'Aggressive' grannies? The shocking reaction after we began campaign against Galloway National Park

After the end of a controversial, three-month public consultation on a new national park in Galloway, Denise Brownlee and Liz Hitschmann, founders of the No Galloway National Park campaign, reflect on a year which changed their lives.

Denise Brownlee: I had heard murmurs that my town, Gatehouse of Fleet, could be included in a proposed national park but had not heard anything more until I turned on the TV last summer and there it was on the news. Galloway had been chosen for Scotland’s new park.

Having lived and worked in a national park, I did not want the same thing happening here; the litter, human waste, and overcrowded tourist honeypots. I thought someone should do something about it and, after mulling it over, I realised I could, so set up a Facebook group.

Within 24 hours about 500 people had joined and I asked my neighbour Liz Hitschmann for help. We didn’t really know each other but she agreed, and little did she know we would soon be working 16-hour days, seven days a week.

Denise Brownlee, left, and Liz Hitschmann set up a campaign to oppose plans for a Galloway National Park, and quickly discovered many other people were concerned too | contributed

The more that joined, the more concerns about a national park grew; people already struggling with over-tourism and campervans, farmers with worries about walkers and dogs off leads, folk looking for housing, NHS staff, hauliers. Every walk of life.

Our first meeting, exactly two weeks after I started the page, attracted over 300 people. I asked for donations to help cover the cost of the hall, and I was stunned to collect £2,000.

Our next meeting was in Wallets Marts in Castle Douglas and again over 300 attended, but this time NatureScot came along, and we hoped to hear why a park was a good idea. But apart from confirming it would not stop windfarms, they could answer nothing.

By this time, about 2,000 were on the Facebook page and people were buying banners, car stickers, putting up posters, and wanting more meetings. Plenty gave their talents, time, equipment and money to further the message.

Life became a round of TV and radio interviews, reports for newspapers and, once NatureScot’s consultation launched, everyone saw how biased this entire thing was and support from local councillors and MSPs picked up.

It has been a huge learning curve for me, reading the legislation, speaking to folk from so many backgrounds and being asked for my views and advice, mostly about the many problems with NatureScot’s consultation – the lack of a ‘no’ option, the biased questions, or people unable to access the questionnaire.

Every week, we are at community council meetings in the evening and working all day, writing letters and speaking to different interested parties. Shows of hands at the end of meetings always demonstrated overwhelming opposition, and it has been the same story at drop-in consultations.

Yet local media ran claims that Liz and I ─ two grannies and one in a wheelchair ─ were aggressive and intimidating. For seven months, our lives have been on hold but it will be worth it if we can stop this thing.

A map showing the rough boundary of the proposed national park in Galloway | contributed

Shocking levels of abuse

Liz Hitschmann: I was stunned when I heard Galloway might become Scotland’s next national park and had extensive public support, because I knew nothing about it. Curious, I read the Galloway National Park Association’s (GNPA) bid and was shocked to find ‘proof’ of support was a survey of just 390 people over six years.

Thankfully, Denise had set up the No Galloway National Park Facebook page, which quickly confirmed I was not the only one disturbed by the proposal. and I was more than happy to give her my support.

Just two weeks later, we held our first meeting. The support was staggering, the hall overflowing, with people listening at the open windows.

The £2,000 donated then meant we could buy the first banners for sale to farmers and they now line the main roads, and a local graphic designer, the lovely Nicola, sent us a distinctive logo for free.

We can’t stress enough how much such support has meant, not only the many donations but from wonderful people like Nicola volunteering their time and expertise. Through our fact-finding group and the many unsolicited emails and posts, we have uncovered so much about the bid; the biased process, the subterfuge, and the flawed consultation.

I guess if you put your head above the parapet you’re bound to be shot at, but we’ve been truly shocked by the abuse we have received. The attacks came virtually from the start and, at one point, we had to contact the police as we felt so vulnerable.

But when passionate argument is deliberately misrepresented as intimidation by people who simply don’t like their previously unchallenged views being subjected to robust challenge, then we must be winning.

There is no question the whole issue has been extremely divisive. Friends have been lost, but more than made up for by the many new and unexpected friendships formed.

With many others, I have spent hours emailing councillors, MPs, MSPs, and community councils, and our reward has been three significant decisions in the past three months which could prove decisive.

In October, we went to the Scottish Parliament where Denise gave evidence to the Petitions Committee to advocate for a full independent review of the other national parks, and two weeks ago, the committee concluded the consultation is deeply flawed and an independent assessment is needed.

At December’s Dumfries and Galloway Council meeting, Councillor Dougie Campbell’s motion calling for a local referendum was supported by 23 votes to 11. Then a fortnight ago, councillors voted 23 to 12 that there was insufficient information to support a park, a major step back from its previous approval in principle.

The GNPA spun this as councillors voting to progress the park, but we shouldn’t be surprised that an increasingly desperate campaign should round off the consultation with more misinformation.