Private landowners related to the former Conservative Scottish Secretary, Alister Jack, have been accused of covertly backing a campaign to block plans for a new national park in Galloway.
Meh. The National park needs more work before they push it through. Unless it’s changed recently it’s going to add restrictions on house building / modifications etc.
The town i live in will be cut in half. The half inside the national park with building restrictions etc? The 1980s council houses. The half not in the park with no restrictions? The classic 150+ year old classic houses.
Okay… and?
I get that the lack of transparency is itself worth criticising, but the news story barely focuses on that and instead constantly reverts to the donors and saying their existence means it’s not grassroots.
But it doesn’t even actually establish that. A grassroots movement can include or be funded by rich people so long as it’s direction remains controlled and primarily implemented by the, well, grassroots.
There’s so much more relevant information that’s completely left out. Do the people trying to block it have a point? What’s their stated motivation for blocking it? Is it actually acting as a grassroots movement despite being well-funded? Did the person who is “covertly backing” it actually do anything wrong? What is the normal level of transparency for these organisations?
Other than the transparency issue that it addresses in the headline and then barely afterwards the article doesn’t really tell us what the actual problem is. The organisations actions are suspicious, but the article is really poor since it’s basically just circling around telling us that rich people have opinions too.
The biggest problem with *political campaigns* (this campaign has to persuade people/politicians) is money or usually the lack of it
Everything takes money.
If they want to object, legally, they’ll need expert advice and reports. If it goes to an enquiry then possibly a KC (plus junior) who won’t be cheap – the fees can easily hit 50k with a 100k not uncommon
Having a wealthy backer can make getting that money easier, if a couple can chip in the bulk of that, then a campaign can get its voice heard
> According to the Scottish Greens, a national park would bring £10m a year into Galloway, creating jobs and developing infrastructure for locals and tourists.
That doesn’t strike me as a lot, given the proposed size of the park.
5 comments
Meh. The National park needs more work before they push it through. Unless it’s changed recently it’s going to add restrictions on house building / modifications etc.
The town i live in will be cut in half. The half inside the national park with building restrictions etc? The 1980s council houses. The half not in the park with no restrictions? The classic 150+ year old classic houses.
Okay… and?
I get that the lack of transparency is itself worth criticising, but the news story barely focuses on that and instead constantly reverts to the donors and saying their existence means it’s not grassroots.
But it doesn’t even actually establish that. A grassroots movement can include or be funded by rich people so long as it’s direction remains controlled and primarily implemented by the, well, grassroots.
There’s so much more relevant information that’s completely left out. Do the people trying to block it have a point? What’s their stated motivation for blocking it? Is it actually acting as a grassroots movement despite being well-funded? Did the person who is “covertly backing” it actually do anything wrong? What is the normal level of transparency for these organisations?
Other than the transparency issue that it addresses in the headline and then barely afterwards the article doesn’t really tell us what the actual problem is. The organisations actions are suspicious, but the article is really poor since it’s basically just circling around telling us that rich people have opinions too.
The biggest problem with *political campaigns* (this campaign has to persuade people/politicians) is money or usually the lack of it
Everything takes money.
If they want to object, legally, they’ll need expert advice and reports. If it goes to an enquiry then possibly a KC (plus junior) who won’t be cheap – the fees can easily hit 50k with a 100k not uncommon
Having a wealthy backer can make getting that money easier, if a couple can chip in the bulk of that, then a campaign can get its voice heard
> According to the Scottish Greens, a national park would bring £10m a year into Galloway, creating jobs and developing infrastructure for locals and tourists.
That doesn’t strike me as a lot, given the proposed size of the park.
To no one’s surprise. At all.
Comments are closed.