index introduction comments map name calendar FAQs FAQs

Your Comments

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

Really supportive of the idea of a national park. I'd like to add my weight to the request for Selkirk and the Ettrick Valley to be included. Selkirk really needs some help - it should be part of the cycling scene (like Innerleithen) and the roads in the valley are perfect for that. I'm a latecomer to the debate so I'm sure this has already been covered but I'm guessing cycling must be a candidate for a key attraction in a national park? Thanks

Sue Briggs - 20 April 2017

I think this is a fantastic initiative, but it would be great to see the boundary ambitions increased somewhat. It seems that inclusion of the Eskdalemuir, Ettrick and Yarrow region would increase the area dramatically and include arguably the most beautiful yet undiscovered parts of the Borders. I can understand that this may cause issues with industrial towns such as Hawick and Selkirk being included, but surely they can be ringfenced in any final designation. Failing that, drawing a line from North of Hawick to Robertson and then across to Yarrow and down the valley and around the South side of Selkirk would be a way of getting at least some of this scenery included. Hopefully the Duke of Buccleuch would be supportive!

Rory Steel - 26 March 2017

Please explore Selkirkshire, Ettrick, Yarrow and Upper Tweed Valleys - they simply can not be ignored along with their significant natural landmarks and historical references. Without them it is not a Borders National Park.

Louis Marston - 23 March 2017

The only question that remains and should make any Scottish government hang its head in shame whatever their political motivation - is why has this not been mooted before this? In planning speak we are all 'third parties'. Any member of the public that is. The only say we have is during elections. That is not what democracy is. We are the body that government works for and it is we who will shape the future.

Simon Blackwood - 13 March 2017

I understand your case for creating a National Park in the south east of the Scottish Borders but surely there is also a case for the creation of a National Park for Peeblesshire and the upper Tweed valley. Unfortunately I imagine that there are certain criteria that the countryside designated National Park has to fulfill and it may be that there are now too many windfarms, housing and business developments in Peeblesshire to satisfy these. However I note that in the United States some of the national parks have enclaves within them where certain development is permitted. Could we not argue the case for creating a National Park from the entire Scottish Borders with the more industrialised towns such as Galashiels, Hawick and Peebles as permitted development enclaves?

Amanda Kubie - 23 February 2017

I recently attended a meeting to discuss a proposed walking trail along the Tweed River, and during the discussion it became apparent that "Tweed" would be instantly recognisable as a "brand" for the region as a whole. By comparison, a colleague had previously made the point that the "Scottish Borders" is far too generic to have any real meaning for most people. I do recognise that it is the Teviot rather than the Tweed which is at the core of the area currently proposed, but as noted the final boundary will probably be very different, and I did see another comment suggesting it should include the upper Tweed valley of Peebleshire. In any case this could be covered by the formal name being "Tweed Rivers" or "Tweed Valley" or "Tweed and Teviot" National Park. I do think there is a very significant opportunity for a coordinated visitor marketing campaign with the Tweed as its USP, and given the aims of the national park proposal I would strongly encourage this broader idea to be considered. Its also worth mentioning that the top end of the Northumberland National Park around Wooler is within the Tweed catchment.

Ranald Boydell - 20 February 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: