@fitheach there’s a lot more practical local control in the national park than there is the average Council. Otherwise there would be no point in having them.
What is critical is to get in right at the beginning and ensure that the national park board has a majority of local members .
@peterbrown
The boards are comprised of the usual mix of the "great and good". That isn't representative of the local community.
I live not far from the border of the Cairngorm NP. I have never heard a good word about it from LOCALS. NPs being a good thing is usually a view expressed by city folk.
NPs aren't even good for their stated objectives. I refer you to:
@fitheach well I experienced one of the Italian national parks as a visitor, and I was so impressed with the way it was operated that I made the effort to read their constitution and rules.
The enabling legislation is just that – enabling. The actual set up of the national park is up for grabs, and it is up to local people to grab it.
@fitheach well that’s absolutely fine. Harris would bite your hand off to get it. The local Council prevented it from going ahead, and as Harris is only a small part of the CnES area, they could do nothing.
@fitheach  I don’t want to prolong this discussion unnecessarily, but just to add that this is an example of a dispute that could be solved by national park status. In Italy local residents are allowed to continue to fish but it is prohibited for everybody else. The same applied to shooting and other recreational activities. Locals also have exemptions for tourism businesses.
Maybe our national parks are not as daring as they were in Italy, but that is up to the founders https://www.newyorker.com/news/dispatch/nova-scotias-billion-dollar-lobster-wars
@fitheach sorry, just a ps.
Holiday houses in the Lake District are controlled because they’re in a national park. There are protective measures available to help support the local population under National Park status which are not available to local councils
I understand there is a similar system on Loch Lomond side
@peterbrown
None of these things require a national park. Legislation could be amended to allow or mandate councils to do them. This also has the advantage that all suitable areas could be covered, and not just three specific ones.
Add comment