How misinformation brought down a National Park

APRS Director, Kat Jones reflects on the campaign to bring down the planned new National Park. Detailed analysis of the NatureScot report confirms that misinformation has had an insidious impact on the outcome. The Park was scrapped, despite Government knowledge that most of the arguments being used against the National Park had no basis in evidence.

---

You can read our response to the National park cancellation alongside the reactions from MSPs here.

---

A shorter version of this blog post was published in The Herald on 14 June 2025

Back in December I wrote an analysis of the campaign against the National Park in Galloway. The campaign had sprung, seemingly, out of nowhere on the day that Galloway was announced as the preferred location for Scotland’s new National Park and was supercharged by a PR company who had previously worked, among other things, on Brexit, on behalf of tax havens and against Low Emissions Zones.

One of the key characteristics of the campaign was the misinformation that filled the media. It bore so much similarity to the campaign against the deposit return scheme, another one of our recent causes, that I wrote a comparison of the tactics of the two campaigns in my analysis. 

These tactics have, again, proved extremely effective, and the plans for a new National Park in Galloway were axed on 29 May by the Scottish Government. 

I was surprised, as many others will be, that such a popular measure and a designation with so many co-benefits for the local community and livelihoods could have been brought down so quickly. A detailed look at the consultation analysis confirms that misinformation may well have had an impact on the outcome. The Government made the decision to scrap the Park, despite the report from NatureScot which showed that most of the arguments being used against the National Park had little basis in evidence, whereas arguments used in support were generally evidence based.

Worse than this, the Scottish Government used the consultation process as a numbers game, something that consultations are not designed to do. Consultations are used to gather information about complex policy proposals, and, in this case, a proposal with a number of options: for the area that Park would cover, powers of the Park, governance arrangements, among other things. This consultation, though, has been used as a de facto referendum by the Scottish Government in their decision making, as evidenced by the Cabinet Secretary emphasising the exact numbers of pros and antis from the consultation response despite the NatureScot report cautioning against the approach in their report (see below). This problem was compounded by the Scottish Government failing to weigh any of the responses according to whether they had a basis in fact.

NatureScot said in their report: “The core of this opposition is based on concerns over the potential negative economic impact to these key sectors, fears of overtourism, the impact on local infrastructure and services and concerns over the appropriateness of a National Park solution for the area. We would note that many of these issues raised in the responses to the consultation are not supported by strong evidence of how existing National Parks in Scotland operate, or more detailed consideration of how a National Park could be tailored to Southwest Scotland to address these concerns.”

NatureScot laid out a detailed analysis of the perceived benefits and dis-benefits that were highlighted in the consultation responses, so we are able to dig into exactly what they mean by this statement. The perceived benefits and dis-benefits analysis is summarised in the table below. You can read the full table on on p33 of the NatureScot Report 

I have added the last column, coloured green, amber or red to show whether the statement is backed up by a strong, medium or weak evidence base. You can see that 10 out of the 12 perceived dis-benefits are not backed up by evidence, and two are uncertain. These two are both about the impact of future wind development, which is classed as uncertain due to the Government signalling an intention to change policy in new National Parks.

Summary Analysis Table

Below a summary table of the NatureScot analysis of the perceived benefits and dis-benefits of a National Park. The last column has been added to indicate whether the evidence base for the benefit/dis-benefit is strong (green), medium (amber) or weak (red). The full table can be found on p33 of the NatureScot Report

It is interesting to see the contrasting perceptions that appeared in the consultation responses.  Firstly, that a National Park will not stop wind farms, this was one of the key messages put out by the No Campaign. And secondly a corresponding perceived dis-benefit that National Parks will stop wind farms, which is coming from the renewables industry. It is notable, however, that Scottish Renewables only press-released a report produced, presumably to inform their consultation response as it is referenced a couple of times in the Nature Scot document, after the consultation had closed. This report said that the doubling of wind installations in the next decade was threatened by a National Park. Of course, had this been released before the consultation closed, it may have influenced more people concerned about the increase in windfarms to respond to the consultation.

For the ten perceived benefits of National Parks, 8 have strong /good evidence and one a medium evidence base.

It seems like the people responding to the consultation have been persuaded by the misinformation repeated, with little to no analysis of the factual basis, in the press again and again. The Government too, for whom National Parks are a stated Policy, failed to correct this tidal wave of misinformation before it had totally swamped all discussions of the National Park in Galloway. 

It left three voluntary organisations: Galloway National Park Association, SCNP and ourselves with the impossible task of trying to get the evidence-base out there, with our tiny resources (SCNP and APRS share one day a week of funded officer dedicated to National Parks, GNPA have none)

That the Government allowed misinformation to take hold, and then, to make things worse, converted the consultation into a de facto referendum, is totally at variance with the way in which Government policy should be consulted on and delivered. 

NatureScot themselves, in their reports, counseled against treating the consultation as a numbers game saying, “the outcome is more inconclusive than the headline data from the surveys may suggest.”[1]  “treating these results as definitive is problematic”[2]  and “Nor was the survey designed to be a simple poll. [3] They also noted the contrast with the early engagement of Lateral North, prior to Galloway being chosen as the location, and before the anti-campaign took hold, with its misinformation campaign: “there was an overall sense within each of those [consultation meetings] that the creation of a national park within the area is something that a majority of the community want to see happen.”[4]

Our experience with the aftermath of the cancellation of the Deposit Return Scheme suggests that the Scottish Government will find that cancelling the new National Park will not draw a line under the issue.

The deposit return scheme was cancelled rather than going ahead without glass, which they could have done under the terms of the Internal Markets Act. And, rather than being the end of their problems, it has led to being sued by Biffa for £200 million, a loss of £8 million due to the bankruptcy of Circularity Scotland, and they are still having to implement a deposit return scheme, in line with the UK. This scheme needs to be distinct in each of the national of the UK and will be without glass, but it is taking place three years after it could have happened, and requires setting up the structures to deliver it over again, with the backdrop of a huge lack of trust from business resulting from the U-turn.  

Similarly this will not be the end of the pressures from the “anti-park” campaign. The decision on a National Park was taken under a backdrop of intense lobbying. The NFUS logged 29 meetings with MSPs or Ministers to lobby against a new National Park between January 2024 and February 2025 according to the Scottish Government lobbying Register. The proposal was opposed by larger landowning interests and those intent on industrialisation of Galloway’s landscapes including major wind farm developers [5] and large-scale forestry [6].

Those who opposed the new National Park will be emboldened by this win. They won’t be stopping with taking down a Galloway National Park.[7]

The Government has to face up to the fact that anything that clearly benefits the environment but potentially reduces profits for vested interests attracts a powerful anti-lobby. This is no different from public health in areas such as tobacco, alcohol and processed food. Any government supposedly committed to stopping and reversing biodiversity loss needs to stand firm on positive change.  

Civil society should be rightly alert to what has just happened with the National Park and the tactics being used. we need to hold the Government to account to deliver their commitments on nature and climate, and make it unacceptable to bow to such tactics of misinformation. Everyone who wants to make the world a better place needs to be much more prepared for similar tactics in future, across more of our work.

Notes and References

[1] Main report Para 91

“The analysis of the consultation exercise we have undertaken has shown that the outcome is more inconclusive than the headline data from the surveys may suggest. Nevertheless, while two of the three local authorities are supportive of it, the largest is now undecided. It is also clear that there is significant nervousness about the proposal, or direct opposition to it, across many communities and businesses which was not as evident in the reporter consultation for Scotland’s first two National Parks.” (our emphasis)

[2] Main report 68 a) 

“Opinion on the proposal is highly polarised and the results are not as conclusive as the headline data may suggest. The inclusive way the three-survey approach was designed means that there is some double counting of responses from the same respondents across the three surveys. The open nature of the National Park proposal and the options we consulted on for it also mean that treating these results as definitive is problematic.” (our emphasis)

[3] methodology report Paragraph 2a – 

“Given the investigation we have done, our assessment is that the presence of valid duplicates within and across the three surveys has not significantly altered the main conclusions of the quantitative analysis given the overall number of responses received. Nor was the survey designed to be a simple poll. A stricter approach to this issue, which excluded all possible validated duplicates, may have changed the numbers very slightly. However, on balance we consider that the approach taken has significant advantages both in terms of its inclusivity and for not requiring intrusive policing of personal information.” (our emphasis)

[4] Whole quote from Paragraph 4 of the NatureScot report

“The bid for a Galloway National Park built on previous work by the GNPA and had been subject to extended discussion locally over many years as well as specific consideration within the local development plan for Dumfries and Galloway. In its report on the support it provided to the bidding groups during 2022/23 on behalf of the Scottish Government, Lateral North noted the following:

“Out of all of the areas that [we] facilitated engagement work….. Galloway was clearly the least divided with the conversation much more focused around exploring ideas and opportunities rather than asking questions about what a national park is or the process. This will without a shadow of a doubt be because the GNPA have been promoting their campaign for over 7 years now within the local area so a lot more people are aware of what a national park is and what the process is as well.

“The engagement sessions were a mix of people of different backgrounds – farmers and landowners through to dog walkers and artists – which were reflected in their varied comments. The four engagement sessions took place in four very different communities, however there was an overall sense within each of those that the creation of a national park within the area is something that a majority of the community want to see happen.” (our emphasis)

[5] The SR report cites 470 additional jobs by 2035 if wind power doubles as projected. However a study by APRS and SCNP estimated that a National Park in Galloway would support or create 700 to 1400 jobs  

[6] it is notable that, of the organisations cited as having responded, 10 of the 13 which responded against a national park were renewables industry, forestry and landowners. The 30 organisations who were supportive in their response were a mix of environmental, civil society, tourism, two local authorities and other bodies such as Historic Environment Scotland, James Hutton Institute, Network Rail. See Table 7 of the NatureScot report 

Paragraph 68(f) of the report records the responses from businesses. 81% of land use-related businesses opposed the proposal, however other business community responses showed 58% support the Park. 60% of all business responses came from land use-related ones, showing an over representation in the responses of land-use businesses at the expense of the wider economy of the region.

[7] Just to take two examples, the Land Reform Bill and the Natural Environment (NE) Bill are going through the Scottish Parliament at the moment. The NE Bill, in particular, will be opening up the National Park legislation so that it can be updated, made more effective and deliver more for nature and climate. Both these will have the same interests ranged against them as the National Park in Galloway – we should be aware that these are likely the next targets.

We are an absolutely minuscule charity with three part-time staff, please consider joining us or making a donation!

If you want to read more information about National Parks, please see the Scottish Environment LINK reports below: