not in the slightest. She adopts a modern day Marie Antoinette ‘let them eat cake’approach. Why ask people what they want when you already know what they need.
This despite the fact that Bute House agreement assures us that no new park will be created without local consent.
Indeed, in their recent ‘Depopulation Action Plan’, aiming to stem even further loss of people from rural Scotland, the Scottish Government promises their new approach will be exemplified by the maxim: “Local by default, national by agreement”.
Are these just to be words on a page?
The Scottish Government will I am sure say that the law does not require a local referendum. What they won’t say is that they can hold one if they wish.
Ministers say that each nominated area must show evidence of local support. But how can that be done without asking the people who live there? Do they privately fear people will say no – especially when public money should be used for so very many more pressing purposes.
The Cairngorms park costs over £13 million a year to operate.
In a democracy, everyone counts or nobody counts. This issue will be a litmus test of whether our Scottish Government truly believes in local democracy where local people determine their own future, or that their fate will be sealed by a centralising and indeed authoritarian power.
Fergus Ewing MSP
Boat of Garten.
* * *
Misinformation being pedalled on CO2 is to safeguard status quo
Regular readers of the Strathy letters column will be aware of the level of misinformation and false claims about climate science that are still circulating, even though such claims have no basis in reality.
For example, letters here and elsewhere have claimed that only a small percentage of the CO2 in the atmosphere is man-made, whereas the true figure is much higher (around 34 per cent at present ).
What may be less clear is the source of this denial of the scientific evidence for man-made global warming and climate change.
Much of this emanates from free-market ‘think tanks’ in the USA, prominent amongst which is the notorious Heartland Institute, funded by wealthy organisations, for example oil company ExxonMobil, to prevent effective action to deal with the climate and biodiversity emergencies in order to protect their short-term profits.
The techniques used by these organisations are the same as those used earlier to protect the tobacco industry from the growing evidence that its products were harmful: create doubt and spread misinformation.
The result is also the same: to protect the wealth and power of rich individuals and organisations at the expense of the health and well-being of people and their environment.
It is therefore disturbing to learn that Mike Keiser, the billionaire US entrepreneur behind the current bid to create an 18-hole golf course on protected sand dunes (Coul Links), north of the Dornoch Firth, has made substantial donations to US groups and politicians rejecting climate science, including £45,000 to the Heartland Institute.
Even more disturbing may be the newspaper advert in the Northern Times encouraging people to support the Coul Links development that described Mr Keisler as ‘a committed environmentalist’ which appears to me to be a bit of misinformation of which the Heartland Institute would be proud.
The Scottish Government is currently considering this golf course application, having called it in after it was narrowly granted planning consent by Highland Council.
Hopefully, the government will take note of a community previously afflicted by a Mike Keiser development in Oregon, USA, who “warned Scottish regulators and communities to ‘be wary’ of Keiser who, they claimed, seeks to ‘encourage residents and governments to let him compromise their environmental treasures for the sake of his profits’.” (The Ferret, April 16, 2023).
Roy Turnbull
Torniscar
Nethy Bridge.
* * *
A ‘neigh’ to kind offer of use of local stables
I would like to reply to the many kind offers of hospitality that the Monday Club and Debating Society have received for a venue to continue our important discussions.
Fortunately our lack of premises has been resolved, much to the relief of our members but I would like to give a thankful mention to a couple of offers.
One of these was from Ruaridh Ormiston for the use of his stables which may not have appreciated by the current residents who I am sure need some peace and quiet after a hard days trekking in our beautiful countryside (they said neigh to that).
The other generous offer came from ex-hostelry owner,the famous (or some would say infamous) Wilma Riley for the use of her High Street luxury penthouse suite conveniently positioned near the Co-op for a carry oot.
Once again thank you all for your kindest offers.
Aly Maclean
Kingussie.
* * *
Columnist Charlie in need of medical help
Charlie Whelan, writing in last week’s Strathy misses two points: firstly, though the Scottish Government might have full responsibility for the operation of NHS Scotland, it has no control over its funding, that comes from Westminster under the Barnett Formula.
Like the rest of the UK’s NHS, Scotland has been deprived of investment for years by Westminster, so there’s no point in blaming them for that. Secondly, it doesn’t sound like Charlie has used the Scottish NHS recently.
I have had to both for minor ailments and to assist a friend with a serious illness over a long period and have nothing but praise for staff and organisation at both Raigmore and the new Aviemore hospital.
No delays, no queues and no ambulances stacked outside A&E, like we saw routinely south of the border on the BBC.
Charlie should get out a bit more.
Alan Anderson
Grantown.
* * *
‘There is lot more to Coul Links support than meets the eye’
In this column a director of C4C, the company applying for the controversial golf course at Coul Links (one of Scotland’s most important dune areas), claims we have ‘no American billionaires’. In fact, the golf course developer is American billionaire Mike Keiser.
C4C’s own slick advert, perhaps provided by their PR agency Morrison Media, unequivocally states ‘The golf course will be developed by ... Mike Keiser” (Northern Times, 7 April 2023).
Keiser owns over a dozen golf courses in America and has been described as a billionaire business rival of Donald Trump and a powerful figure in the golf world.
He is also known as a significant donor to politicians and think tanks allied to climate change denial.
Mike Keiser attacked European environmental rules intended to safeguard Scotland’s most prized natural assets from damage by inappropriate developments (‘Anger at US golf developer’s attack on Scotland’s environmental rules’, The Ferret August 18, 2019).
He was also behind the extremely similar, earlier golf course application at Coul that was thrown out by Scottish Ministers in 2020 on grounds of environmental harm.
Keiser started to build a golf course in Oregon without permission on a state park, and one of his Oregon critics warned from personal experience that Keiser showed lack of concern for ‘ecological integrity of protected areas, or the community livability of nearby towns’ (The Ferret, April 16, 2023).
Unusually, the director’s address is not publicly printed with last week’s letter. The reasons for this lack of transparency can only be guessed at. Perhaps the ‘address supplied’ came from Morrison Media, or perhaps from Coul Farm?
Tellingly, it has emerged that C4C and Mike Keiser’s company Coul Links Ltd both use the farm address.
It is understood the farm is owned by Coul Links landowner Edward Abel Smith who has initial planning permission for a £20m hotel, contingent on the golf course being developed.
Gus Jones
Fiodhag
Nethy Bridge.
* * *
Taking the biscuit...
I have seen some strange and convoluted letters over the years but the one from Dermot Williamson against me really takes the biscuit (Strathy Letters, March 7).
He implies I want to jail all demonstrators whereas if he removed his green tinted glasses he would see that I clearly said only those who broke the law.
He then meanders through Islamists, Muslims and Russia. For the avoidance of doubt I think all demonstrators who break the law should be jailed.
Demonstrations should be held where they do not cause distress or inconvenience to the public.
A field full of cow dung seems an appropriate location.
Serial demonstrators like Just Stop Oil’s rich poster girl Phoebe Plummer, who threw soup at Van Gogh’s Sunflower painting, should be jailed for over a year.
Do you Mr Williamson approve of her actions and the Just Stop Oil’s manual which said demonstrators should include breaking windows, throwing paint, deflating car tyres and other acts of vandalism?
No convoluted reply please just a straight ‘yes’ or ‘no’.
Clark Cross
Linlithgow.
* * *
Who’s driving return of long gone wildlife?
A number of questions arise to this townsman lacking knowledge as to controversies about the reintroduction to the countryside of beavers, lynx, wolves, sea-eagles and other potentially harmful creatures.
What motivates the reintroduction of those former countryside exiles – for example is it based on green ideology and/or attempts to stimulate tourism?
How much weight is given to any protests from livestock and agricultural interests? Who makes decisions on reintroduction and who meet the costs? Are monitoring assessments in place which might limit continuation of reintroductions deemed to have been unwise?
Your article (Strathy, March 8) on Strathspey beavers’ re-establishment mentioning NatureScot and numerous distant groups implies risks of too many cooks spoiling the broth.
Surely the practical interests of those working on the land should be accorded priority over the ideological politics of national quangos set up by remote politicos.
Would reintroduction policy decisions be better managed by elected local authorities?
Charles Wardrop
Perth.
