Borders park would virtually pay for itself via revenues from income tax and VAT

Your excellent article“National park plan could hand an economic boost to the Borders” (14 September), says campaigners included the following phrases from a Scottish Government spokesperson “...major cost implications…, complex administrative challenges”.

This may have been based on experience of the two existing parks which both cover more than one local authority area, and seem to have had money thrown at them in their first years. This would not be the case in the Scottish Borders. Our proposal is much simpler, likely to be much less expensive, and would virtually pay for itself by increased revenues to Scottish Government from income tax and VAT. Perhaps more importantly, it would increase the socio-economic wellbeing of Borders residents significantly.

The well-researched and evidenced independent feasibility study which you referred to underlines this, and points out that, if the Borders park were run by a non-departmental public body (as the other two are), then the Scottish Borders Council would not have to part-fund it.

The local authority has wisely decided not to make up its mind on whether to support the idea until it has had time to digest the newly-published 135-page report and to consult its elected members and local people. Scottish Ministers themselves have proscribed the first stage of the process, ie for the local authority to consider whether to back the idea or not. Ministers will therefore presumably want that process to be followed, ie for Borderers to make up their own minds, before the Scottish Government engages or makes public pronouncements either way.

Recent efforts and undertakings given by Scottish Borders Council and by both the Holyrood Government (eg South of Scotland Enterprise Agency) and Westminster government (Borderlands Growth Deal) to re-generate the South of Scotland are very much welcomed. However, we believe that only the national park proposal can give the instantly and internationally recognisable marketing boost which all of these worthy initiatives need to maximise their potential.

People in the Borders are as proud of their area as are any other residents of Scotland, and want a say in its future. They are not as party-political as most parts of the UK, preferring to work towards the common good with consensus and co-operation.

Let us hope that those who have influence on how this proposal is considered adopt that same open-mindedness and consultative approach.

MALCOLM R DICKSON

Campaign for a Scottish Borders National Park, Hawick