index introduction comments map name calendar FAQs Review Papers Feasibility Study

Your Comments

Creating more National Parks in Scotland reduces the amount of land available for wind farms. Unlikely that the Scottish Government will allow that to happen. Borders, I would keep a low profile if I were you. Making a fuss will only attract the wind power carpetbaggers to your area.

Alec Young - 18 November 2017

Why is the forgotten area of Berwickshire not being included in any discussion. I am 77 years old, and I have often said that the East corner where we are is invisible. We have plenty of history - The Covenanters, a period that is sung about in folk music because it was so important an event in the history of Scotland, a turning point even. This is only one of the significant events in our lower Eastern Borders. We have beautiful countryside, to compete with any part of our Scotland. Large Historic Houses etc. I could go on, but I will prepare a more inclusive argument, for our area in time.

Ramsay Brack - 18 November 2017

Brilliant idea for Scottish Borders, a forgotten part of Scotland. Our area has literally hundreds of historical places, places of beauty and things to do.
A National Park would invigorate our area and bring it to the notice of the greater UK public. It is a place travellers "pass through" on their way to "Scotland" ie Edinburgh and the North.
Get them to STOP and see the delights and taste the produce.

May Kinghorn - 10 October 2017

The boundary should be revised to take in the Ettrick and Yarrow valleys and upper Tweeddale. A finger corridor should remain outside the park including Galashiels, Selkirk and Hawick to allow industrial development.

David Steel - 26 September 2017

Firstly, this would increase rents, which is a very bad move. Secondly, a lot of the land is farmland. Why would people want to visit a park that is just farms? If you want to attract tourists, build something touristy, don't just rename someone's house and fields as a park. It's lazy and doesn't do anything.
Fix the roads, extend the railway, and clean up the towns, then you might get more visitors.

Allen Clark - 15 September 2017

Borders National Park is OK with me. If I was to suggest another it would be Eildon National Park for two reasons; it's the biggest natural landmark in the Borders, and most of the National Park can viewed from it, weather premitting.
This region is often forgotten by the central belt population of Scotland and offers beautiful scenery. The Eildon Hills, in my opinion, have all the elements of a World Heritage Site. It has the largest Bronze Age hill fort settlement in Scotland. Between 3000 and 6000 people lived on the hills around 1000AD and it had Roman military settlements below it in the 1st Century.
Already the view from Galashiels has been ruined by house building on its lower levels the whole area needs protection for future generations. GOOD LUCK with the campaign and I hope our voices are heard.

Paul Robertson - 14 July 2017

Stephen Gibson's suggestion for a name - The Middle March National Park, is logical and accurate but I believe that, if we want ALL of the Scottish Borders area to benefit as much as possible from the Park and its proximity, then the only logical name is 'The Scottish Borders National Park'. Pembrokeshire National Park does not cover all of that county, but service and accommodation providers in the part of the county outside the Park boundaries report that they benefit because visitors don't particularly care if their bed for the night, or their fuel and food stops, shopping trips etc are actually in or outside the boundary.

Malcolm Dickson - 14 June 2017

The park would be situated mainly in the old middle march. The Middle March National Park would be a suitable name

Stephen Gibson - 26 May 2017

As one of the group of people proposing this idea I feel that it's really great that people outside the suggested boundary are making valid claims for including other parts of the Scottish Borders in the National Park. The areas suggested are certainly worthy of inclusion on so many counts. We are not wedded to the position of the boundaries, they are just a starting point. However, the area as shown is about average for a UK NP, a bit bigger than Northumberland NP, a bit smaller than the present Scottish NPs. Our guess is that it will be easier to gain official acceptance if it is not too extensive. We note that the Scottish NPs and a number of English NPs have recently been extended, after they were set up, in response to well-argued local demands. The most challenging part has been getting the initial designation. Whatever happens, the name 'Scottish Borders National Park' should ensure that all parts of the Borders benefit from the marketing impetus, as has happened elsewhere in the UK.

Malcolm Dickson - 29 April 2017

This way to view all comments

Note that we will not look at any comments that are not accompanied by a name and a valid email address. Your email address will not be shared and will not be published.

Your name:

Your email address:

Your comments in the box below:

Please type the letters as seen in this text image in the box below. Note, the letters are case sensitive: