NatureScot, which is carrying out the consultation, says 14 public events have been held so far, with a further 15 to take place before the consultation ends in February.
According to the organisation’s data, more than 650 people have already attended the events.
The consultation is looking into specific details of the park, such as what it will be called and where its boundaries will be.
The park would cover parts of East and South Ayrshire, as well as Dumfries and Galloway (Image: NQ Archive) Campaigners against the plans think that an independent referendum should be carried out to decide the outcome, as the consultation has become “skewed”.
The ‘No Galloway National Park’ (NGNP) campaign group says that the credibility of the public consultation into the proposed park is “in tatters” after the company running events on behalf of the Scottish Government’s NatureScot agency distributed pro-park campaign details.
Anyone completing a survey is asked whether they support or oppose the idea of a new national park being established in the area, which would cover parts of East and South Ayrshire, as well as Dumfries and Galloway.
Those in favour say it will be a great addition to the area. (Image: NQ Archive) Earlier in December, councillors in Dumfries and Galloway backed a call for a referendum – although the Scottish Government has already ruled out a local ballot.
Stuart Graham, NatureScot’s south operations manager, said: “We’ve been listening to people from all walks of life and from all perspectives in this busy public consultation, as we ensure that those living and working in the area have the opportunity to discuss the issues, consider the content of the proposal for a national park in Galloway, and decide whether they support it or not, or have alternatives they wish to suggest.
“With two months of the consultation left, we want everyone to get involved, take the time to read the proposal, and have their say.
“More than 15 events are taking place in January, and there is extensive information about Scotland’s national parks and this proposal on our website, with leaflet versions of the surveys available in accessible versions.
“There is still plenty of time for everyone to help us understand the views they wish to express in our final report to Scottish ministers in April next year.”
Campaigners have strongly opposed the plans. (Image: NQ Archive) Campaigners against the plans say that a consultancy group on behalf of the consultation did not circulate a link to the NGNP, which is campaigning against the proposal.
When this was discovered and raised with the company, Outside the Box simply claimed it was a mistake, but did not apologise, according to NGNP.
No Galloway National Park campaign co-founder Liz Hitschmann said it was yet more evidence of bias in the consultation process, which ends on February 14, 2025.
“We do not believe it was just a simple error,” she said, “because this whole consultation has been framed around acceptance that there will be a park, and this process is just about shaping NatureScot’s plans, not whether there should be a national park at all.
“Promoting the GNPA might not be a problem for NatureScot’s event organisers, but it’s a big problem for democracy in Galloway and certainly a problem for us.
“This email will have gone out to scores, if not hundreds of people so the damage is done.”
A NatureScot spokesperson added: “Scottish Ministers appointed NatureScot to be the Reporter on their proposal that a new National Park should be established in Galloway, with the potential area extending to parts of Dumfries and East and South Ayrshire. The Reporting work is based on the joint bid made by the Galloway National Park Association and Galloway and Southern Ayrshire UNESCO Biosphere. As a result, any reference to campaign websites in NatureScot materials is limited to that joint bid.
“The online consultation event facilitators shared a website link with 17 participants by mistake and this was corrected. It was also made clear that this would not happen again, and we are satisfied that the matter has been dealt with appropriately.
“In the consultation paper, we set out the case that has been made for and against the proposed National Park – the former drawing on the bid and the latter drawing on the issues raised through correspondence, meetings and contributions to our online information portal. We are confident that this treatment is balanced.
“The analysis of the consultation surveys will allow us to further detail the reasons why respondents are for or opposed to the proposed National Park, and the evidence informing these views.”